[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Questions for Agenda Item 3G, Inclusionary Housing -- first reading

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Here are some questions/concerns regarding agenda item 3G, changes to the inclusionary housing ordinance.  These are of course first reading issues but I thought I’d get them out now since there seem to be a few typos to fix, among other
 issues.
 
p.135, line 21 (g): I’m a bit concerned that this “intent” is perhaps too strongly worded.  Yes, the intent is to scatter affordable housing as much as possible, but that isn’t always possible.  And it seems very unlikely that such housing
 “shall” always be “indistinguishable” from surrounding market housing; in fact, that clearly is not the case.
 
p.136, line 19: “In for sale developments
” needs an “a” after
 
p. 138, line 2: all the other uses of “demolished” have been changed to “removal”
 
p. 141, line 1 (a): makes no sense.  The rule describes on-site units and the example references off-site units
 
p. 142, line 7: second use of “unit” should be plural
 
p. 144, line 19 (f)(1): is 48% really correct, not 80% like everywhere else?  Can’t imagine this could be correct.
 
p.144 (f): a more substantive question.  I know that we’re not trying to resolve the minimum unit size right now, but do we have any problems with this in practice?  Do we prevent overly tiny units from being built by other regulatory means,
 even if the average unit size meets the criteria?  Do we really understand the implications of (3) which allows for even tinier amounts of finished space so long as more unfinished space is provided; have we done any analysis as to cost for both the developer
 and the unit purchaser?  Is there any reason not to allow units >1200 sq. ft. so long as only up to 1200 is counted in the average (just in case, say, it makes sense in the building layout to provide a larger unit)?
 
p.147, line 1 (2): same question re unit size
 
p.147, line 16 (3): not sure I quite get this.  The concern is about conversions, and presumably applies when a conversion is about to happen.  But (3) then speaks in the future tense, and seems to provide an “out” if this doesn’t happen
 within 5 years.  Might all make sense, but I’m confused, and I also don’t get what the 5-year limit is about.
 
p. 148, line 20 (a): there are 4 places in this section that state that the cash-in-lieu will be reduced proportionally if the average unit size of the development is <1200 sq. ft.  I understand that the theory is that such developments,
 which are presumably providing smaller and thus cheaper units, shouldn’t have to contribute the full in-lieu amount.  But this makes the assumption that size is the only thing that indicates cost – which is simply untrue.  We’ve, for now at least, decided
 that we won’t take into account the actual cost of construction, so using size as a surrogate concerns me.  It is quite possible to build smaller units in very expensive locations with high constructions costs, and I don’t see why the in-lieu fee should be
 reduced since the cost of building affordable on-site units would not have been reduced.  Also see my next, related, comment.
 
p.150, line 22: this relates to the above comment re in-lieu fees.  (1) states that the off-site units must be of similar quality as the on-site units.  One could read this, for example, to find that a downtown development with super-fancy
 units cannot simply provide off-site units of average quality in a location that has none of the amenities of the original location (isn’t near services, transit, bike/ped paths, library) etc.  We clearly don’t read it that way, and this may well be an issue
 for later discussion, but taken with the in-lieu fee reduction based on unit size alone this troubles me.
 
p.151, line 9 (6): do I read this correctly that all off-site units, including affordable ones, are themselves (in a somewhat circular manner) subject to the inclusionary zoning regs?
 
--Matt