<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div class="WordSection1"> First, I must apologize to staff and my colleagues for publishing this Hotline at such a late date, but as the proposed amendment to the 1999 Annexation Agreement relating to 1422 55th Street is on tonight’s Consent Agenda, I have a great many questions about the direction of this project. These questions can be answered at a later date, if appropriate, but they should be discussed.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> The developer has determined that the obligations that he undertook in connection with the 1999 annexation are no longer suitable or convenient for him to fulfill, and staff has determined that those agreements would no longer produce the for-sale units desired, and that the rental units would be at too high a price to provide sufficient community benefit, as they were geared towards 80-120% AMI levels. Instead, staff proposes to lift those requirements entirely and permit the developer to produce market rate housing that would ostensibly be directed towards the “missing middle” income levels. In light of the foregoing, here are my questions and comments:<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 1) I am not adverse to making adjustments to a 23 year old agreement in light of changing conditions, but normally we would expect to receive some consideration in exchange. Exactly what is the benefit that Boulder is receiving, other than a diminished cash-in-lieu payment of $25K/unit? The staff memo points out the benefit of leveraging the cash-in-lieu payment to produce affordable housing. This is the case with every cash-in-lieu payment, and there is nothing special here, except this developer gets to pay dramatically less. <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 2) The developer has refused to commit to maximum square footage levels to make the units more affordable. Why then are we relieving him of all of his obligations in exchange?<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 3) If the developer wants a 2022 amendment to his Annexation Agreement responsibilities, why is he paying a 1999 cash-in-lieu fee? Because it is lower? Who wouldn’t want this? If I went to a car dealer to turn in my 1999 auto for a new one, could I reasonably ask to pay a 1999 price? This is a fraction of the community benefit we should be receiving.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 4) What is the developable square footage of this property? What are the potential sizes of the units that the applicant could build? As the applicant has not committed to any specific size of the units, what are the possibilities?<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 5) Planning Board expressed a fear that the site could be developed as a large single-family home in the absence of an agreement for amendment. Under the terms of the existing Annexation Agreement it would seem that this is impossible, and is therefore not a potential outcome that we are protected from by granting an amendment. Is this correct, or is there an as-of-right possibility for developing a McMansion on this property under the terms of the 1999 Agreement?<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 6) The developer will not commit to maximum sizes for the units or maximum prices. How does this achieve development for the “missing middle”? How does this achieve anything at all other than the reduced cash-in-lieu fee? The developer states (per the staff memo) that he “intends” to build missing middle-income properties”.  And this will be guaranteed how? Townhomes on Pearl range from $1.5MM on up (and mostly up). While there will surely be a discount for the location on 55th Street, these can still be unaffordable properties for the middle-class, depending upon size. What is the protection that we will actually receive missing middle housing on 55thStreet, and do we want to accept the risk that we will receive only luxury housing in exchange for a reduced $350K cash-in-lieu payment for the entire project (and that is only if 14 units are built, as opposed to fewer, larger and more expensive units)?<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 7) Why are the levels of the potential rental units deemed too high? The staff memo states that under the original agreement, at 80% AMI the rental for a 2-bedroom unit would be $2,100 and at 100% AMI the rental would be $2,600. Has anyone looked at the rental levels for the Reve ($3,500) or the Park Mosaic ($3,200) for 2-bedroom units? At the levels projected in the staff memo, these units would actually be rentable by middle-income residents.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 8) Finally, the staff memo states that under the proposed amendment it believes that we will receive an “equivalent amount of community benefit as intended in the 1999 agreement.” This is simply not true. We will receive the same cash-in-lieu payment as specified in 1999; every other community benefit provided for in the original Annexation Agreement has been stripped away.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I do urge my colleagues to call this project up so that we can address these, and perhaps other, issues. I question whether we are getting a satisfactory return in exchange for relieving this applicant from all of his affordable housing obligations.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>