pages: PlanningBoard/2017-07-24.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2017-07-24 | 7 | Board Member Burton said he is not comfortable making these recommendations on the fly. He said he would like to see some economic analysis and get feedback from the builder community. He said he does not like the idea of in lieu fees, and likes integrating folks from different income levels throughout projects. Board Member Sullivan said she felt we need more analysis before moving forward. Board Member Zuppan said there is an economic cost to forcing developers to build smaller units. She said an in lieu fee could be an interesting option if priced and administered effectively. She said tweaking the inclusionary percentages to generate more affordable units should be considered. Board Member Curtis said we need to be careful in imposing anything greater than what we have now. President Mitchell said we need to be extremely cautious about increasing our requirements. He said we need to study this issue and not make a recommendation off of a gut feeling. Board Member Knox White asked how many large projects are likely left that would be subject to any future changes in the inclusionary ordinance. Staff Member Thomas said that North Housing was really the only one. He said that many of the bidders for that property expressed interest in just rehabbing the existing units and renting them out which means they would not be subject to affordable housing rules. He said they could engage a consultant to evaluate the effects of increasing the middle income housing requirements citywide. Board Member Curtis asked if council would receive the same report the board did. Staff Member Thomas said he would include the same staff report with some supplemental information. Board Member Knox White made a motion to: recommend that the City Council proceed cautiously, maintain the 15% inclusionary requirement; consider a 10% middle income requirement for new projects or hire a consultant to study going higher than 10% in a range of housing markets; look at a variety of funding sources, including boomerang funds, Site A profit, a parcel or land value tax. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. Board Member Curtis said he is concerned about directing council to look for sources of funding without going to a vote of the public. He suggested splitting the motion. Board Member Zuppan said she does not feel comfortable voting on a 10% recommendation without getting more information. Approved Minutes Page 7 of 9 July 24. 2017 | PlanningBoard/2017-07-24.pdf |