Committee debates density bonuses, open-space trade-offs and fee‑in‑lieu option for workforce housing

Members of the Workforce Housing Committee wrestled Wednesday with how to structure density bonuses so builders can deliver workforce housing while preserving open space and neighborhood character. The committee discussed adding a “fee in lieu” option that would allow developers to contribute money toward city open‑space programs instead of providing on‑site open space, and expanding the list of factors that could qualify a project for additional density.

The discussion grew out of committee concerns that current draft policy language is too permissive — using “may” rather than stronger language — and too vague for developers to assess feasibility. Randy (builder) said, “I don't see how we're gonna accomplish density to attract a builder to be able to afford to do it at appropriate price and yet have the open space that I heard about last time.” He proposed that a developer be allowed to “contribute some amount of money … to an open space program somewhere else in the city.”

Joe (City attorney) told the committee that the draft language “kind of mirrors some of our current zoning where density can be transferred within a project” and that additional density could be granted for several considerations, including open space, parks or amenities. Chelsea (Community Development staff) added, “I would agree with that … you're essentially asking for a fee in lieu of providing certain areas, and we could most certainly add that language in, for consideration.”

Committee members recommended broadening the list of demonstrable public benefits that could justify density bonuses so council could weigh trade‑offs project by project. One member urged clearer, charted examples like other markets use — for example, a table specifying how much density can be granted if particular affordability or public‑benefit thresholds are met. Another member cautioned that a written, one‑size‑fits‑all density chart could unduly restrict council discretion and complicate implementation.

Members also discussed parking reductions as part of density incentives. One member noted past controversy over projects that sought little or no parking, pointing to the Marina Street apartments hearings as a difficult example. The committee debated whether to permit systematic parking reductions (for example moving from 2.5 spaces per unit to 2.0 or 1.5) or leave such decisions to case‑by‑case council negotiation.

The committee asked staff to return to the next meeting with two concrete options: (1) expanded draft language that explicitly includes a fee‑in‑lieu option and (2) an illustrative chart or model showing sample density bonus outcomes tied to clear criteria. Amber (staff member) said she will bring “two examples, either this paragraph built out more with more verbiage regarding fee in lieu of, and also try to find or build a chart.”

Ending: The committee did not take formal action on density rules. Discussion closed with direction to staff to draft clearer, more actionable language and examples for the committee to review at the next meeting. If the committee reaches consensus, staff will present the revised language to the City Council in a study session.