Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee presses planning on stronger anti‑displacement measures as MPDU targets rise
Summary
Councilmembers pushed planning staff to replace 'strive' language with enforceable no‑net‑loss language for market‑rate affordable housing; planning warned mandatory no‑net‑loss could require much higher MPDU requirements or density to be feasible and recommended negotiation with DHCA and targeted implementation for public land.
Councilmembers at the Planning, Housing, and Parks Committee session pressed planning staff to tighten language aimed at preventing displacement in the University Boulevard corridor master plan.
"Is there any language ... to be more, as opposed to striving for no net loss ... actually saying that's what must be achieved?" a councilmember asked, urging removal of the softer "strive" formulation after staff read the preservation recommendations. Office of Legislative Oversight analyst Jan Marie Pena said the REHA impact assessment found the underlying rezoning could "disproportionately displace Black and Latinx homeowners."
Planning staff explained tradeoffs. "If the property redevelops and you're saying no net loss ... you could be required to make a 50% or even a 75% MPDU requirement," Planning Supervisor Lisa Gavoni said, noting that mandatory replacement of existing market‑rate affordable units would often require far more density or financial subsidy for feasibility. Planning Director Jason Sartore added that increasing MPDU requirements and expanding housing typologies are inclusionary approaches that can yield "inclusive growth" if implemented carefully.
Staff and committee members agreed on two follow‑ups: planning will provide baseline neighborhood‑change data and examples of past implementations, and staff will clarify where public land commitments can be mandatory versus where private‑land recommendations require different implementation tools. The committee accepted staff language edits to align public‑land commitments with other master plans and asked that follow‑up materials be in the packet for full council.
