April 25, 2024 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:28] e e

[1:28] e e

[2:28] e e

[3:28] e e

[4:15] Nicole did you already give uh nura's sick regrets yes yeah I did though Mark you may not have heard um nria and Teresa actually are both out sick tonight so that was how we got to talking about the infamous meeting where half of us got covid oh oh yeah that is unfortunate um I would wish them both a speedy recovery so we have Chris and Chris here tonight and also um I believe Mark wolf is supporting as well okay he mayor Pro Tim Channel 8 is ready upon your Q all right let's get going then all right Lisa will start the

[5:04] recording oh I can start it make get already started okay yes I got a new computer so everything looks new so my apologies thank you no worries all right well good evening and welcome to tonight's study session of the Boulder City Council I'm mayor protm spear thank you so much for joining us we have on tonight's agenda two items our first item will be a quality of life and chronic nuisance update overview and our second item is related to the Zoning for affordable housing phase two project before we go into our work items I would like to outline how the meeting will be conducted we will review staff's presentations for each of the items and then we'll have a time for questions at the end of the presentation we'll conduct our Council discussion with staff if you have questions please wait for staff to complete their presentation and then we'll have some time for clarifying questions

[6:01] as I mentioned our city manager n Rivera Vander might is out tonight but we're in the capable hands of Deputy city manager Chris mchu and assistant city manager Mark wolf I'll pass it off to you Chris to introduce our first item great thank you Nicole and good evening uh Council uh we're excited to bring two really uh uh meaty topics for you tonight uh both coming out of the planning and development services department so happy to turn things over to our director of P&S Brad erer who's going to tee up our first item on chronic nuisance yes good evening uh Council thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight uh I might need help doing screen share I don't know that I've got that ability uh there it is okay uh coming coming up here in a minute uh but real briefly as we get the uh presentation sharable I want to just uh appreciate the opportunity that this is a a topic that's been discussed

[7:02] actually before my tenure as we'll go through the history a bit um I also want to uh acknowledge that there is a large group of of staff and uh consultant help that has been a part of this because it is truly cross- departmental as you'll see uh specifically I want to uh uh introduce Amanda Nagel with unliking government she and I are going to do the presentation together uh Laurel wit has also been uh very very instrumental in bringing this forward as well and we'll we'll be the two main folks providing feedback um and then a large number of others who um will be available for questions as we go along let me uh go ahead and screen share I'm still needing uh to be enabled to screen share somebody can help me with that says I'm disabled from screen sharing all right we will look into that immediately thank you

[8:00] sir sure enough looks like you got upgraded there Brad go for it all right good I think think with that you should be able to see it or you're able to see that at this point not yet there we go now we're seeing a screen if you just want to stick it in slideshow mode we should be good to go and we are always ready to run it for you sir if be it yep there you go there you go okay EXC thanks for your patience on that so very briefly as as um to by way of introduction um this is an ordinance of ordinances in some sense and it's

[9:00] really focused around um recognizing the the very many different interests that exist in our community uh tenants um Property Owners uh neighbors uh institutions like CU and uh the city and really a collaboration of uh work but also a collaboration of interests and needs and we've really wanted to be very focused on on people and the individual needs we'll talk a little bit further uh through the presentation about the Outreach done for that but just really recognizing the large number of unique interests throughout the city as we go through the presentation we' encourage you to uh keep these particular questions in mind whether Council has any feedback about uh the larger set of topics we're going to uh first introduce which are are generally um characterized as Quality of Life program elements um and then secondly the the narrower one of chronic

[10:01] nuisance any particular questions or feedback on the ordinance and then any other items uh that Council would like for us to to to consider as we move forward so with that I'm G to ask Amanda uh Amanda's going to go ahead and give us the background leading up to uh this item being a council priority thank you Brad uh Mayors and members of city council City staff it is really exciting to be discussing this with you you tonight I had the privilege of serving the city as its first neighborhood administrator in about a decade and was able to build what I hope will be lifelong relationships um many of those reflected here in this work again um I came into the umbrella of quality of life Project work with the city after the March 6 2021 disturbance on the hill as a consultant and you'll see as we go through some information tonight that this is really one of the culminating projects in over three years of that effort if you could go to the next slide Brad thank you so much um

[11:01] this was initiated through Community contact which is really what had me so excited to engage and start to work on these projects with the city the University Hill neighborhood association asked Council to intervene in January of 20121 prior to the disturbance really to do some effort to improve tensions that had built in the neighborhood and to address some what they perceived as overall shortcomings in the way some programs were being handled and processes were being conducted so after the disturbance on the hill there was a not of five from city council March 20th 2021 that said let's go ahead staff put together a work plan come back to us with some recommendations of what you think may help solve some of the issues that were coming or better manage some of those issues right away uh City staff knew that there needed to be more analysis of data there needed to be a more Collective study of information brought

[12:01] together for this work to be done effectively that was initiated with a 90day study as you might imagine very quickly it was determined that 90 days probably wasn't enough data to look at so the staff went back and have done multiple phases of evaluation um some of that analysis going back as much as five years you'll see different representations of different years at different times as we move forward the work plan was adopted fully um by City Council in July 2022 and as Brad mentioned this has been a culmination of so many individuals departments and work groups and just want to bring your attention to that um not only have the Community Partners been amazing the University of Colorado and um Boulder area rental Housing Association really hand inand through each of these projects uh but multiple con consultations with um Community connectors and res resents also the

[13:00] tenant advisory Council and Boulder housing Partners so I want to recognize all of those entities as well as the staff groups the hill revitalization working group is a really unique organization that's existed in many many iterations over several decades but since 2018 this Collective group that you see represented here has worked solely on neighborhood issues for University Hill they have also o served as a feedback mechanism and really just a conversation and dialogue loop as far as recommendations for all of these quality of life projects both those specific to the hill and also those that affected everyone Citywide two of those will'll talk about being ordinance revisions that impacted all neighborhoods move forward thank you this is a VIN diagram and some of you have seen this actually before um the council members who have been serving uh throughout this uh three-year time frame

[14:01] but for those of you who are new I just wanted to show you when we talk about the work plan that City staff have been engaged in that's only really a drop in the bucket of what's been happening specific to the University Hill and University Impact neighborhoods all of this tiny little print that you can see before you represents incredible communication improvements interactions between these organizations that did not exist before program changes enhancements projects tremendous hours of work and engagement the one thing that I can say everyone collectively agrees on that's been a part of this work is that no one thing would make all the difference or impact everyone who thought there should be changes across the board all come to the table knowing that it takes everyone rowing in the same direction but with lots of different ores the water

[15:01] next this is a snapshot of the primary projects that have been completed you'll see two others on the next slide these were the short-term projects that were a part of the work plan from City staff these were meant to be things that could be conducted within 12 to 18 months and we were successful in that time frame some we knew would take more time this does include two ordinance changes as I mentioned the daytime noise or ordinance feedback has been really pretty positive that this has been a positive change uh specifically on the hill but again Citywide weeds and trash ordinance I just want to speak to briefly to say council did give their blessing did adopt those changes but did ask that we come back with an update so just to let you know that process in the education associated with that is moving forward as planned uh the restorative justice process that you requested be put together is taking a little bit longer based on

[16:01] Staffing but is in motion um we also have just kicked off the notification system for landlords um about nine months ago uh we do know that there are some requests for changes in that program and those are continuously being looked at but we can say that landlords are being notified that when there's a call for service at their property they receive an email we've also been able to distribute the Tenant Resource guide which is an opportunity to remind all who provide rental at their properties of who to call for specific needs thank you these are the longer term and still pending projects you'll see we're right there in the red tonight we're going to be talking about chronic nuisance and abatement changes um but prental license enhancements are also a part of the ordinance change we're discussing if it were to move forward as currently drafted there would also be some revisement to that ordinance so that's why that is listed here based on what

[17:01] you all decide and what you adopt is changes to Chronic nuisance and abatement it may also include other organizational changes so we just want to give space so that you know that's still ongoing in some aspect we have been doing Le landlord education programs all last year and one just uh last week and we are continuously making improvements to that curriculum but for the first time there is an organized eort eort to provide information and updates to state and federal legislation as well as local ordinances thank you we talked briefly about the data project and I just can't really emphasize enough how much work has been a part of trying to get a holistic picture of what happens at properties across the city this is the very first time there's been this type of organized Citywide effort to bring Code Compliance

[18:02] data code enforcement data and police data all and fire data so that you can see collectively everything that's happening at a property we'll talk on the next slide we can go ahead and switch Brad about some of the caution associated with bringing all of that data together one is that different entities may do addressing slightly differently especially for multi-unit develop Vel ments because of that there will always be a human impact effort attached to this no matter how many phases of development we do we will always go in and verify that the information that's showing is in fact specific to a property rental license M matching is also something that we'll continue to work on because this is filled out by applicants it could differ from the way that the city does addressing and I'll also just point out that calls for service specifically come

[19:01] in oftentimes with vague information the caller may just know that something is happening in a general vicinity so we know that sometimes those initial calls get refined and more specific well thank you Amanda um I'm gonna go ahead and and follow up on the next section uh really recognizing that and that content text of all of the different programming that has been taking place um that was reviewed uh with Council a year and a half ago and which has been underway in all the different ways that Amanda has described now finin slicing to the uh nuisance ordinances themselves and talking through that a little bit so the obvious question uh that comes to mind is why would there be a rision to the the ordinance and and I will say personally as we've gotten into this as a Rel relatively newcomer uh as I've gotten

[20:01] more and more familiar with it I've I've gained an appreciation for really the problems with the current uh code and constructive codes uh we know from uh citizen feedback uh that there was uh uh response efforts that were inadequate uh response efforts that were inconsistent response efforts that are uh inequitable arguably and much of that or at least some of that certainly was tied to um the ordinance itself and some of the vagueness that shows up in the language uh the uncertainty that it it creates in reading that and the lack of um kind of a holistic uh set of codes of both chronic I'm sorry excuse me uh public nuisances which are the individual violations uh that are reviewed and and U and followed up on as opposed to the accumulation of them which is is The Chronic as as we'll explained further

[21:03] nuisance ordinances are important uh recognizing that uh folks uh do affect and impact each other uh property to property as we become more dense those become more important and uh and we know that uh by creating expectations and clear guard rails for property owners that there is an opportunity to uh create an accountability and as uh you'll see in the next slides the individual violations which are characterized as public nuisances are part of the day-to-day operations that happen frequently whereas The Chronic nuisances are very very small subset um moving forward uh representing we think as few as 20 properties a year so in looking at this we applied several lenses uh that I'll describe in the next three slides first of those is really understanding and assessing the

[22:02] potential impacts of any update on equity and uh and the the intersection between uh the city and uh various Community numbers uh this included uh using the racial Equity instrument uh iteratively in in Fairly in a number of different con uh contexts to frame the various uh conversations with both uh Partners in the community as well as significantly internally and you can see uh some of the context of with organizations listed here in the second pollet Point as well as uh divisions and departments within uh the city and we do have a large representation of different departments and CU here tonight if there are questions specific uh to a particular operation or how something might be envisioned in the context of uh one subject manner or another so we are

[23:00] prepared um to answer any questions you might have in that regard as well the following values and and the slide after this of principles were developed to make sure that we had that alignment with City values with the sustainability equity and resilience uh values of the city and looking at all aspects of that through the lens of these values which I won't read for you which then led to the following uh principle principles for our Direction and recognizing and articulating the goals for this particular effort in updating the nuisance laws that we currently have Amanda touched on this that everything we've been doing has been wrapped in uh the cycle of data uh which arguably uh is is one of the weaknesses of the current code uh to the best of my knowledge and I think others on the team we don't have evidence that it was uh

[24:01] started with any type of analytical approach but rather just maybe using past practices from other jurisdictions and seminar so I won't attempt to kind of parse this but you can see that the data is in all of the different elements that we've uh been talking about talked about we also recognize that in doing Outreach to the community um it can be a hard task it's not necessarily uh something to engage uh all Property Owners especially recognizing that uh the number of properties we're talking about is very limited who have been historic uh chronic violators uh we were able to parse that um as as noted in this Pro bullet point um as those with historic um systems of of nuisances and the larger property uh interests and housing interest in the community uh as represented by by the

[25:03] first bullet point and then I've already alluded to the uh City partners that have been part of uh all of this engagement discussion but also important um connections with CU and and others as represented on uh the second bullet point and as Amanda pointed out while the impetus of this started uh with Hill conversations and the activities there uh this was quickly recognized to be really something that was impactful sitting by there is a project page to that's listed in your memo and provides FAQs and other things like that um what we heard through this engagement was uh the items that you see here that there was the confusion about what the U various designations of public and chronic were those are poorly defined in the current code uh what the approach and purpose was as this was

[26:01] being updated uh uh listening to concerns about impacts on various populations within the community and a concern about the distribution uh of properties that might have single units on them or multiple we're going to explain a little bit of the methodology behind that and you can see the responses that we've been able to follow up on uh in that time period in the second column here uh providing clarity uh reflected both in the project page as folks are looking at that and the ordinance itself uh we developed and refined the values and intentions I went over earlier as well as um multiple iterations and recognizing uh the opportunity to retest some of our original approaches through um uh through uh break racial Equity instrument and the overall strategy efforts uh we're going to talk about tears in a moment but uh but we made

[27:03] adjustments to that response as well as the larger number of dwelling units in certain properties there are some ideas that we've um not acted on and we want to be transparent about that uh there have been questions raised about um in an observation that the draft ordinance represents both U behavior issues uh they are limited as we'll show uh but criminal Behavior Uh versus property violations um we have also recognized that there was an interest in uh focusing not on the property but rather on individual dwelling units um as a review of best practices across the country and our own uh history of the mechanics of that uh We've not been able to discern a way to do that and then um there's been a suggestion of exeptions for certain Geographic areas which uh we

[28:01] don't think is advisable from either uh a legal standpoint or a community uh standpoint given that this um set of nuisances really happens across uh areas in the city throughout the city I'm going to show this chart again at the end but just to give you a preview of some of the mechanics of the current code versus the updated code um the memo goes into this and in much more detail but just uh some of the mechanical differences between the number of violations which uh exist under the current code to just establish the initial nuisance um it really in practice is not the two but rather a warning into and that that certainly history doesn't go away in the updated code it's just more clearly defined The Chronic nuisance function exists under the current code but is not clearly defined uh the remedies exist in the current codes uh regarding various

[29:01] nuisances um but are not clearly defined again uh the settlement conference that's talked about in the current fode was one of the elements that has proven to be uh un admittal and ineffective that's replaced with an abatement agreement in a cycle of opportunities uh for property owners to rectify situations that we'll describe and uh importantly that the current code is not clear and providing offerings for compliance and the current one does as well with that I'm going to uh pass it back to Amanda to talk through some of the details of the uh nuisance update which covers both public and chronic nuisance ills thank you Brad um I just want to start with public nuisance and say that this probably in some ways has the most confusion contained within it so I'll I'll do my best to clarify public

[30:00] nuisance is really the language of the current ordinance and a piece of it is maintained albeit changed in the proposed revisions and then there's the addition of chronic nuisance in the proposed revision public nuisance currently is defined as two nuisances in a calendar year and nuisance we'll talk about what that comprises of what acts are included in that in just a few minutes um that part hasn't changed um but it's going to one as Brad mentioned and um it so it can be utilized as a single incident um however the intent of public nuisance as we move forward is not about a single weed violation or something that already has its own Associated ordinance and set of Remedies attached to it rather it's intended to be utilized for a single incident that manifests differently than the form um so something that is either egregious in

[31:02] its presentation and or um it has been continuously unaddressed um the latter may be more common for um a code compliance type violation to give you some examples and help you understand um in a little more concrete way um public Nuance for a code compliance situation might be something um like recently um where worked with a a twof foot hole in a floor of a a rental unit for example um the public safety risk there is quite apparent um were this written in such a way currently that it could be utilized then staff may have chosen to go the public nuisance route so that they could ideally get a faster or more robust response from a property owner that currently spend a great deal of time ignoring both the tenant and the staff member request for interference or

[32:00] interaction rather um so really it's meant for those situations that need that immediate response um the University Hill disturbance is itemized here I'll also just share a couple uh other incidents last year on the hill one um there was a contest uh quite frankly of throwing pegs out of Second Story window to see how fast and far they could roll down the public Street you can see that that would be a situation pretty egregious in public safety danger and nature that's when something like this in its revised State might be applied next chronic nuisance um when we studied the 15 different cities and did a full analysis to really kick off this project we tried to identify what are the most common elements and how do we start to parse this so we can look at it um in pieces so that we can understand it more comprehensively those three pieces or three main

[33:01] components became the qualifying violations the threshold or number established to identify the term pronic in this situation and then the remedies or the items the pathways of accountability uh for those who do violate at what is determined to be a chronic number of the set violations thank you Brad so I'm just going to break those down a little bit and talk about the components so that you can understand um what's being proposed or what may ultimately be proposed um so the qualifying types of violations Brad mentioned that one of the conversations in the community so far has been having both Acts or behaviors and having property uh ordinances combined to create this chronic code and um so that is the proposal um currently um at least in the

[34:01] current draft to say really it's about looking collectively at these properties um with all of the different violations to save what is The Chronic situation um one of the things that the staff did right away was determine in what circumstances would we in no way ever want to limit someone's decision or hinder a report of actions where someone one is in danger and needs help and so the list of exceptions is really just that those situations that are deemed um whereby somebody on a property should always be able to call and receive immediate service with no potential repercussions um to the property owner uh so those are I'm just going to call them out false reports false alarms child neglect domestic violence sexual assault medical emergencies um commercial property uh situations and traffic violations so

[35:01] those are essentially excluded and you can almost consider everything else being included that would fall under code enforcement code compliance bu code and criminal code thank you just to explain a little bit more about what does that look like in Boulder what are those violations that's a big spere Amanda that you just threw it as for what might be included in this um so this is what we see um at least from the 22 data that says this is what's happening in the city you can see on the left side these are specific violations so these would be if a citation well when a citation is issued this would be the charge that you see so you can see sidewalk snow removal is the first thing I suspect based on your incoming emails you already knew that uh bear prooof containers are the second you may have known that as well and then you see that it really starts to be a variation of criminal and other types of

[36:04] code violations one of the unique things that you see rather quickly when you start to dive into this data is that it's oftentimes not an either or in a situation where a property needs assistance from the city and it's really important to remember that the sole purpose of this ordinance is to help and create an equilibrium of power between at least on rental properties tenants and property owners and also on properties where their owner occupied to say things aren't going well here we need to get more involved and offer other services Andor accountability to help create a balance so we can see less violations on the property it's also probably important for me to point out as we're looking at these violations that while they may happen on a single property all of the other properties around them are often times impacted so

[37:01] when we put this underneath the quality of life umbrella we're looking at that Collective quality of life and how to change the impact those communities when you look over on the right hand side we see a grouping what we did throughout this process is we tried to identify those individual incidents and put them into groups so that we could look at that collectively as we did further analysis to say okay the individual things are kind of hard to process and think about but if we do this grouping we can really see what's happening in neighborhoods and in community and I think it's really interesting at the bottom there to see that exterior nuisance violations code enforcement managed by Boulder PD animal complaints and Rental code issues make it half of all nuisance in the city so it really is a pretty heavy teetering toward those three items thank

[38:01] you the third task is how to objectively set a threshold for chronic nuisance and I will just commend the staff to say this is not an easy thing to decide um there is a recommendation before you and I just want to walk through you how how to get there or there will be a recommendation I should say um here you can see that the first task was to try and divide equally different types of housing now we all probably understand that single family homes make up 61% of Boulder's housing stock there's no way to make that more equal um the the fact is that that's a majority representation of housing stock in the city so really what we're left with or is for any multi-unit developments to try and group those equally and here is how that comes out uh when you look at overall housing stock in the city thank you this chart shows that we did some

[39:02] analysis uh we actually looked at all of the 15 different cities in depth at how they did this if they did this um some don't use tiers at all they just come up with a number and that's how the enforce for All Pro properties and I will tell you that that's where our group started um part of that is simply because of ease of administration um and trying to find something that can be administered um quickly and effectively and so balancing that need with fairness and Equity based on size excuse me is how we've ended up where We've Ended up tonight and you can see uh gy and Fort Collins being some of the neighbors that have this type of ordinance where they've landed and Cincinnati we use them as an example because the draft currently shares a lot of different aspects with Cincinnati's ordinance and so we wanted to look at that thank you so here is where we've landed currently

[40:01] um and you know want to recognize uh Boulder housing Partners other housing providers uh Bara who all really helped staff to see that moving from three groups to four groups would be more effective and more fair and Equitable to those large dwelling units um currently the recommendation is to look at the top 2% of violation ERS in the city and really focus on what is unique about that top 2% it really turns out to be about a 100 properties in the city so that's where we get the percentile that's circled here for you and we've gone from three groups in the initial draft of four groups in the current draft of the ordinance really to accommodate that large 10 plush dwelling unit size you can see that if you stay at the three groups it keeps the maximum um at 19 for that larger group of five plus and the discussion and conversation

[41:02] was that really five units is still not a very big development and when you get to 10 it starts to be larger um of course I do want to say also there are a few very large developments in the city of Boulder and so there was a lot of discussion about whether or not to remove those locations to do this analysis the group did decide to keep that in the analysis and so they were a part of it and what I mean by very large really is 250 or more units so when you add in those properties it does push up that number for chronic thank you and one of the questions that's come up frequently is is there over representation of rental units in that top 2% um the answer according to our data is slightly yes um in the top 2%

[42:02] there is more rental licenses issued to those properties for the study we conducted than in the bottom 98% what we can also say is that it is not that big of an over representation um so there is slightly um more violations for the top 2% I'm sorry there is currently slightly more rental properties than non-rental properties in that top 2% and again that would be roughly about a 100 properties this is the process that is included in the revision and I'll just walk you through this quickly the way we've set this up to work is that the system will say the system there's a a data driven enforcement tool under development the idea is that when a property gets close one item away one by violation away from whatever you all adopt as chronic the

[43:02] system will alert staff staff will then do an investigation to assure that that's true and if so they'll send a written notice warning or a heads up to the property now the current draft says that this may happen it says may happen because there's the possibility that things could transpire so quickly to get from close to a really serious situation that needs chronic attention quickly that they don't have the opportunity to do so the intent would be to issue a notice if given time once that notice goes into place um the property owner has the ability to reach out and engage and work with the city right away they don't have to wait for any other actions to take place they can become in compliance work together and problem solve collectively remove themselves from the system entirely if that doesn't happen the system will then say chronic notify staff and they will

[44:03] be able to go ahead then conduct another investigation assure that the number of violations is accurate that those are all in fact true violations and then the staff will send notice of chronic nuisance to the property and give them a 10day opportunity to enter into an abatement agreement with the city what that means is that they've now been provided two off ramps to not complete this process the goal of this ordinance in this process is not to complete this process the goal is to encourage individual Property Owners to work collectively with the city toward collaborative problem solving as long as someone is moving in that direction chronic nuisance would not effectively be applied it wouldn't be necessary if there is no agreement a chronic nuisance citation is issued and the REM IES outlined in the ordinance would go into

[45:00] effect thank you manand if if I may maybe I can jump in with this next one and and uh wrap this up so the protections uh did that Advance looks like my screen maybe froze are you still on the process slide it is okay let's try this again there we go um Amanda's emphasized the important for uh protections for property owners who have been involved and uh this is really a a written list of what she described graphically there but recognizing that um that there are many opportunities along the way towards this escalation uh before being um in that category of chronic nuisances and the 2% just to be clear uh it represents a history of of the analysis it was not uh necessarily a goal or standard moving forward in fact our our goal and hope would be there be no chronic nuisances

[46:02] in the future but that was the mechanical mechanism for uh doing that um this is just a restatement of of the chart that we showed earlier uh again hopefully some of those pieces uh resonate a bit more after the overview and we can come back to this as a reference point uh the next items that will happen is for us to uh bring this forward in public hear hearing uh we do have that tentatively scheduled for second reading on June 20th uh we're going to continue to review and engage with the stakeholders uh continue to work on the administrative processes we alluded to and all the other elements Under the Umbrella of quality of life so that brings us back to our questions uh we're happy to answer those at this time as I mentioned earlier we also have a large number of um committee members who have been part of that and so as well so we can answer individual questions with

[47:00] with them as as you like thank you wonderful um thank you so much Brad and Amanda and all the staff connectors tenant Advisory Board Community Partners who worked on this um can tell it's an enormous body of work and you all put a lot into this so thank you to everyone um just a couple things I want to lift up before uh we get into the questions um as Brad just mentioned he has invited some uh key committee members to help address some of the more detailed questions that we may have um as well as a representative from CU um and so Brad may be handing off our questions from time to time but we should still direct questions to Brad and then he'll coordinate who's responding to which question um and then just kind of keeping in mind that our overarching goal tonight is to give staff a sense of whether we think the ordinance as presented is moving in the right direction um so I'm just asking for uh Clarity if there's additional information that we may need to wrap up this work let's try to be really specific about what that is so that they can bring this work home um okay so let's go ahead and move on to

[48:00] the staff questions and we can start with the first one do we have any questions or feedback about the various Quality of Life program elements throughout the city and I see Tina first yeah thanks um so one of my first questions is how the success of this change in ordinance will be measured and how that will be communicated back to council what are the things we would be looking for and and I appreciate the way that you framed what the ordinance is responding to so I'm assuming it relates to those um issues that were pointed out yeah thank you for that question council member uh certainly we don't measure success in the number of violations right that uh we are looking for compliance uh that is the philosophy of uh compliance efforts across the city right now um so it definitely is not uh in the number of violations uh success will really be in

[49:02] driving down the number of violations rather and we would um expect that to be one measure of success uh the other is more qualitative frankly and that's those properties that have been uh non-responsive and and very much a an impact to the larger neighborhood uh would be able to be addressed and I think uh what Council had been hearing for several years is that was not always the case and it would be our expectation that U that there would be more less excuse me less instances of that okay thank you and then another question I had was just about particularly with behavioral um violations and as would pertain to anybody but in particular students is there any way that the new proposals would make it more likely for a student to have a charge against them and also

[50:00] could that charge be used against them in terms of them being able to attend the CU or gain employment uh graduate from CU things like that um you know we do have representatives from CU here and I wonder if it would maybe be um productive to to invite them to speak if if you'd be um open to that possibility um if we could promote Lorie call and let see who else is Amanda yeah I think Brad I think Devin Kramer is in the uh attendee list there too okay yes if we could promote the two of them and I can maybe answer some other questions while Devon and Lori there's St I I'm happy to speak to that a little bit and so um the way the way that I've read this

[51:02] this new so so the criminal charges that a student could face aren't changing it's it's rather how um like how how things are addressed kind of in a collective nature um I would say in terms of their ability to remain at CU our approach is educational um so I don't see this ordinance being a tool for us to remove a student but rather a tool for us to further engage with students and kind of be a partner to behavior change okay that's good to know and and that would be my hope uh with that kind of a tool um I think that's all I have for now thanks thank you uh next up is Mark thank you um I have a couple of questions but I I first first want to um say how impressed I am with the work

[52:01] that staff has done on this um it is sophisticated thinking it it's uh um analytical and I'm I'm I'm very very impressed and I also want to give a brief shout out to our former colleague racial friend um who was very active in in getting this um uh ordinance on the road and and and and getting it considered and and and um I want that to be recognized um now as for my questions um at the end of the day we're looking at about 20 real problem properties are we not that's correct um and have you uh have you looked at those properties over a period of time let's you know two three four years well that's how we generated the um the standard the tiers that were talked about was using historic data of what what ended up being about a 100

[53:01] properties historically who would meet the definition of a chronic as it was being uh considered at those different number of incidences um so in that sense they've been identified but we also don't expect or um and and frankly hope that those are not the properties moving forward that would also be subject um and were most of those properties you said there were about a 100 over the period Tom you looked uh were they under separate ownership or or was there a common ownership among uh a number of them and I would ask same question with respect to management companies were there any particular management companies that had a disproportionate share of those problem properties and could be identified as part of the problem themselves I'm gonna turn to some of my colleagues uh to refresh my memory on that particular those particular questions Amanda is that something you

[54:01] recall Mark we don't really have that specific data as far as ownership within that top 100 um lined out for you for tonight I can say there is some uh owners who have more than one property listed um in that top 100 based on the investigation that we've done so far um what I can also say is that many of them share in common an absence of communication with the city at their core um so that element is common some properties maintain throughout the four-year study some do turn over in transition and how many of those properties were on the hill versus other are were there uh were other areas of the city well represented or poorly represented uh in in that respect uh in terms of sort of membership in this 20 worst property Club great question mark Brad do you want to pull that up yeah I can jump in we we actually have a slide that would

[55:02] demonstrate that may um is that visible to folks so this is specific two chronic nuisances again uh there's a slightly different distribution for all all all nuisances but for properties that have a history of of what would be considered chronic under that the updated ordinance you can see the distribution is higher on the hill of course uh but it is also throughout the rest of the city yeah okay and my last question um uh we've received correspondents from Bara uh requesting some revisions based on on their perception of their interests and we've received correspondents from Boulder housing Partners uh who have concerns based on the services they by the city um I assume you're going to be in in discussion with both of them to

[56:01] see how uh those interests can be accommodated or am I or not yes no absolutely and I will share too that that's uh been iterative so we've had multiple exchanges of those types of observations and questions and uh are down you know to a list that has um it is the one you're more familiar with but we've we've been working with them several iterations and we are committed to working with them and any stakeholders uh moving forward okay thank you and that's the end of my questions thank you thanks Mark terara you're up um Nicole and everybody else I'm not sure if this question fits into your question so if it doesn't just let me know and I'll push it to a different um section so Brad do you remember that slide where you showed three four and then

[57:01] five uh how do I put this like yeah 10 plus properties the the tier analysis yes that one can you just bring that up for a second sure so it seems to me and this might be that you you're going to answer this at another time that it seems to me that Jeremy Durham was requesting that you do a five groups versus four groups all I could have misinterpreted his letter is there a reason why you didn't choose five if there's such a seems to me like the EXL is in its own category um it part of it gets down to just how many different tiers do you want to administer uh also if you look at the the split uh between the four groupings and the five

[58:01] groupings uh if you look at the medium where it ends between nine and 10 and go to Five grings where it would be nine and 10 we're talking about the difference of one incident seven versus eight um so that that was part of the reason um I I certainly don't want to speak for Jeremy or Bara but I think his point and and I have spoken with him about this so I feel somewhat confident in saying it was just if the data is in fact showing that there's this distribution uh that's a fine thing but if it's not then then they'd want to talk through that we felt confident in that we're trying to we're trying to get the raw data packaged in a way that that's meaningful for him but but I think it was more that okay all right thanks that's it all I have is right if I Poly on that one yes okay just while you got this up um one thing Brad that confused me about this is that I would have expected the total number of chronic nuisance um Parcels to

[59:01] be the same regardless of how you grouped them but like the five group has a much larger total than the three group how how does that work out I'm sorry I'm not sure I'm quite following the question you mean the 25 versus 23 or in the three groups if you if you add up the the 98% you get 5 plus 7 + 19 is 31 in the five group you're adding up 5 plus 7 plus 7 plus 8 plus 25 and that's a lot more than 31 why isn't it the same total regardless of how you split it out um as you go uh up the distribution and uh maybe Amanda can check through slides if we have a back one that shows this but as you go down the uh see if I can describe this well as you go down the chart of distribution of number of units versus the number of violations um that that series of

[60:00] numbers just reach it represents a Tipping Point uh where that inflection happens at in this case 98% and so the numbers wouldn't wouldn't necessarily be the same they're just at a different point uh inflection point as you go down that chart so are you taking two are you taking 2% of each category then rather than the total 2% of everybody and then parceling them out so it's 2% of all of the um properties in the time frame that was looked at four years that would have met the criteria for chronic Nuance under the under the revised ordinance looking at all those number of uh properties and then finding where that inflection point is where it becomes a significant amount of of violations and that that works out to be 2% that well that didn't actually answer my question but I think I I think what I said last time I think it's correct I saw a couple people nodding which is that you're looking at

[61:01] the top 2% for each grouping of uh number of dwelling units rather than taking 2% of the entire city and then dividing it up by the number of yes yeah sorry we got no I understand thank you Tara Erin you too good for now all right uh next up up shoot my screen moved around I'm not sure if it was Matt or Lauren it's Lauren please thanks Nicole and thank you so much for taking over the meeting for me while I'm out of town very much appreciate it um so my question for staff one of the key takeaways from the engagement discussion was noted to be groups expressing concern about the unintended consequences of reduced housing opportunities for populations who may be perceived as likely to be be involved in

[62:01] Behavior focused violations and I was wondering um how that had been that concern had been addressed um I I think there's multiple answers to that a lot of it has to do with the administration and I might turn to some of the partners on uh on the call here like judge Khan and uh and and others uh Laurel maybe to speak to that too so I'll just te that up for for a couple folks here but uh some of that's uh council member is going to be in in the administration so that's the various off ramps and making sure that there's multiple iterations like in that uh chart that that we showed uh the green dots as being off ramps um it's about uh entering into dialogue and again impressing on uh prop Property Owners both owner occupied and those that represent rentals that uh this is really again

[63:03] about properties that are not being responsive and that are not uh not following up after multiple multiple cases um Laurel or others would you would you like to chime in apologies took me a second to unmute um Laura at the city attorney's office uh good evening everybody it's good to see you um so one of the things that we wanted to talk through with with um with those folks is is what are ways that we can assist them so one of the things that we pointed back to was a lot of elements in the process that assist folks from from avoiding any sort of um homelessness or anything like that I saw Jeff con or judge con sorry um jumped on so feel free to to jump in judge con whenever you'd like to um but one of the things that we really wanted to address in that too is is making sure that we have other opportunities for folks to address some of the concerns long before

[64:01] we get to a chronic nuisance state so we have restorative justice and things like that so that's one of the ways that we try to work with with um individuals who are having these sort of repeated violations um also working with uh Jen Ross and her team and making sure that we have warnings and things like that so those are some ways that we try to work with again the idea here is not um is we don't want to get to the iic news stage right we want to work through some of the um some of the other ways that we can benefit some of the folks in the community and try and get in the resources they need and and work alongside with them so um I'll pass it over to judon if he has anything to add thank you Laurel you know I was here as an OB Observer mostly just to get an understanding of what all you have been working on but I think to emphasize the points that Laurel made is uh the city attorney's office as a general rule is always looking at problem solve and and the court generally is very favorable to those types of approaches so if if

[65:00] something actually ended up either through an appeal process in Us in the quasa judicial appeal process in front of us uh in the Court's perspective we would always be encouraging additional discussions sometimes it takes multiple efforts to engage people and if it gets to the point them actually having a ticket in our court or or appealing an administrative action to our court we would still at that stage want to encourage some form of uh collabor ation between the city attorney's office and the code enforcement officials along with the individual who might be cited so the goal would always be from my perspective a problemsolving approach that doesn't have necessarily have to have a punitive sanction associated with it that Chris Reynolds is doing double duty tonight Council but also a Committee Member so maybe if you could sure and good evening Council Chris Reynolds Deputy City attorney and I I supervise prosecution for the city and one of the great things that I see is

[66:00] that this uh you know ordinance is just another tool you know these problems exist in our community and I'm excited for the potential for that that for more people and more problems to be brought into the municipal court because as judge Khan stated it's a problem solving court and myself and my prosecutors we're not looking to make people's lives worse we're looking to make people's lives better and so I view this as an opportunity to engage community members uh who are struggling landlords who are struggling and and help them find ways uh to to better the community and better where where where they live and um so we take a kind of a punishment last approach that's kind of our philosophy in prosecution and I see this uh you know chronic nuisance ordinance as kind of a natural extension of of that approach and fitting fitting really well and so that's the that's the input I hope I'm answering your question council member

[67:00] ferts thank you um yeah in some respects I think I'm also just concerned that this um could cause landlords to um make judgments about what kind of tenants they want to rent to and is is that something that we can track or monitor to try and determine how this um might affect that to to make sure that we're not running into that kind of um unintended consequence do we have any plan to try and monitor or track that um I think we'd I'll try to answer but certainly have others feel free to chime in uh I think we would look to the uh rental property owners to see if there is a mechanism for doing that uh I

[68:00] suspect that our commitment to be in close contact uh those would be brought up as incidents happen or if incidents happen and certainly if there was a a trend I would hope we would have been ahead of any Trend towards that um but but an exact mechanism I I think we we need to to talk to the property owners themselves so Laur hi if I could jump in a little bit we've talked a little bit um with Bara about this they they kind of put it in the top of their letter there are several things that landlords can't do and that's exclude certain people based um you know based on their status as a student as for example um the problem is putting that in law versus actually enforcement a little bit hard to prove right so we don't know if people are doing that or not um we can try and find ways to do that though and certainly talk with some of the landlords as Brad me mentioned yeah I would just say that in my just from what I hear um that that is already happening in our community to some extent and um you know if landlords

[69:01] are concerned about certain kinds of people causing additional issues for them um that I probably will take that into account in terms of who they rent to in ways that are hard to track um I also have some concerns around this is something that I've brought up before our weed ordinance we Define weeds as grass and herbaceous plants um above 12 in tall and um is there given given that we're sort of strengthening a certain form of enforcement around that is there any um plan to update that definition to be a little bit more specific or in line with our Community Values just given that yeah I think that that would not allow a lot of native planting

[70:02] I mean I know that we are sensitive in how we actually enforce that but anytime we're using um anytime the rule itself in the way that it's written um could be enforced in a problematic way that makes me very uncomfortable and I think opens us up to unequal enforcement um and problematic practices yeah we we can go in depth on some of the individual violations uh and and the ordinance for enforcement I will say there are dozens and dozens right so as an ordinance of ordinances so to speak uh we didn't consider it within the scope to question or U kind of re examine the dozens maybe hundreds I can't remember we've got a spreadsheet of different ordinance and ordinance uh Clauses that would be uh there is no

[71:00] doubt legitimate reasons to look at any number of you know the qualifying um violations that are underneath that umbrella uh we can certainly flag uh the concerns for weeds uh our department will be doing an update well as you know uh on Landscaping from from The Retreat um so it makes perfect sense that we could do that we do have both Jen Ross and Jen Ry uh who help enforce that if you wanted to go into some detail about current practices but okay I trust that our practi I mean I don't hear as many complaints around practice as I have concerns around just the letter of the law in this case thank you that's it for my questions I'm gonna jump in just because Lauren I a kind of a colloquy on yours and this is just to check my understanding Brad of of of what we're talking about here so as I'm hearing um what what our plan is the only time we

[72:02] should get to an actual chronic nuisance uh violation is when the property owner is ignoring us so if a tenant for example has behavioral issues um that you know may be sending them through our court court system or something like that and the property owner is in communication and problem solving dialogue with us we don't get to that final stage am I understanding that right or is there something that yeah that that's true and it's true in a very practical way that uh some of our enforcement folks could talk about just how hard it can be to get the attention of a small number of property owners and how that escalation needs to get higher um there is also the uh more life safety urgency of it too that I would say is just a little bit different than than described um but but fundamentally that is the complaint that has grown over the years about where's that tool to make sure that we can hold

[73:00] uh accountability for uh situations where there's just not responsiveness uh it can be a again a owner occupied who just is is not answering the door so to speak or can be uh a tenant or a a property owner uh who is maybe has a Reit uh real estate investment with hundreds of of properties and barely knows where Boulder is so it's it is it is for the worst of the worst so to speak and when you say life safety that's like the example that Amanda gave of the two foot hole on the floor exactly okay okay which is a real life example thank you for clarifying um Matt thanks Nicole um my question is sort of piggybacks a little bit on the enforcement side um and more clearly you know in the timeline we've kind of seen generally speaking up to this point a relatively like forecasted timeline of

[74:00] how we're getting to these each different segments but when we talk about sort of overall enforcement that seems to be a bit more ambiguous and so we have sort of like the structural alignment of Code Compliance as being TBD and in my conversations with a lot of folks in in areas that feel that chronic nuisance Andor just general quality of life ordinances go don't get enforced at maybe the frequency or Vigor that they should with when they hear that we've got this big chronic news thing and really take care of that top 2% it's kind of falling on deaf ears a little bit and I'm and I'm concerned that this should be celebrated and should be met with a lot more excitement that we're finally tackling it but I think what's subduing that is that there's a general malays around ah well it's just another another ordinance and we don't we don't generally enforce them to to a place where we feel confident that the ordinance is having proper effect and so

[75:00] I I know all a lot of the challenges of why that's the case now but obviously changing and modifying our compliant our our you know code enforcement structure is going to be a vehicle to get to better service and so I'm just wondering how do we get around from the TBD what can we expect and and and can we kind of move that along because I'm worried if this sits on the books we're going to get people frustrated that yet again there's going to be another quality of life that doesn't meet Community standards in that regard yeah thank you for that question council member Benjamin if I'm hearing your question correctly it's really about what is maybe the outside of this ordinance discussion what is the city's commitment for resourcing in general um for for the types of accountability and and consistency and and uh and and by being more consistent being more fair uh I'm going to see if if Mark um wolf doesn't uh mind speaking to that uh

[76:04] question from the city manager's office yeah thanks brg good evening Council uh Mark wolf assistant city manager um you've heard the word constrained and without nuura here tonight I feel obliged to to say it um enforcement's a huge piece of this uh and I appreciate you recognizing uh that I I think for for us tonight the important first step is to to receive Council feedback to gauge interest in making the ordinance change uh we have begun um preliminary review of all the different functions across the city that touch enforcement and we think there is an opportunity to do things more efficiently what that looks like within our existing resources and how we can support uh this ordinance if it does uh move forward uh towards implementation is something we're thinking about a lot I think there's some efficiencies that are a huge piece of that certainly if

[77:01] there's additional resources that are necessary that is the next conversation that we would have within the broader context of the budget um but I I think we'd love a chance first to really look at where we can realize efficiencies um and use existing resources in uh Outreach to landlords Outreach to tenants and really hopefully um not be at the point where we need to do a ton of heavy-handed enforcement as it relates to this ordinance so I I think there's a number of steps through as you've heard with the progressive discipline model tonight that that could help with that and then we'll also on a parallel path be be looking at ways that we can make sure we're in a good place from an enforcement standpoint uh if we do move forward with the ordinance I appreciate go ahead go ahead just yeah I appreciate they Mark good I just wanted to ask Mark one more question cqu so to speak Mark um so this is off the subject and it's towards this subject that Matt has

[78:00] been talking about but it's not technically about um our uh this new uh this new ordinance so we we I have had some complaints that um constituents have said when it comes to the police enforcement that they Community would often be told that they're busy taking care of more important crimes for in violent crimes and so a lot of times the community is told well sorry we can't take care of this right now so I'm just curious now that we're spending one minute or so talking about it if you can tell me will that change in the future with this new ordinance or is it going to be the same or you're not sure or it depends on the budget yeah that's a fair question and invite um others to chime in as well I I think one thing that um we would point out to that question is that with revising the

[79:00] public nuisance it does provide a little bit more clarity uh for our our enforcement teams uh to be able to to intervene in those Life Safety um issues I think that's um one piece of it uh and it also hopefully helps with not just that neighbors that are are forced to make complaints in certain situations but also for tenants that feel like they're not getting the responsiveness on the landlord side to have a clear Outlet uh and that we feel as a city that we can be more involved in in those situations as well um but I see Darren might uh be up and can speak a little bit more eloquently to the PD side of things uh yeah uh my name's Darren flaing Boulder Police Commander thank you guys all for having me um so to talk a little bit to that point I think the one real benefit to this program is that you know there's one there's always going to be instances where we are going

[80:01] to be unable to respond to call it um just based off the priorities but the nice thing about this is that this data is still being collected and it's something that would still be caught on the backend to where you know if there is something where we don't go out to like a noise complaint for instance in the moment it's not like that data is just lost and goes away um it's still something that is going to be addressed like I said on the back back in which um is a huge step for us in helping to try to change that behavior and help out the overall Community because you know if we get that initial call and we don't go to it in the moment a lot of times that falls off until someone calls again about that problem so I think overall it gives better accountability and this is really going to help for um like those land mods that would like to be involved and like to know what's going on on their property of getting them loed in sooner and hopefully again helping to uh address that behavior so there's a better outcome for

[81:03] everyone can I just close this off close this off with Mark here for a minute I guess and I appreciate that answer I guess what I'm really trying to Center on is are we trying to is is the goal to kind of roll this ordinance out get chronic nuisance sort of hang out for a year see what happens and then look at it I'm just trying to work backwards from a from an expectation perspective of when might we have that ATB or budgetary conversation I don't see how we get to that Community satisfaction without more resources candidly so I'm kind of jumping into that being like an obvious conclusion here so so I just want to know are we talking a couple years you know I I just it TBD is a really opaque framing to give when so much of this project has had very clear timelines um and and so I I just you know I don't want to put you on the spot you need to get me a day but I think Community needs a little some assemblance of this is going to happen this term or or rough I mean we all know

[82:01] plus or minus is here but but something would be better than just TBD yep fair enough and I think the first part of that answer is once we we receive the feedback tonight and understand when we're able to bring that ordinance which could be soon right within the next couple of months uh at that point we would be able to set the the so-called list and begin that direct Outreach to uh landlords that would fall um on that that list right and so we hope that that's some immediate impact there where we have the data to to start saying hey we need to begin this conversation I think we can do that and Brad and team can correct me if I'm wrong but we we can do that with existing resources to to to get going right away in terms of uh the volume of of enforcement I think again we will continue along a parallel path to try to find those efficiencies now and prepare um for 2025 budget if the team after

[83:01] that analysis decides that we really do need in the balance of everything else that we do to pursue more resources on the enforcement side so it's a both and and I do think there's some meaningful steps we can take right away great thanks Mark thank you Matt and Ryan thank you may proam um Brad I have a question about one of the slides uh if you could if you could pull those up the you have a a slide on the um the frequency of complaints snow removal was at the top possible to show that sure yeah and while it's coming up thank you Brad and Amanda and team this is very comprehensive and I it's the I know it's the product of a lot of work and betting so um impressed with the overall body will you have just have this one data question once I see the slide I will say it this the one you were thinking of council member yeah it's great thank you okay so my question

[84:00] is on the the left hand side so these are the top the top incident types I I take this as um these these These are top in terms of frequency of happening frequency correct period I'm curious how this would translate to our um chronic nuisance framework of what does it look like for those that have happened three times or whatever the the higher frequency would be does it look similar I guess I'm wondering like for example is sidewalk snow removal still at the top when from a from a chronic standpoint or does something or does this list look totally different or do we know and maybe we don't know and I'm fairly sure it does uh Amanda will help correct me and we may even have a slide on that so I'm going to stop sharing and double check if we do but Amanda can you honest on that one question I am

[85:02] looking I I don't I don't know that we've used the threshold that are drafted or recommended here to run that data if we have I don't know that we have it available for you tonight that's fine understood okay then I just in the future I I think this would be important for understanding the impact of the regulation because the reg I mean this these are the these are the complaints my mind that we would be seeking to redress so I'm not sounds like we might not be looking at the actual distribution of what the complaints are that this would address so which is fine for now but I'd look for that in the future we we can definitely get that and um and apologies because if there's in the back of my brain we we we maybe have an iteration of a chart somewhere that has that but we don't have sounds great overall this is this is great thank you okay that's it thank you Ryan and

[86:05] Taisha good evening everybody thank you so much for the presentation um as a newer council member it was very helpful to get the background um and um so I have a few questions um the first is uh know where to begin I'll to start with an easy one um what changes were made to the plan or approach based on the use of the racial Equity tool yeah thank you for that question um Elizabeth uh is with us I believe on this call and uh I will ask if I can put her on the spot because she's been really been a uh both active uh uh assistant with that and and champion of it so Elizabeth Crow would you mind talking to that sure I can start and then probably kick it back a little bit to to Brad and Amanda um Elizabeth Crow puing Human

[87:02] Services deputy director thanks for um thanks for having me here I will say a couple things and one is that the um the use of the racial Equity instrument really helped kind of bring into Focus the attention we needed to to pay to avoid stigmatism um of neighborhoods of communities entire populations of landlords um being really careful not to paint entire populations and neighborhoods with one brush um recognizing that um if there are community members who may be disproportionately impacted by the ordinance itself they have neighbors that are also impacted um or potentially we develop things like the uh principles the the values approach um from the racial Equity instrument and in parallel

[88:01] and related communication with BHP with Boulder shelter um other organizations and our own staff in HHS and other departments that regularly work with community members who are experiencing that um that stigma and those disparities and those challenges pretty pretty routinely year round um and really just wanting to make sure that um we are um connecting this issue along with the other supports um that the city already has um that I think I know for our hsf HHS Staff feel like we we already know they're not adequate right and yet we do have um mediation we do provide rental assistance we have um programs like building home that are helping people who have for example become unhoused and are now housed to be to to understand what's expected of them and um have the support they need to be able to thrive so the instrument really

[89:02] helped underscore all of those Dynamics um there were some again specific areas I know that we looked at in the instrument that were raised by BHP and other organizations that I think Brad and Amanda can address specific changes in the approach um but generally speaking it really helped us you know know who we're talking about and and try to see what the potential impacts could be both the um potential you know negative impacts but also really positive impacts on neighborhoods awesome that's pretty General but I'm I hope that's helpful yeah I think you know again moving forward again it's great to use a tool but it's not clear to me how the tool is being used and what changes have been made based on the tool so thank you for articulating that um a couple of things one um I was surprised that in you in the use of this tool there was nothing that came up around even just the terminology that we're using so for example we know that

[90:01] landlords is a term that is hopefully getting more obsolete uh we are not an aristocracy in the 1700s right um and so I'm not clear on you know and I and I do know that there is some um stigma and challenge around that term so I was surprised that that didn't come up in that analysis around racial equity and even just the term of this project around quality of life right quality of whose life when where how um because it seems that when I dove into the actual documents and realize oh this is about chronic nuisance in the neighborhood this isn't quality of life right and so again just the naming and this isn't specific to you Elizabeth this is just some things that I noticed when I was going and while I'm asking some of these clarifying questions and again how that tool is being used because I would anticipate some of these things coming up um in that type of conversation or analysis um were there any was there racial and ethnic diversity in the um planning team I I saw the names but I

[91:01] obviously they didn't have any racial um sign signatures and I I don't expect it to be but again just um when we talk about Equity Equity is about power and who gets to make decisions and so I'm just curious it's great to use a tool but it's even better to have representation on the actual planning team so just curious if there was racial and ethnic diversity in the planning team that was inclusive of Cu the city of Boulder and I think it was what Boulder Police Department yeah um I'm happy to answer that uh I will say uh this has been a widening circle in terms of who is on the core committee mostly made up of City representatives and those folks tended to be the subject matter experts in uh in their respective Fields um so in that regard uh it you know reflects the population of of our overall Workforce within the city so I'm sorry there was racial and ethnic diversity on

[92:01] the planning team no what I'm saying is that was my question I'm sorry right so the planning team is the core committee and must no I mean I'm sorry I was talking about the one that had like there were representatives from the city then there were representatives from CU I think it was the workforce the work group and then there was I'm talking about that particular I think there maybe 10 or 15 names in that group and I was just again curious if there was racial ethic diversity in that group yeah um Brenda ritow is with our Communications team and and actually has had a longer history with that uh before this initiative was even uh started and and so Bren if if I can maybe ask you to speak to that you probably have a better bistic view yeah I think um you're talking about the hill revitalization working group is the slide maybe that you're referring to or basically just yeah and just I'm I'm just wondering great to use a tool and I'm

[93:02] curious who has been ever coming together for this if there have if they actual representation of people with lived experience that have different racial and ethnic uh identities so that is my question and um yeah that that's that's just and I think yeah point I think to to Brad's Point different groups have touched it in different ways Hill revitalization working group not really the core planning team of this um this particular action although historically informed it and that group membership has changed over the years right now I think there is um some racial diversity from the neighbors that are on that group um but I I haven't done sort of a I haven't asked folks to identify themselves in that way so I I wouldn't want to speak for them in that way um but also then and then the work to actually put together most of what was talked about tonight as Brad said

[94:01] was that staff team um connectors of color so I'm confused we do and we did visit the community connectors say I they were not Community connectors do not tend to sit on Project teams um sometimes we have project connectors for different projects actually I'm sorry yeah and and I will share we definitely considered having project connectors for this project um and I decided that that was not a position that I wanted to put community members in when we're talking about something that is enforcement focused I hesitate to put Community member faces as the public face of an enforcement mechanism so I chose not to have them on that team for that reason we did visit the connectors and residents for some perspective there okay so counil thanks for thanks for clarifying what you meant by the various team members we uh and so that we could vet that out a little better to understand your question but uh just to be clear we we don't have the

[95:01] demographics of those various groups that that we were speaking to but we can look together that in the future well and yeah so again I just again a ra we talked at The Retreat about the importance of balancing lived and learned experience and how important both of those things are when we're making in when we're designing things when we are evaluating things and so that's really the nature of that particular particular question so thank you so much and it's great and I'm happy to hear that we are working on that um I wanted to shift I have two more questions the second is around bias and it's just followup to some of my colleagues comments around um just some of the enforcement and so when I'm looking at this um ordinance I'm thinking who benefits from this ordinance and there seems to be in my analysis a lot of benefit to the property owners um to the city and I'm not seeing as much of the benefits for um the um

[96:00] the tenants or um and so again I'm just very Mindful and and specific to the bias and not and the bias that was brought up in some of the engagement feedback um and one of the staff responses I think this is on page 16 one of the staff responses to uh bias concern was we have a deep commitment to Equitable application um and of of law enforcement and I thought to myself well we have we know having served on the Boulder Police oversight panel that there is actually disproportionalities in the enforcement and so although I appreciate um you know the commitment unfortunately the evidence doesn't warrant that and so um and this actually lifts up another concern that I have um in general and that's really around our human rights section of our Municipal Code which again beautiful thorough just gorgeous but unfortunately it's not clear on reporting or enforcement and so what I see in this ordinance is a lot of codes

[97:00] and enforcement around that is more so on the you know for the property owners um against potential tenants um but what I'm not seeing is enforcement at the same level as it relates to bias and discrimination so um that's just kind of a question that I have around um the enforcement of those human rights related type violations uh related to discrimination bias Etc um and are those um levels of enforcement as strong as those for property owners so that's something that I um am curious to hear hear some if there was some talk in in the conversations that you had with different community and of course our Police Department yeah thank you for those those comments and and uh questions council member Adams um you know I think to that that question of who benefits that really um gets back to the values that uh that identified earlier in the

[98:01] presentation about um how how we want to make sure we're looking at it uh through that lens and asking that question um I I could tell you that uh from a land uh from a property owner a renter uh rental property owner perspective uh that they feel that they may not be the on benefiting they feel like they are the ones being held accountable uh to a higher standard um so there it it it is a matter of kind of the perspective of of the individual and the organization as well as the uh circumstance that they imagining but we want to make sure you didn't turn it back on M if there was a group that I guess could be generalized it would be tenants and recognizing that uh tenants are are being accounted for being being thought of when we are um holding holding those Property Owners to

[99:00] to a standard to Define standard uh and accountability that hasn't been successful in past uh one example is h a fire exit for example that that was blocked and that not being blocked uh or being blocked and then being blocked again and being blocked again well that's that's an obvious life safety issue to the tendance and so able to have that level of enforcement and predictability to say no uh property owner not being responsive you you need to be responsive and having the tool to be able to do that as one example no I mean I I I I appreciate that example um and again you know I think that the accountability and benefits to your point certainly um increasing the accountability for our property owners and rental property owner owners at the same time it still doesn't address the racial right and other types of bias and discrimination right so you're talking

[100:00] about things and I agree 100% for but for me it's a yes and so that's where I was saying within the types of violations um is some of those difference but again appreciate um the response and again in the next iteration look forward to seeing a little bit more about how we can get some more enforcement around uh discrimination and bias and then the last question or comment more so that I have is just around the engagement and so it's really wonderful to see the iterative levels of Engagement I think for the reporting on page 15 it would have been helpful instead of getting a long list with all the different stakeholders in feedback but actually getting those by stakeholder type so it would have been helpful to hear from property owners and rental property owners versus students versus non-student renters right like just to because I think that there are some things that are specific towards one stakeholder group and I want to make sure it doesn't kind of get uh lost in the wash so that was more of a comment around that but um you answered my other questions um and so thank you very much and I look forward to continued

[101:00] conversation on this area uh I'll just say TAA thank you for that feedback um and I will keep that in mind as we continue the conversation forward if if we bring this before you again um I'll make sure to parse it out that way interestingly we heard feedback that was common to multiple groups and so I think it it would you would find it very interesting to sort of see which groups we could attach to which of the comments right I mean I can even see a table right Universal all of you said this and then side and that's where again just some of these grain sizes but in general I was really pleased with just the level of Engagement by the diversity you know and again and I also really appreciated engaging CU Student Government the fraternities and sorority I mean I just again the diversity within the student population and I really appreciated that as well so thank you great thanks awesome um I think so we're a little bit over on this discussion but I think it's also a really big one I want to make sure we get staff everything that they

[102:01] need um I just have uh one question and this kind of follows up on tesa's last question um in terms of you know thinking about how things like bias and discrimination may show up is that anything that can kind of Legally be folded into this um ordinance or is that like like a um human rights violations or something like that turn to Laurel to see if she can provide an answer yeah um that's something that we can look into as a city attorney's office um it's not something that we um had thought about as part of this particular ordinance there are other discussions across the city for other reasons but for this particular Ordinance one of the things that we were kind of looking at was how could we um Empower our City enforcement staff to be able to have some of the flexibility to address situations depending on the situation depending on you know past

[103:01] behavior all of that um so we were trying to give some flexibility there but I can certainly look into that before we bring it before Council thank you um okay uh does anybody have any other feedback on the ordinance language otherwise I'm GNA try to sum up and we'll go from there yes are you asking if we have any comments now um I think folks we're kind of sprinkling things in so uh maybe if uh if you have any question any feedback on the ordinance or anything else that you would like to include in the um things for staff to uh think about before they bring this back to us in the form of an ordinance now is the time eron great thanks Nicole yeah I was holding mine because I was going to address number two about questions or feedback on the ordinance language specifically so um and so I was pleased to hear you say that you're going to continue to work with uh stakeholders including some of those detailed uh requests or suggestions from Bara and Buller housing Partners um so thanks for doing that and

[104:01] we did get an email from Jeremy Durham at BHP late this afternoon which I understand you've seen before and sounds like there's some flexibility and an openness to addressing some of those concerns there was one I just wanted to call out so I appreciate that so thanks for continuing to work with them there's one thing I wanted to call out in particular because I thought it went PHP specific concerns and and that that was um about how it is a um a defense for a landlord uh to to not be a chronic nuisance if they have can prove that they've issued an eviction notice uh on the tenant and uh BP pointed out rightfully said I think our our goal here is right to get people to come into compliance versus evicting folks right that we're trying not to have folks lose their housing but to bring people into compliance and so there was a suggestion that that an additional defense could be um the uh issuing of a demand for compliance with lease terms and um so I

[105:02] just wanted to highlight that just because I don't want to see us having an unintended consequence of increasing evictions uh for landlords to kind of get out from being subject to this so you could you address that one in particular please yeah we've uh had a very initial conversation about uh the items uh I think that one uh and can pipe in but I think that's one that we certainly appreciated and understood the intent of and needed to kind of go back and check uh definitions in case law for for those types of um lease agreements but we certainly understand the intent Laur should Laurel I shouldn't excuse me no that's that's exactly what I would said Brad thanks um yeah we'll just look into it a little bit more just make sure there's no un an unintended consequences of adding it back in but it seems like a good idea okay thanks for that and I'll just thank everybody for all the extremely hard work on this and for balancing all the different uh you know

[106:00] pros and cons and and um and needs in the community so I think this is on the right track I'm looking forward to you all refining it a little bit more um with some of the feedback that's been given and moving fors toward moving towards an ordinance thanks thank you Aaron terara oh I just wanted to take uh the time to say to staff thank you so much for doing this it's been many years and neighbors and um in the hill especially I can speak for have not really had a way to solve some of these problems and I believe you when you tell me that this is going to help I truly believe you uh we did talk about enforcement but it's really hard on the neighbors you know to have to be the their own police and have to like call the police about other neighbors it's just very stressful for them um I guess they feel like tattletails everybody wants to be that but you know suffering from a very small

[107:02] amount of offenders it would be great to see those particular offenders be held accountable in a way that uh causes them to um become better people let's just say so I'm very excited about this and I'm really just want to thank you for listening to all those um neighbors especially those on the hill um that have really um couldn't figure out what to do is I I know we don't have any occupancy I think it's the end of occupancy limits am I right so the community we've told the community that we didn't want them to conflate occupancy with um chronic nuisance and I agree with that we shouldn't conflate it so that's why I'm very excited about this because they are really two different things and I'm hoping we should show the we can show the community that we are taking their concerns seriously using the uh as many

[108:00] have said the equ uh the um racial Equity tool but and also and also um helping people to have better experiences with um their issues where they cannot seem to find Solutions um under the current uh way things are thanks Tara Matt appreciate yeah and just great work this has been a long long road so a lot of people have been at this for a long long time and have covered effectively this is the third Council that this work has has touched so um hopefully we we this Council can wrap it up um and allow folks to sort of move forward um my my one comment kind of circles back to one of the um recommend a from BHP um and this is something we're going to continue to invest in which is um exemptions or different

[109:01] accommodations for permanently Supportive Housing um I mean I I think we've got to think about that differently um than we do uh rental or regular you know or um you know owner occupied I I I think we need to think about that differently for obvious reasons um certainly as we think about the high system utilizer uh program that we're about to embark on and other Supportive Housing that we want to engage with within our community so I would just encourage staff to start thinking about how do we make sure that um we're going to be obvious calls for service because of who is is often needing that type of Housing and services um but we need to figure out a way that that can accommodate everybody's needs and and not get caught up in this chronic nuisance um in a frivolous manner um so anyway I just encourage us to look at that um in a different way thank you Matt Ryan thank you I have uh just two two comments um first council members fulker

[110:02] and Adams and U mayor P Pier uh each talked about um in a number of different ways just being very thoughtful about the potential impacts of enforcement and that we have equity and Justice in mind and I would just like to um support what they said and say I'll be very excited to look for um any any else we can do to um to really Advance data this work um and then the second thing is um council member Marist talked earlier and I think others are two about outcomes and I was just thinking well I understand that we're not going to go item by item of of the ordinances um because this is an ordinance of ordinances and we don't have the scope to go in individual updates I I do think that um the idea of outcomes makes me think about some of these ordinances have different kinds of

[111:01] system effects snow removal one especially I mean this is this is an issue that um on the one one hand a um some measure of what's happening is literally the number of complaints but this is another thing is this is our transportation system and when snow is not removed from sidewalks where it needs to you don't have a fracture in a transportation Network and I'm I'm just curious I'd be curious to know if there's a way to to go into this with some thought to some of these system effects and if there's a way to understand data and performance just as a great example if we found out that um a great number of the snow removal um items were on a couple of main corridors or materials I think that would be pretty um significant uh with respect to how we understand the improvements we're making so uh I would just ask you to consider as this further develops are there any ways to to look at data measurement with with some of those

[112:01] system effects thank you very much thank you everyone um last call hold on I'm gonna come in for one moment TAA um I did have that note so thank you Ryan and Tina for bringing up the just how we're measuring you know the outcomes based but you know all of those things so to me I just would love to know as this moves forward um what is the reporting frequency that we can anticipate for updates and I'm also just curious as we're thinking if there are any kind of you know Milestones or metrics of success that have been identified for this work um you know iteratively um as as it's being considered so uh perhaps in the next round and again U Matt to your to your point I am I am hopeful that we are the council that can put a put a bow on this particular aspect um but yeah just would love to uh get a little bit more clarification on the reporting and uh

[113:00] the grin size thank you wonderful all right second last call okay um let me just sum up really quickly uh some of the things that I have heard from us tonight um so in the shorter term before this comes back to us um it sounds like uh we are hoping for some um inclusion of just the discussion and conversations that we've had with community members between now and when this comes back um for that final ordinance um and we would like to know about any changes that came up in response to those conversations including some of the specific concerns that came in from BHP around Supportive Housing and these terms um thinking about shifting some of the terms that we've uh used to describe relationships that may have historical connotations that aren't necessarily aligned with our racial Equity goals um considering thinking about bias and discrimination as complaints as applying to that um or violations as applying to the violation count um and then in the kind of shorter

[114:01] term coming back to us when the ordinance comes back uh we would like to hear about what the reporting plan is for coming back to us with implementation and letting us know how it's going at a future time um what impacts are we seeing what what should we look for positive and negative what's the reporting we can anticipate for updates and are there any Milestones or metrics of success that we can expect um and then what I also heard was when the budget is coming to us uh the in the summer and fall um lifting up some of that information about um enforcement as we're considering the budget just to kind of close that loop on that part of the conversation today um what I have not heard is a desire for a lot more extensive engagement um or extensive research on uh some of these other things and colleagues please correct me at this point if that is not

[115:02] accurate all right uh Brad do you have everything that you need from us for this discussion I think we do thank you mayor Pro Tim spere and uh I I just want to thank you all too for your acknowledgement of the large team that worked on this of course Amanda and I were the main speakers but uh a lot of people and I I appreciate you all with ack knowledging that and the complexity and we are happy to have been able to come forward this evening thanks wonderful thank you so much um colleagues can I get a show of hands recognizing that we are about 20 minutes over where we uh intended to be would folks like to take a five minute break the other option is that we move through and uh turn off our cameras and stretch during the presentation that doesn't give staff a break though I saw one thumbs up for a five minute break yes Thumbs Up Break five minutes yes okay great let's take a five minute break that brings us back at

[116:21] 7:56 e

[117:21] e e

[118:21] e e

[119:21] e e

[120:20] e e e

[121:48] we are happy to bring back this item that uh was a a Council priority uh the last go around so this was one of your top 10 priorities uh we were able to uh work with you last year and you made the

[122:01] decision to go ahead and uh approve phase one which we followed up on and is is now uh uh put forward but out of that conversation last fall I want to say were a number of questions that um that you asked us uh beyond that whether we could go beyond and I will um note that uh now having had the council Retreat and one of the priorities being familyfriendly neighborhood zoning and land use uh this may even be a good foundation for that next step uh maybe this is a part A of a Future Part B so uh we're cognizant of all those interconnected threads but are are specifically happy to be bringing forward uh this evening the seven part I think it's seven Carl keep us onest items that uh were talked about last year and uh are bringing forward now so certainly without any further Ado I want to introduce Carl guer uh the plan

[123:03] team thank you Brad uh as Brad said I'm Carl Gyer I'm senior policy adviser with planning and development services uh last we talked about the Zoning for affordable housing project was fall of last year when Council adopted uh ordinance 8599 so I'll talk a little bit about what was in that ordinance since I know that there were some council members that weren't on council at that time so I'll I'll paint the picture kind of bringing us up to where we are now um and then I understand that there's a lot to talk about tonight so I'm trying to break this up into chewable bites so since we have seven different Council suggestions that were presented to us uh last year that we've been analyzing uh I'm planning to just stop on each item and take questions and then hear feedback from Council if that works uh with the council tonight so I think that might be a better way to go

[124:00] forward all right so the purpose of tonight is to come back to Council on phase two of the Zoning for affordable housing project to hear um council's discussion and feedback on the seven suggestions uh that we discussed last time uh we're going to go through each of them we have staff recommendations certainly can go a different path we wanted to uh get feedback from Council before we go into the community engagement phase on more specific uh options and also uh before we start any kind of uh code Drafting and then I'll conclude uh with next steps for the project these are the questions I would just ask Council to have in your head uh during the course of this project we can touch on this at the end but the first one's just pretty General does city council agree with the proposed project scope goals and objectives um and and just advise if there's anything that needs to be changed we've basically taken the previous project Charter and uh updated it for this

[125:01] second phase so there's a lot of similarities but we are kind of um looking at different areas of the city as part of this phase um as I go through each of the suggestions and we'll have staff recommendations we're asking does city council agree with the staff recommendations and if not uh what changes does council suggest and then uh which spe specifically which particular option should be analyzed further before we start that Outreach and ordinance development so just starting at the top obviously a big part of this conversation is the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan um it's something that we follow very closely um it does set the vision and policies for the community um you can see it was last updated um in the 2020 uh midterm update we have an an an update coming up in 2025 um but generally the bbcp sets the the the vision for the entire community and then that vision is implemented in a number of different ways either through

[126:01] Master plans budgeting um Capital Improvement programs and in this case we're really going to be focusing on zoning so there's planning principles and goals and everything in the plan but then we Implement that through our land use code so we're going to get into the details of some changes that we could be making to our land use code so we talk about planning and land use uh you can look in the bbcp and see that we have a number of different land use designations throughout the city these generally align with most of the zoning uh it doesn't always match up uh but compared to a lot of other communities it matches up pretty well uh but each of these land use designations does have a description of what the vision and characteristics of that area is and and in some cases with respect to residential there's dwelling units per acre maximums that have been in the comp plan for many years uh so that's something that we're going to be talking about tonight if you look at the comprehensive plan obviously housing affordability is

[127:01] one of the Prime focuses of the plan it's it's a a major challenge for the city of Boulder and we've been trying to address it in a number of different ways so tonight we're going to be obviously focusing on on the zoning you know land use uh side of things but it is one of the primary uh focuses of the plan the state has also gotten involved on this topic uh in recent years uh folks will remember the state of the state that uh governor polus gave uh that led to proposition 123 which basically sets out some mandates relative to streamlined processes for affordable housing uh it also sets up a number of different paths to get grant funding if uh cities or municipalities were to enact certain changes to their uh processes to make it easier for affordable housing uh in the last year uh we've seen a lot so uh the house bill was passed last year on residential growth management which basically

[128:01] prohibited um rgms um Boulder was one of the cities that had a growth management uh chapter so that was actually repealed earlier this year to comply with the state law you've all just heard the recent news uh relative to occupancy uh we worked on changes to occupancy last year uh but the state has passed something a bill that actually requires removal of occupancy rules that relate to any kind of occupancy rules relating to familial relationship so we will be having to come forward with an ordinance in coming months uh that would remove that from the code uh this the legislative session is supposed to end around the beginning of May so there are some key bills that are being uh looked at right now I'm not going to go into a lot of detail but there's one on Accessory dwelling units allowing them more broadly there's one about increasing density on Transit corridors that we've been closely monitoring uh there's also another one uh called sustainable affordable housing which

[129:00] sets up the the process and requirements for doing a housing needs assessment so it's top of mind with the state um it's very aligned with what what we've been working here uh in Boulder so I'm going to go into the background um this is a slide that I used last time when we talk about affordable housing in this context we're talking about a number of different housing types obviously there's permanently affordable housing which is deed restricted in perpetuity it's administered by our housing and Human Services Department uh we have it in our land use code under inclusionary housing a certain percentage of projects has to be deed restricted uh there's inlo fees uh there's a number of different mechanisms uh for getting more affordable housing in Boulder we also look at affordable or attainable housing so any kind of uh housing where uh households pay no more than than 28 to 30% of their income trying to encourage more of that we've also been just as part of this project really been focusing on how can we allow just the the supply of housing to increase so

[130:00] that that can at least in some ways mitigate the increasing cost of housing that's happening in Boulder it's it's going at an incredible rate upwards and by adding housing it can it can help in mitigating the rise of that those costs uh so we're looking at more smaller units and that was really a focus of the of the last phase of this Pro project I'm not going to go through the the problem statement it's the same problem statement as we had uh previously this is a continuation of the of the project uh but I'm pointing it out that we're kind of staying in the same line of trying to address the the housing challenges that we're dealing with uh here in Boulder among other communities and and the nation so as part of phase one uh we we did a number of different ways of getting Community feedback from from uh meeting people in neighborhoods meeting with stakeholder groups uh reached out to a lot of different places neighborhoods students uh

[131:00] organizations uh different neighborhoods throughout the city to get feedback we we have an attachment that uh was attached to the previous um packet uh we did put a link in this memo that goes into a lot of detail about what we heard uh but obviously there's a mixed reactions in the community uh to this project um there are uh many that are looking for more modes sized housing in the community uh there are a lot of people that are struggling to find housing or struggling to stay in Boulder so we're really trying to help out with that um we we've we've heard a lot of comments talking about how uh the changes that we're making are moving the city more towards our housing and racial Equity goals uh when we got more specific about housing types uh we did the be herd Boulder questionnaire again not a statistically valid survey but uh we we it is is a a valid tool to kind of look at and get a gauge of where people stand in the community what we heard about allowing more housing types in single family neighborhoods uh it was

[132:00] about 55% of people uh were more in support of that uh versus those that were against we have heard from uh folks that are against it of course um many have been noting that increasing housing Supply alone will not make a difference it won't move the needle we'll just get more expensive housing and Boulder and more impacts as a result um there's many that feel that Boulder should be focusing more on just increasing inlo fees or commercial linkage fees and looking at other ways of getting deed restricted affordable units rather than just adding housing Alone um we've heard a lot of concerns in single family neighborhoods related to parking impacts noise impacts you know things that also relate to The Chronic nuisance discussion that was also had just by virtue of of more people living in a in a in an area so just touching on 1 ordinance 8599 this was passed by Council in October of last year um we we looked at a number of things through the ordinance

[133:00] it removed site review thresholds that related to number of dwelling units that was done to not disincentivize um number of units through that process um the ordinance eliminated planning Board review for a number of different uh in increases in density that are in the code um we revised form and bulk standards to make it easier for tow houses which are more of a middle housing type I'll talk more about what middle housing is um it changed the code to allow duplexes and triplexes in the lower density areas of the city but it did so in a way where it kept the same uh density requirements so generally 7,000 square feet per unit in RL zones and then 30,000 square feet in RR in R uh the ordinance eliminated the use review requirement for efficiency living units uh it also revised density calculations in a number of different zones commercial um highdensity residential and Industrial zones throughout the city to encourage more

[134:00] housing in the same basic massing of buildings and focusing more on floor area ratio just like capping the the bulk rather than uh capping the number of units we also made changes to our parking and subdivision regulations to remove barriers to housing so at the September second reading of that ordinance uh Council uh passed the ordinance but they did ask for us to look at a number of different things and I'll go into more detail on these um and I'll stop on each one but just really quickly uh we were asked to add rmx1 to the scope we were asked to add rm1 which is a medium density residential Zone uh we were asked to reanalyze the um housing density and lower density areas looking at it through a different lens which I'll talk about um explore additional restrictions in lowdensity residential zones to encourage home ownership um we were asked to look at the exemption for

[135:00] missing middle housing which we had proposed last time but was actually not incorporated into the ordinance and we were also asked to uh look again at the minimum thresholds for site review um that related to dwelling units and remove any additional zones uh That Base it on dwelling units and then lastly we were asked to um look at whether we should keep the the research and development um uh incentive for additional F if it's mixed use with residential and whether that's a use to promote in that zone so I'll talk in more detail about that when we get there so I'm going to jump into the analysis right now so just starting again about density um when you look at the the Boulder Valley comprensive plan it does specify very low density residential as less than two dwelling units per acre low density residential is 2 to six dwelling units per acre medium density is 6 to 14 dwelling units per acre and

[136:00] then high density residential is more than 14 dwelling units per acre um we regulate density in different zones in different ways sometimes it's open space per dwelling unit sometimes it's lot area per dwelling unit and a lot of the residential zones it tends to be lot area per dwelling unit and that'll be kind of the focus of what we're talking about tonight but like rural residential is like 30,000 square ft minimum lot size that's how much you have to have to have one unit uh residential estate it's uh a 15,000 square foot minimum lot size uh that was changed in ordinance 8599 to 7500 square feet per unit uh to allow more duplexes re actually is in the low density residential range so there was some room for growth in that zone uh rl1 is 7,000 feet of minimum lot size and then r 2 is 6,000 F feet of open space uh per unit and I did note in the memo that we did not include rl2 uh in this particular report uh just because um it

[137:02] is a little more complicated when it's open space per dwelling unit and many of the developments in rl2 are actually in planned unit developments or discretionary approvals from the past that would actually require amendments we're actually looking to hire a planner to do more analysis of those zones and we didn't want to make any changes before that analysis was done we also didn't include re in the scope of this discussion just because it was already changed to allow more duplexes in the last round so what we were asked by Council to do is really kind of take another look at density and and look at it in a different way just from the sense that the comp plan isn't exactly the same as like the land use code where it's lot area per dwelling unit it it's more holistic it it talks more about a gross density like an average over a land area so it talks about there being an average where there might be one zone like a

[138:00] polygon where you know the the average density in one area might be higher than another area but it balances out to not exceed the maximum so typically in zoning we're using the net density or parcel density which is the graphic on the bottom where we're just looking at it by parcel by parcel and we do not include other land areas like uh public rights of way School properties open space um Parks those things are not included in net density whereas the the compain looks at it more from a gross density which is like the the whole polygon so we've done some analysis of what that looks like as as far as the existing and that's what we're reporting back on tonight this is the section of the comp plan that talks about the averaging uh of density so uh if you read that paragraph it's included in the in the packet it talks about how um it's looked at more on an average like I had described these are the individual land

[139:02] use designations where it gives you basically the characteristics and locations um what what these areas look like what they consist of and then what their maximum uh density is so this guides the land use code and it guides our actions when we make changes so the things that um Council has to look at to tonight and and obviously everyone looks at this a little bit different the the comp plan is a little um it's not as strict as say the land use code everyone has a slightly different interpretation of what is consistent with it so it is important for us to have the discussion tonight about where council is on whether something is consistent or not but the three things that we ask that Council look at on this is not just the dwelling units per acre maximum but also just the descriptions of the characteristics of each of these land use designations and also be thinking about general you know bbcp policies and how they guide um our decisions so that's a lot of what we'll be talking about

[140:01] tonight so the focus is the the very low density zones the low density zones and then the mixed densities um land use designation areas so this is really the first suggestion was to add the rmx1 to the scope of the project this area is um the area in the purple you can see our neighborhoods that surround downtown Boulder they were typically uh developed in the late 1800s early 1900s with single family homes uh over time they were rezoned to allow higher densities like in the 1960s and then because of parking and traffic impacts and also concerns about the number of redeveloping lots with apartment buildings a lot of historical uh buildings were were torn down uh there were concerns about that so the zoning was changed more to a low density uh calculation so it's 6,000 uh square feet per unit in the current code um so

[141:00] it's it's meant to basically almost kind of freeze these neighborhoods from additional density so if you read the characteristics it talks about this um so it's something to keep in mind it it's 2% of of the land area of the city um I've also included just a a description in our land use code uh up in the upper right hand corner of how it describes this so it mixed density areas with a variety of single family detached duplexes and multif family units that will be maintained and where existing structures may be renovated or rehabilitated so this particular Zone because it allowed high density and then went back to low density it has a range of six to 20 dwelling units per acre um so it's a little bit different than the low density zones because of that so there's a lot of non-conforming properties um in in the rmx1 zone so what we've been asked to do basically is relook at this Zone and see if if the density requirement could be removed and

[142:01] just replaced with the F or the floor area ratio limit that currently applies just to single family homes like applying that F limit to multif family as well so we did do a land use analysis of this again looking at the purple you can see the the growth gross and what says parceled is the net the gross and parcel densities are are largely in that range that the comp plant identifies it goes from six to 20 dwelling units per acre as you can see so as far as alignment with the with the comp plan the one thing we wanted to talk about is um the terms established and developing um these terms used to be in our land use code but have been removed but they there are some references to them in our comp plan still so our comp plan was even updated in 2020 took an approach to the city where it did label certain areas as

[143:00] established where there would be very little change anticipated and then redeveloping or developing areas where there was more growth growth or evolving character um when you read the bbcp on rmx1 it says preserve the current neighborhood character and mix of housing units and not exacerbate uh traffic and parking problems so we we've looked at this Zone uh we did not recommend this Zone in the past just because of the sensitivities that are in the comp plan about this Zone but we also understand it is you know an area that's very walkable and it's very close to downtown um is that a place where low density under current rules makes sense so it does you know prompt us to look at that so after looking at this um we we do agree that apply in the F to the multif family makes sense in as far as trying to preserve that character and trying to um discourage any demolition

[144:00] of buildings what it would really do is is have F applied where it might encourage someone to take their single family house and maybe convert it to a duplex or potentially a Triplex um but again we do feel that there does need to be a density limit in the land use code in order to keep this area consistent with the comp plan so what we're recommending as far as this change is to uh apply the F uh but to look at changing the density from the 6,000 square feet of of lot area per dwelling unit down to 3,000 so that would be more like a medium density range um it wouldn't be bringing it back to the high density that existed in the past um but that's um the first topic that we wanted to talk to about tonight um and he your feedback and I'll take any questions uh with anything up to this point great thank you so much um and

[145:00] thank you for all of this work um I think so what it seems like the the way you're hoping we can move forward Carl is we do um some clarifying questions and then give some feedback on the ordinance is that did I get that right well feedback on these on these recommendations if there's on each item and then we'll just move on to the next ones yeah yeah yep okay great um so questions on this item Lauren thanks Nicole and thank you Carl for again all the great work and research um the team did on this I really appreciate it thank you um just for background I was wondering what you mentioned that this area was zoned to a high density and then down to a low density again what was it zoned as prior to the high density or was that I don't know what the Zone was you know pre

[146:01] 1960s um I I I don't know the answer to that okay I just having you know been here for a while I've heard stories about the history of this zone so I knew that there was like a you know a rezoning that occurred I think in the 1960s where they were trying to get more units so like you know when you walk around gos Grove for instance you see a lot of historic single family type homes and then they're next to these apartment buildings that were developed in the 70s that that's a lot of the character that you see and you know like Wier and things like that that's that's where those buildings um were allowed okay thank you um and then did they have a vers of the historic preservation ordinance like what we have today currently in place I mean you mentioned that there were concerns around um things getting torn

[147:01] down yeah I think the the historic preservation or landmarks process has become more robust in recent years so that did factor into our analysis I think that's why you know we're looking at this through a different lens you know that we think that with f um and you know and a modest increase in density and coupled with the landmark um requirements that the character of the area can still be protected thank you um you brought up sort of the character of the neighborhood and maybe this is just a note for when we talk about these things I'm not 100% sure on the historical usage of that term for me that is a term that can be used a lot of different ways and it often gets used to talk about to imply things that people don't want to discuss

[148:01] explicitly so like if people are concerned about the color the shape the size they'll say those things um explicitly when we talk about neighborhood character that often has class um and race implications in it or has historically and so I just I know it's an our comp plan I know but um I it triggers me a little bit um do we expect uh all the houses to change if we were to um make it so that most Lots were able to duplex would we anticipate that in 10 years we would see all the single family homes become duplexes I don't know that we're anticipating that that I I think the change would certainly make it easier to do like a conversion uh we've seen that before where you know where the zoning allows it like there's a I worked on a

[149:02] project in gos Grove that was actually in the RH Zone and there was a conversion of a single family house to a like a Triplex so the house looked the same on the outside they just changed the walls on the inside you know and they were able to do it so I think we would probably see more of that I I think that's where this zoning could encourage that as far as the financials I think this will come up on a on a number of things we did have our economic consultant Kaiser marsten look at you know is it more economically viable to do a duplex or a Triplex versus a single family house and their findings and these are from several years ago but that there was much more money to be made by keeping it as a single family house but it doesn't mean that people aren't going to do that um I will say that um as through the course of this project and I'll say this as it applies to the low density areas as well as I've gotten a lot of inquiries from people

[150:02] that are interested in doing duplexes for instance um we haven't seen too many since the ordinance passed but there there is definitely interest but I think the way the code is today is it requires more land area to get to that duplex so there's that's a disincentive but don't expect that like 100% of the single family homes would like right away switch to duplexes if they were it would be very gradual thank you um and then what would I appreciate the staff recommendation of 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit what concerns would you have with um like 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit would there be any additional considerations you would want us to take into account or

[151:00] um things that we we didn't recommend 1500 um because just because of the fact that the comp plan talks about the area having a Max density of 20 dwelling units per acre and we were playing with the numbers if you got down to that calculation there would be the risk that there could be the potential for going over that 20 dwelling units per acre so our thinking is that that would have to be something that's done through a you know an update to the comp plan you know an actual change to the density the character of of the area and the you know the density is largely kind of averaged around a medium density so that's why we're proposing a medium uh density in this case could we have in place some sort of cap in terms of the number of um additional dwelling units in these zones that we would allow and until we would just say like no no more we've reached our um Boulder Valley comprehensive plan

[152:02] limit I mean I think that would be hard to track but like as you said you know we wouldn't expect all of these to change over all at once once the ordinance passes you know it's it's going to be gradual over time and the the point at which they might actually get close to that limit might be well distant into the future and there might be other opportunities for looking at the zoning or updates to the comp plan then and may maybe but it's just you know our tradition traditional application of of this has been to have the zoning match you know exactly what's in the plan and and to avoid any potential for that even though it's unrealistic to think that they're all just going to switch over all of a sudden okay thank you very much that's it for my questions awesome thank you um and everyone just to let you know I posted the uh questions that staff had on the initial slide in the chat with the one addition additional question of

[153:01] whether there are any clarifying questions about the suggestion um Tara you are out yes thanks um Carl can you tell us what you see in the light pink staff recommendations would there any be any negatives in your opinion like pros and cons which I've been talking about lately the pros and cons um to revise the RX1 Zone to apply the F to mult is there any cons or that I mean I think the cons I I think as we noted in the memo is that you know it is a neighborhood that's already been um identified in the complant as as one that's impacted by parking and traffic impact so um and obviously there's a little bit of uncertainty on parking just what the state bills that are floating around these days but I mean our sense is that you know we have managed parking in most of the rmx1 zone so that's less of a concern to us that

[154:01] may a lot of that wasn't in place when some of these policies were originally stated you know it talks about traffic so obviously if you're adding dwelling units there's a potential uptick in trips um I think that's to me is like the biggest con I I think these the f you know the the requirement they have to fulfill parking on their sites they would keep the character we we've proposed what we think is reasonable to stay uh to address those concerns okay great and can you do the same the same thing with the uh second bullet point adjusting the intensity standard to be 3,000 square fet versus 6,000 feet per dwelling unit what would be the con I mean again I don't know that there's much of a with that it's it's a a development that's walking distance from downtown it adds having housing opportunities around the downtown will add to the Vitality of

[155:01] downtown it would be the same massing a lot of the same design but just more small units tucked in to these these units so it would enable someone that might have a single family house now to con convert to a duplex and that you know from a planning standpoint probably makes more sense in a neighborhood like this that's you know walkable like it is but it wouldn't change the design the um what's the word the feel because you wouldn't it would be within the design of the neighborhood well yeah and it's the same F too I mean that's the The Proposal is to apply the same F to a multif family that you would a single family that actually doesn't exist today the the F only applies to single family um this proposal would actually apply it to multif family great thank you so much thank you Tara Tina yeah thanks for all this

[156:01] information it's great and really helpful as a new council person so also forgive me for the some of the questions I'll ask throughout the night because I think it's because I'm new most of all um if we were to go to the new F and reduce the lot size to 3,000 um I noticed that we didn't recommend changing parking or reducing parking simultaneously would would your recommendation now to be requiring the same having the same parking requirement with the new units it would be on a right now it would be on a per bedroom requirement when it goes to a multif family a duplex or a multif family it goes to per bedroom um so we're not proposing to change that we are embarking on a new parking project this summer so I think we're going to be looking at parking more holistically um but we weren't proposing any parking changes um as part of this and also just a a clarification

[157:00] point is the we're not talking about lowering the minimum lot size um there's no changes to minimum lot size in any of these proposals it's just the calculation for number of dwelling units okay and so then if you so you're able to we're able to measure the parking on on bedroom not on unit that's how it's currently being done yeah the way it is in the code now is if you have a single family home it's one parking space per unit when you go to a duplex or a multif family it goes into a per bedroom um it's different for each Zone but it'll go like for instance a two-bedroom might be 1.5 spaces and then a three bedroom goes to two spaces okay I was not aware of that so thank you that's um I didn't know that we did bedroom measurement because I was sort of interested in how we measure bedrooms that are being available in the city um and so and then with um do we

[158:01] know how much if the transit oriented bill passes how much of this specific Zone will overlap with the transit with the the the hog the Housing Opportunity uh goal area I I'd only be making a guess but I'm thinking just by virtue of its proximity to like Broadway it might be 30% of the Zone but I right now like based on our analysis we're not looking at any changes to um this Zone um necessary to meet the Housing Opportunity goal okay and then my final question is just around Community engagement so with this Zone in particular I would imagine we would want to do engagement around this um possible change and I think we would probably want to do engagement around parking where we to change that and then finally I could imagine there being a change with the Boulder Valley comp plan are do we have

[159:02] a sort of a longer term strategy on how we're going to do three different types of Outreach and what the timing would look like uh where we can sort of maintain interest with the community that we're soliciting feedback from I certainly agree with you that um there would be um out reach uh to folks in this Zone um we know it's a sensitive area so we we do want to talk to them I think because this once we get the feedback from Council tonight we're going to really be moving into that Community engagement phase and I think also parking is getting some legs and um and moving so I think we might want to um combine those projects in in the engagement so that those two topics can be talked about at the same type of meeting meeting um rather than having two separate meetings so that's something that we'll keep in mind um as far as long-term engagement um I understand the concern that you know we

[160:00] might be looking at more you know potentially more robust changes to the bbcp as part of the 2025 update this Outreach would really be focused this summer um it maybe into the fall um whereas the the comp plan changes are going to commence next year so they will be different uh they will be different um processes okay so and I I think we're bundling everything the four questions per suggestion is that right Nicole so thank you for clarifying that I was uh just thinking about that as we're going on I think what's probably gonna be best if we can yeah bundle everything together four questions per suggestion otherwise we've got like 30 things to get through tonight okay so thank you Tina um so I I think my my one comment would be you know if when we talk to this community about parking and also this possible change if we do go ahead with it to just try to if there's

[161:02] a strong sense that we're also going to be looking for further change through the Boulder Valley comp plan how do we communicate that to the community so they know that this isn't the first this is a first step of a two-step process so this is one piece and then there's going to be a second piece and maybe even starting to think about what is that going to look like so that people can kind of look at this possible change in the context of a future change so that would be some that's something I'm thinking about thank you no that's a good point I mean we can't at this point necessarily predict exactly what is going to be talked about you know as part of the next update I mean obviously council is going to be setting a lot of those um goals you know for the community to think about but um we certainly can let them them understand that there are you know there an iteration here that might be leading to something next year anything else

[162:01] Tina okay thank you so much um Erin you are up next thanks Nicole um so just Carl to clarifying question to something that you said before that neither this nor the other proposals are changing the minimum lot area and so that means that it wouldn't make it easier to subdivide Lots it wouldn't like make some lots that you can't subdivide not you could so like subdivision standards would stay the same is that correct that that's correct uh and that applies to all the suggestions tonight too okay that's great for us to keep in mind and for the community to to know as we're as we're thinking about these changes and I'll just say that uh to throw a comment in I like where you're going with with this I I generally think it's a good suggestion the one thing I would say is to Lawrence's point about whether it could be lower than 3,000 square feet I heard your point about the 1500 then giving you a possible density over what the bbcp allows for this Zone but I think say 2500 would be well within the you know 14 to 20 um units per per acre

[163:01] that's allowed by the bbcp and 2000 is just barely over so so I'm wondering if we could consider for an ordinance something that possibly lowered this from 3,000 to 2500 or 2250 or something that would be compatible with the comprehensive plan so that's it's a thought as yeah we we'll be glad to do that in in fact as part of the analysis we did we looked at uh 2,000 square feet per unit and that was where we ran into some situations where it went over the 20 dwelling units per acre but it was close so 2500 might work but we would have to take another look at that okay so that'd be my request then this week okay next phas thanks and Lauren thanks um because this is an older zone or an older portion of town there is a lot of um uncon you know there aren't very there's a lot of

[164:00] non-typical lot sizes so a lot of smaller lots a lot of um strangely shaped lots and so I guess I would be interested in um sort of that lower 1500 square feet with then some kind of um you know numerical cap in terms of overall dwelling units that we would allow to ensure that we are staying within the bbcp guidelines but to allow a little bit more flexibility knowing that a lot of um property owners are not going to probably pursue this um and trying to make it so that for the property owners who are interested that there is a little bit more flexibility there thanks um Lauren can I just can I actually ask you a clarifying question there um so when you're talking about um the the 1500 square feet like lowering

[165:01] that are are you basically saying that because not everybody who is eligible or who who could make a change like this would that the actual density the the real density we would see would actually be less than what you might calculate yeah that's exactly what I'm saying I mean when we're talking about gross square footage we're also um you know including roads and things like that where we're not going to be adding dwelling units between that and um the fact that not everyone would redevelop certainly quickly but probably even in a fairly long period of time I think we could have a a lower number and still not hit the cap but to sort of ensure that we wouldn't um and to provide sort of that um legal framework that we that we definitely are still complying with the comp plan I would say that having some kind of overall um cap to the

[166:00] number of units would be sort of like a belt and suspenders method of ensuring that we're meeting the comp plan guidelines thanks for clarifying is there anything else Lauren that was it thanks for the question Ryan you're up thank you uh just two things um I agree with council member ferz um and the mayor on would be nice to shoot for something below 3,000 square feet um I'd be interested also down to 1500 square feet with measures that um you know just made sure we stay compliant with bbcp my only cautionary thought would be I wouldn't want us to enact a policy that once we then go to update the bbcp that would be an imped that we' still have to deal with so it would need to ideally link to the bbcp or have some such that when we if and when we change the bbcp um that we wouldn't need to come

[167:01] back and revisit that's my first comment my second is I strongly agree with council member marquist on the idea that we are undertaking a whole bunch of different zoning and parking and other reforms over the next couple of years I think we need to find a way to communicate in integrated way what is happening and I recognize that it's it's Dynamic and so you know what what is happening will change but I would really encourage that we find a way to explain to people so that know they can understand um and I would be you know if you if question is what is Council planning and doing I'd certainly be willing to make a motion uh if the appropriate time that that you just ask us to give you a statement what's up ahead for example if we're get you know parking coming up and so on um so that that's it for me thanks Ryan Arin sorry to double dip I just um Lauren after what you said

[168:01] just thought I'd throw in there I like where you're going with 1500 square foot I just would be concerned about putting some kind of cap into an ordinance that i' I've seen just that caps and saturation limits and such have a way of sticking around for a long time and can sometimes be hard to undo so I would wor about potential long-term effects to to throw some of that in so just want to put that thought out there thanks Ryan is that a second dip hand or the first hand okay thank you um I just had a couple of um general questions um that I won't ask again because they're they're more General to this entire process um so you're basically asking us to consider which of these possible changes we'd like to move forward to Outreach and engagement stages um are there any work or work plan tradeoffs that we would have to make um with that like if we were to take all of these and move them forward does that then impact some

[169:00] of the work plan priorities we set last month yeah I mean I think the way it's represented in the memo is that they're we're recommending that Council advise us to move forward on most of these options not all of them so I think with that um I think the real focus is going to be community engagement over the next few months um and then being able to draft the ordinance you know we're talking about maybe completing the project potentially in quarter three I think what we're thinking is if the scope grows like if Council says you have to do all of these and maybe add these three then we're going to have to like look at the scope again and figure out you know what might be a more realistic deadline but in general we're thinking that the way it's recommended in the memo is we could um try to get this done by quarter three great thank you um just a couple more general questions do you see any risks for many of the state legislation um and spending a lot of time on Outreach and engagement around these changes given

[170:01] anything that may be coming at the state level um I'm thinking about occupancy for example we spent a lot of time on that and then a few months later kind of went in a different direction at the state so just wondering if there any of these that you see that might be um that that the state might get uh get into in the next year or two yeah we've been spending a lot of time analyzing the transit oriented communities bill um but again it that's really going to focus more on the developing parts of town that like like Boulder Junction uh and our you know Transit corridors along 28th Street things like that zoning in those areas more than this particular area so I'm not anticipating this that that would affect this I I think the parking bill that's currently being considered is the one that could have the biggest you know ramifications to all the zones that we're looking at you know if there actually a bill that says no parking no minimum parking can be required you know it's something we have to be thinking

[171:00] about yeah thank you um and then last general question you talked about um three different types of affordability in the presentation am I understanding correctly that the suggestions that we're talking about tonight fit into that affordability category of slowing the increase in housing costs yes we don't have any um recommendations or options at this point that would have any deed restriction obviously you know with the changes that were're done in phase one we loosened up the the code to allow for more housing units in a lot of zones that are smaller units obviously the more number of units in a project the more deed restricted perally affordable this project is looking more just in the you know kind of more in the middle housing category you know of duplexes you know things like that Triplex es okay thank you and so um with middle housing one of the things that I get a little bit tripped up on sometimes is uh the difference between middle housing as a type of housing like a form of housing

[172:02] versus middle housing as a price point for Middle earners and so um just wanted to be clear as to which which one yeah tonight and it's it's in our slide presentation uh where we talk about missing middle housing so that's really and we talked about it in phase one obviously in the United States in general it's like you get a lot of multifamily stacked housing and you get a lot of single family not a lot in between and that's that really shows itself in Boulder because like only 9% of the city housing types are um that missing middle you know the smaller tow houses quad plexes things like that so that that is the topic of tonight not the one related to you know medium not the price point but the type okay great thank you um okay that's it for my questions oh and just the the one piece of feedback I have is uh I I appreciate where um Lauren is going with the 1500

[173:02] square feet and I think just that you know keeping in mind that not everybody is going to overnight um change everything possible that it will unfold over time um in taking that into account as we're thinking about density as we can seems like a a thoughtful idea to me um Matt thanks I'm actually really been appreciating the the questions and the dialogue that's been occurring um Carl a two things one um this sort of conversation about what we're actually looking to address here I think is an important one I think semantics get can kind of get in the way a little bit um because as much as we might want to this is sort of phase two of what we were calling Zoning for affordability I see most of this work being Zoning for accessibility um because because again I think we get caught up as affordability being sort of this deed restricted uh you know 120% Ami or less rather than we're just sort of lowering the barrier

[174:00] of entry and creating more diverse sets of housing to attract um uh different sets of people that can get into our community or otherwise maybe inventory limited um so that just sort of I think might might help with setting expectations because we have a lot of folks kind of writing to us about well this isn't you know where's the affordability and you got to have deed restriction like that's not what the goal is here this is maybe more for accessibility than is affordability um so I think that's just that's maybe a helpful piece um the the other kind of goes to the scoping question you just that you sort of just mentioned which I'm have a curious about you're is the do I hear you right that you're hopeful we don't ask you to do all of your recommendations and and so if so how does that come back to us because we're going to go through one by one and you may hear we like it we like it we like it but then how do we then select down and not add scope and so that's my first question I have a second half of that but H H when do we reconcile um which

[175:01] ones we want to jettison or prioritize in order to stay within your current scoping that you have for this project uh it's not that we don't want Council to to add things or change things I I think what the schedule that is in the memo is just assuming what we're recommending move forward at this time so I'm just saying that like if Council adds you know some more complex things to look at that may add to the timeline it's not something we're opposed to I just think that our timeline is based on what we are recommending and and also kind of what where we think Council might go uh but we're not sure you know until we have this conversation and and so so the second half of that kind of has to do with combining the scope of two things perhaps and and I I don't want to speak on behalf of Lauren who who created this priority for ours but it seems like this has a lot of overlap with what the familyfriendly neighborhood's Council uh priority is

[176:03] and so I'm wondering like in some ways isn't this really just maybe phase one of family-friendly neighborhoods and we can give Lauren credit for being a prognosticator and already forecasting where we're headed at the same time if we're already putting aside scope for that larger piece then maybe anything we ask beyond that just gets folded into that larger priority scope capacity that's already being built in so I just sort of maybe looking at it from a a a a a higher a little bit more of a 50,000 foot level of where these things fit in together yeah uh we we are looking for Clarity on that topic tonight as as Brad noted um but I think if there's anything that Council request tonight that kind of goes over the line of that that's more of a change to the vision or the density or whatever that was envisioned in the comp plan that's going to go more like we're thinking that this is probably a bridge to to a maybe a new

[177:00] phase or maybe it's a different project but anything that involves zoning changes that really have to link up with with comp plan changes are going to be you know a different project or a future project this is like the bridge to that project yeah yeah go ahead BR sure um I think you know there there are options of course and we'll be happy to follow Council Direction in this regard but I think the the point is that if uh if each of these items can be uh talked about discreetly uh within scope we'll continue to bring those forward and and to your point maybe this now becomes phase a of the the new Council priority and uh there is space for us to do even some phase B next year but we want to try to balance that um feedback we've got from Council to bring something forward in a you know timely manner uh relative to how this is

[178:02] an extension of last year's and still uh to your point uh councilman make uh a Runway foundation for for the counc I appreciate so I mean wasn't looking to decide now I just I see those synergies there and it sounds like you you look to sort of combine those um as appropriate as we go forward so I appreciate that thank you guys thank you um and Matt I'm just gonna add one one thing on Lauren is okay if I do my double dip thank you just add one thing on to what you said um I think you know your point Matt about terminology to me is a really important one I think it's really important that we're using the word affordability in such a way that the community has the same expectations that we have for what the outcome is going to be of this project um so I that would be um something I would love for you all to just think about is is there something we can call this that it just helps

[179:00] translate a little bit better I'm not sure of use accessibility as that has some really specific connotations um also kind of in the housing World related to the disability Community I would actually love to see housing for accessibility but in that sense but anyway just just you know to think about that what some terminology may be that we are all on the same page with regard to what's coming out of this work thank you and Lauren thanks yeah um I think this does really explicitly match up very well with um sort of the familyfriendly vibrant neighborhoods um work plan item and and I would totally support um folding this into that or naming it under that um as feels if that feels appropriate to other people um especially because I think you know although this was a

[180:02] portion of what we wanted to do or a portion of the housing for affordability work plan item on its own I don't know that it sort of represents that idea as well um and so it I think it might make sense to uh again fold it under uh the new work plan item at least in terms of naming that's it now we're certainly open to that and I think it's good timing to package it in a different way you know before we go into the public engagement phase awesome um anyone else sorry please feel free to unmute yourself and hop on if I am missing you all right um so just to summarize then it it sounds like this is one that

[181:02] we would all like to see move forward based on the robustness of that discussion um if there's an would it be possible to take the slides down just for a second so I can see everyone thank you sorry for the hassle um can everybody just raise your hands if you would like to see this uh move forward if this is and follow the staff suggestion um I do have all the feedback we have so we can get to that next but just do you wanna do you want to see this go forward yes okay Nicole quick question uhu the only thing I'm I am not sure 100% about is the staff suggested 3,000 Lauren said 1500 I'm not sure that I agree with 1500 I'm nervous about too many big changes and so I would rather that not be a definite how do I put that that's a question for me I think that is good and

[182:01] I will include that in my summary of this suggestion if that works for you um okay so feedback that I that I gathered from our discussions um is that where we can looking to combine projects um for engagement purposes rather than having a lot of different meetings um thinking about how we communicate that there are future changes coming to the community as we're doing some of the engagement work um there was some discussion around um should we go lower than 3,000 maybe 1500 maybe 2500 what that number is I expect that's something that would come out of the engagement work to tera's point there is that is that correct I I think so yeah okay all right so then we would get more information about that particular kind kind of number and what the feedback is as this would come back to us um making sure that whatever we're enacting won't limit the potential changes we could make to the um comp plan and um just thinking about whether there's some

[183:01] different terminology we could use to so that the community has the same expectations we have uh perhaps folding it into the familyfriendly neighborhoods did I miss anything folks okay I think having gotten that first one out of the way the next six we go a little faster um still going to try to get us out of here in half an hour so as we're going into the next one um please just try to uh try try to condense all your comments questions everything in one place thank you all right we're going to shift gears to the rm1 Zone can you all see so the rm1 is a medium density Zone uh similar to rmx uh in some regards it's shown in kind of that pink color uh it's takes up about 3.5% of the land

[184:00] area of the city it's typically found in um usually around like shopping centers kind of around the fringes of like Table Mesa or Meadows or Willow Springs um up by diagonal Crossing or diagonal Plaza um you'll notice that that that's where a lot of the rm1 zoning is um a lot of it was developed in the 1960s and70s um there's a lot of condominium ised units out there about two-thirds of them are condominium ised at this point so medium density is basically six to 14 delling units per acre so in this particular proposal it was to apply the same f as rmx1 to this Zone and get rid of the density requirement um when we looked at this further um we found that there wouldn't necessarily be an assurance that if we removed the density calculator just like rmx1 that it wouldn't go over that 14 duelling units

[185:02] per acre in some regards it's it's even less flexible than rmx1 because rmx1 has the 20 duelling units per acre as as a cap so we looked at it from that angle um it's also a zone that uses open space per Dell unit so in this case I think it's 3,000 feet of open space per dwelling unit um it doesn't it's not as sensitive as like the rm1 Zone in terms of character um so I think when we looked at it there aren't as many concerns that come up when we do did our our bbcp analysis so what we're recommending in this particular case is we would need to keep the density limit uh just like rmx1 um and we find that the F limit wouldn't really NE even be necessary so there could be some adjustments to allow some growth in the zone we're recommending um that the requirement be changed from 3,000 to 2,000 square feet

[186:00] of open space or it could be simplified in just be 2,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit so that's what we show in the in the table one um what we our analysis again is looking at the descriptions of the zones the land you says Nations the density caps that are in the code and policy so in this case in order to um not have this go over the limit we're recommending um like a 23% increase in the number of units so either one of those options and the staff recommendation is what we're uh recommending so that that concludes this part of the discussion thank you so much Carl questions comments Tina yeah thank you um on this one how um how would that development of new units look like um and and how quick would it be

[187:00] like how many more units would you get over a five-year period do you think if this were to be I I think in this particular Zone we're not necessarily anticipating a lot of Redevelopment because of those condo properties it would be very difficult for those to you know redevelop um so we're think we're looking at it more like you know a third of the zone you you might see the potential for an increase um but we're not anticipating you know a massive amount of change over a fiveyear period okay thanks any comments or anything Tina as long as you're there okay Mark you're up yeah I'm just trying to understand the operating principle as we go through each of these proposals is it the to create the maximum density um within the confines of the bbcp or are there other factors at at

[188:01] play in other words why um the 23% increase uh as opposed to the 14% increase what what's the operating Theory yeah in this case it's really just trying to propose something that wouldn't go over the the maximum in the bbcp um there's like with rmx1 it was more about the character of the neighborhood and things like that that doesn't really come into play in this particular Zone um so I think there is some flexibility I think here we're we're actually proposing a a fairly large jump for those properties that wouldn't necessarily the the non- condo properties basically so I think we're proposing a calculator that wouldn't push those third of properties into a condition of going over the density limit over time so that's why we're we're proposing the 23% in this

[189:00] case the more it goes up the more you know risk there could be of that but I mean again in this particular case we're talking about 23% to 33% so not as much of a concern again we're making the assumption that about 2third of the properties would like not you know redevelop in a in short order but for instance in terms of of selecting 23% over 14% is is your operating principle to maximize density subject to the Restraint of the bbcp yes yes okay thank you can I call on that real quick yeah I mean I I guess would just say that there are reasoning behind that right in terms of you know we were asking to look at these because we want to have more Transit oriented kind of

[190:02] you know this is this still tends to be not in the heart of the city but still in Fairly Transit Rich environments and things like that where we want to potentially have people able to make different kinds of housing choices you know we were and um sorry and the this isn't changing sort of like the overall size or that kind of thing it's just allowing a few more people potentially to live in these areas May cqu um sure yes still your still your question mark what particular housing choices are you contemplating um and at what price and uh and what Market is is to be served by them and I would ask the same question

[191:02] of Staff it's actually staff's recommendation I would ask staff what is it that you contemplate I mean I think just in League with how the the zone is developed over time it tends to be stacked Apartments you know our condos so I think that's the housing type that you typically see uh AB budding these shopping center so I think we're thinking along those lines for any future development as well thank you um TAA so um I thank you for this option um I just went to a really fantastic session by the climate um team on uh the nature-based solutions and you know the whole session was really focused on yes

[192:01] the city has very important and rigorous goals around carbon reduction and and again the balance and importance of the biodiversity restoration and so it's actually the UN decade of restoration and so the idea of reducing open space um with the impact being marginal um or just a few folks um I'm I'm just not sure if that's the payoff um if it's worth the payoff for for um what we're losing and if anything um you know I'm a strong advocate for um density in places that um you know don't require you know reductions in open space first before um considering open space especially when we're considering um how many more people that we would be having um and again the the need that we already have uh for biodiversity restoration is strong so I just wanted to lift that up as a concern that I have with this suggestion thank

[193:05] you and can I um just follow that up with a clarifying question um to staff I think so my understanding of um some of our zoning and building codes is that open space isn't sort of it's not like natural ecosystem type yard things that people might have it it could just like open space in this context could just be a um cement patio is that that's correct yeah open space in our code is um Green Space there's any number of different features that count as open space but like Landscaping Green Space it could be concrete plazas yeah and if anything I think we should be incentivizing more natural um pollinator type things um and of course um yeah I and yeah I just I I still even

[194:02] with that clarification if anything one that needs an update and or I'm hopeful that we're considering and moving away from um things that do not stimulate you know pollinators and and those kinds of things um but but uh in this moment I still um feel like um having that open space is critical when you're going to be increasing how many people are around in general so thank you anyone else with questions or comments here on this one yes Lauren and then Tara um yeah I I would support the staff recommendation here I I hear you Taisha on the open space um thing and I do want to see us look at that in a more robust manner but I think the way that it

[195:01] gets I think because it isn't utilized in the way that it sounds um you know things like if the paving is red you can count your drive lane you know like if they're werf sort of style um Paving patterns you can typically count those is open space I think it leads to a lot of confusion and that while I think it's important for us to continue having green space in our um developments there are a lot of the setback requirements and things do that to some extent and we could look at other ways I don't like it as a tool for how many units can be within a certain building envelope um because that to me

[196:00] isn't um it's not actually addressing the size of the Building compared to the site it's just sort of reducing the number of people who can occupy that particular building um so in this sense I feel like yeah I just align strongly with the staff recommendations but I think we should be looking at how we look at open space in a in a more robust manner um so that it is providing more clarity so that the thing that it provides aligns more with the name that it's given on Trends tonight for what we're talking about Anda uh quick question to Carl same as my other question Tell me uh with the staff recommendation I was thinking about um what would be the negatives of going

[197:00] with this if you were going to name some or like pros and cons um yeah I mean how would it visually change uh how would it visually change let's say the area around the shopping center look more crowded you wouldn't even notice it you know TP stuff like that that that Community can visualize I think my sense is that there wouldn't be all that much of a visual change in terms of massing and everything you would just have potentially more units within that that same building envelope what I'd like some clarity on is that the staff recommendation has two different options so one is 2,000 square feet of open space per dwelling unit or 2,000 ft of lot area per dwelling unit lot area per dwelling unit is a little bit easier to administer but um I think if if we were to move towards lot area per dwelling unit there's the potential that you might see a little bit less Green Space then um in a project compared to if it was 2,000

[198:00] feet of open space um but there still are open space requirements that apply in either case it's just the ones with the open space requirements tend to have that character to them you know as popular in the 1970s you see a lot of you know landscape areas things like that so so I think if if that that would be the the the con if we were to go to lot area per dwelling unit so you're saying if we would go to lot area per dwelling unit it would look more dense is that what you're saying it just might have less relief in terms of open space right thank you Aaron uh yeah I'm supportive um and I think yeah so thanks for this uh suggestion I think it's in line with what we were asking for in the larger overall effort and um I mean I don't feel strongly about your two different approaches um I think either of them

[199:00] could work out I certainly it's easier to administer that helps I mean I was just going by an arm one area earlier today and there was a lot of kind of empty grass margins so like I you know when it's like beautiful productive pollinator Hab habitat that's fantastic but I sometimes are uh previous open space requirments that knows a lot of Kentucky BL grass so you know I'm I'm open to to either approach thank you okay um so the main suggestion that I'm kind of and then we'll kind of take a straw hole to try to give staff some support on on one of these two um but the main suggestion I'm hearing is just to to if there's a place maybe to kind of fit in a a discussion around um Landscaping right um and I I think it's not necessarily here um but I do wonder about that with uh some of the the work clim priority that we got around landscaping and things and so I'm just

[200:00] wondering if that's maybe we could just put a flag in that and potentially come back and um have a deeper discussion around that topic at that point um so folks does let me first ask who's got a strong preference between these two raise your hand if you have a strong preference between these two no strong preference okay um staff does that help you at all if we leave you with no strong preference or would you like us to take a vote on the two I think that's fine we we can probably come back you know with a check-in at some point and kind of see which one we head towards and see if Council agrees okay yep you sure it's not going to slow you down I don't think so okay Taisha I saw you coming off mute did you want to add something I will not relitigate the point okay so does Taisha that Taisha do you not have a s a

[201:01] preference then oh I just don't agree with this recommendation I think that it's easier to I would rather have us not do this and work towards updating our open space policies so that they are productive spaces we need every last one of them if we want to increase our population density we also need to increase how much biodiversity that we have for our Wildlife for the air quality all of the different things and so that is why I keep you know saying you know it's once we get rid of it it's hard to you can't get it back that's basically where I'm going with that and I would actually rather to Lauren's earlier comment have less people and more biodiversity because the more people is is negligible compared to the other suggestions where there's more bang for the proverbial book and I don't want that bang to be um on the back of our planet thank you okay thank you thank you for that yep um okay

[202:02] so anyone else just make sure we've got a majority of people that would like to see this move forward um folks who would like to see this move forward one of the two staff recommendations okay that's a very slim majority okay all right next up then I think we're ready for number three and I'm gonna apologize there is no way we're getting done in in 13 minutes yeah I don't think so this is the medius topic for tonight so we're GNA move into the low density areas um but I don't have to you kind of understand the analysis that we've done so I don't have to reiterate a lot of that but we did look at uh predominantly rl1 and the RR zone so really the focus of this part is the um the yellow and the the really light kind of yellow color on the screen and you can see the

[203:02] gross in net densities throughout the city this is also attached to the packet um when you combine RR and rl1 it's about 28% of the city's land area again this is mostly the single family areas the city this is looking at North Boulder again the yellow the RR and the RL areas you can see the gross in parcel or the pro the gross in net existing on the ground densities are actually quite a bit below um six dwelling units per acre so this was actually a bit surprising to us so it does show that there are Pathways to additional housing in these zones to still be consistent with the comp plan in terms of the numeric you know of the of the density and like I talked about before we're not just looking at the numbers we're looking at the description of those land use uh designations as well as comp plan policy so um you know this if we move forward

[204:02] with this would be a pretty um big change for these areas in terms of additional housing but again we're trying to thread the needle in a way where we're trying to maintain the same uh character so I call attention to the low density residential and very low density residential land use designations and how they're described uh I also on this slide have the the land use description which combines all these areas together and this was actually updated in the phase one where we allowed duplexes and triplexes so we did change it to primarily single family detached Duell units because that's language that's in the comp plan but then says with some duplexes and attached delling units at low and very low residential density so these are all uh important to um you know figure out what's the best way forward to make changes in these areas uh and as we talked about before like the the code

[205:02] used to differentiate between established and developing areas most of these areas have been looked at largely as established uh so again so not a lot of visual change um despite that I think a lot of us can agree that there's been change in these neighborhoods anyway um the houses a lot of single family houses that are smaller have been demolished and replaced by very large homes which have changed the character so you know what we're proposing is probably not visually that you know different as some of some some of these larger homes that have been popping up all around town so that factored into our analysis obviously so as far as alignment with um the complaint in terms of numbers um the folks helping us with the data show that there's actually pretty substantial increasing in in in housing units in these areas that could be done and still

[206:00] within the six dwelling units per acre but we're factoring in the fact that the comp plan talks about these areas being predominantly single family so that has informed our recommendation and what we have highlighted uh in the table so we we look at that and people can look at it differently but that predominantly is going to be more than 50% so what we're suggesting in table two and table three with respect to rl1 and the RR zones is that you could basically do around a 30% increase in housing units in those areas and have the same F that applies to a lot we're not talking about smaller sized Lots you could see more duplexes obviously the massing you know would be pretty similar to some of the large homes we've seen but they'd be a duplex they still would have one driveway like typically the city doesn't allow more than one driveway so they'd have to design it in a way that would be more akin to a single family house so we

[207:01] we feel that these when you factor those together we can um recommend these these particular changes we've also included some maps with these different options just so you can see the number of uh lots that would be eligible under the scenarios so we looked at you know right now the current requirement rl1 is 7,000 square feet of lot area per unit we looked at 5,000 square feet of lot area per unit 4,000 3500 and 3,000 and they all actually would fit within the six dwell units per acre when you look at it through that lens of gross density again this is looking at it in a different way than we've ever looked at it before so I I I want to make that clear um but these correlate to the maps that are attached to your memo I also have them at the end of this presentation so if we do want to reference those we we can go to them we just included on the slide here these these are some renderings of duplexes you know that can be designed

[208:00] to generally appear like single family homes again it's the same um compatible development or bulk measures form bulk setbacks height limits coverage limits all the same requirements would apply to these uh particular l Lots but what we're recommending uh is that you could change the rl1 zone to have 4,000 square feet of of lot area per unit instead of 7,000 we'd be maintaining the lot size minimums for all these zones um 20,000 square feet in the rr1 instead of 30,000 and 15,000 instead of 30,000 in the rr2 um that's what we're recommending um I know in previous ation we've talked about um duplexes on Corner Lots we included a a narrative in the memo about that that it gets a little bit tricky because there's a lot of unusual Road Street curves and some Lots

[209:00] like which ones do we include as Corners it gets a little tricky and we could certainly you know write in the code like criteria for that it just makes it more complicated we're trying to recommend a solution that's pretty straightforward um we also understand that it makes a lot of planning sense to encourage you know more density on Transit corridors so these recommendations or modified recommendations could also be applied just to Transit corridors uh the reason we're going with 4,000 square feet too is just because we understand that certain parts of town even though they're rl1 uh there's a lot of non-standard lots you know that are around 4,000 to 5,000 square fet in size and these tend to be the areas that are a little more congested that might have more parking impact so keeping in mind that this would enable you know more areas that to have a duplex you'd have to have a lot that is um a standard siiz lot it would be have to be 8,000 square feet to have a duplex it wouldn't apply

[210:02] in a the more congested area so we're kind of taking it from that angle that um getting more density in areas that are less dense uh today let's see if there's anything else to add just like we were talking before like we're not expecting that if this ordinance in the future were to pass that everything would automatically you know become a duplex it would be a very gradual change over time so we do feel that because of that because of these designs um it would still be consistent with the bbcp in terms of being predominantly single family and character for for you know well into the future um so that that guides our recommendation so that that concludes this portion thank you uh Lauren then mat so I had a question you said that we could do this um sort of narrow the lots that were allowed to do this on to just

[211:00] Transit corridors um what about just allowing this on maybe like all P Parcels on a Transit Corridor instead of um sort of breaking down by lot size so so that we are adding um more density in areas that really are um where multiple kinds of Transit are available to people I think there's a way to do this where if we specify a corridor you so you're saying just not have a lot area requirement that you just within a certain area of a Transit Corridor you you can have a duplex MH I I think we could we could figure out how many you know duplexes could be possible under this scenario and then squish them into an area and maybe not have that um I

[212:00] think that could be done we'd have to do that analysis I think that would be I would be interested in that just you know based on trying to align um our housing with our Transit corridors I think from the environmental um impact side is an important piece that we're doing at sort of a variety of scales and this would be a good one to do it at as well thank you Matt thank you I appreciate that line of inquiry Lauren that's where I was going to go with one of my my points um first I'll just sort of mention I'm happy to I I was uh certainly advocating for the the duplexes on Corner Lots but I was doing so under the assumptive sort of restrictions of those intensity standards and so to see that that that staff has has found a way to to get us so much more than what corner Lots was able to achieve I'm happy to throw that

[213:00] in the trash because this really ultimately achieves the goal of where I was certainly hoping we'd get so um I think you can you can put a Sharpie on that um and and and toss that and not give it any more thought but thank you for finding a way to get to the intent and actually liberate a lot more space for for some great housing opportunities so just one I wanted to appreciate that and not waste any more brain cells on the corner lot thing um my if you guess my point or my question sort of centers on do we have any sense of how where where's a Tipping Point in terms of stimulating the conversion and or construction into duplexes have we had any analysis on that because I see in the one going from 7,000 to 4,000 and I see that Matrix I'm like oh right 39% that sounds great but have we done an analysis on the sort of construction side and Builder side to be like is that a number that's going to actually really stimulate um us actually achieving those

[214:02] outcomes or or or not and so I'm just wondering if there's a a number that's based on what's going to actually deliver the outcome um that we're Desiring here yeah I I had said this earlier in the discussion that um Kaiser marsten had done an analysis um for large homes and lots um and I'd have to look at their assumptions again but I think their findings were that you know a single family home from a financial standpoint is is much more lucrative than than doing a duplex so they didn't anticipate that this would be a a very popular option we haven't really got to a number where we think that that would make it popular um but that said and I said this earlier I have been getting a lot of inquiries about it like there have been developers and builders that have been contacting me on a weekly basis really since this project started that indicate there's a lot of interest uh in doing duplexes and I do hear from people that

[215:02] you know talk about wanting to have their you know parents be able to live in a joining unit or something and have that option so I think just anecdotally there does seem to be a demand for it even if the numbers don't necess neily speak to that I appreciate that sort of you know reminding us of that part um I think it's key because because candidly I think this is the most suggestion three I think is the most exciting of all these recommendations just for me personally and I think of some of those key goals for our housing so I really appreciate staff really leaning into it and getting creative because um this is really meaningful um and and in terms of attracting and retaining families certainly on the west side of town where we've got some school RS and we have enrollment challenges um I think this goes about as far as we can go until we make changes to the comp plan so I just want to give a lot of credit to to the work to to meet that objective um and I and I'll just circle back to what Lauren was saying I like the idea of Transit

[216:00] corridors and I'm wondering if there's kind of a yes and right I mean we could compress it there but if we can sort of keep where you've got this for rest of rl1 maybe Transit corridors can to to lawren point be just an area that is independent of of square footage and we can uh uh provide that density where we actually have the transit to to accommodate that density immedately so um I I think those are all some great points to move forward with so again thanks for the great work on this is awesome thanks Matt Tina yeah so I'll just um Echo what Lauren was saying about the transit Corridor I'm interested pretty much in the in the transit piece only um just knowing how many car trips are generated by families um unfortunately and hopefully we'll get to another day where that's not the case but I think that um the one thing I liked about the transit bill was it's um just recognizing the

[217:00] reality of how people access Transit is within about a quarter of a mile and I think that's how they set their perimeter so we might want to use some of that language for that as well um and then any way to um encourage some kind of affordability component in this if we can get creative uh and and I don't know how to do it but if we can think about ways to come up with a building um incentive for developers to create more affordable units or whether it's a smaller unit I think that would be great and then the last thing is um when we increase density on the the wooi I think it is the the Wildfire Urban interface just thinking continuing to think about how people will evacuate um as we increase our numbers in that area of town so how do we do the modeling to make sure that um increases in people can be accommodated I think this will be

[218:00] a very slow increase I'm not concerned too much but I also don't want to um not be planning for what's going to be another incident sometime thanks than you Tina aren just a quick clarifying question Carl so the allowing a duplex wouldn't increase the size of the building that's allowed correct it would still need to be the same size you could just have two units in it is that right yeah it' be the same floor area ratio bulk plane solar access coverage requirements everything that applies to single family would still apply right um so yeah thanks uh like um Matt said thanks for pushing this and seeing what we can get done here because um I think that's very promising I do like where Lauren's going about the instead of the original proposal that I'm interested in saying well you could do a duplex as long as it's within a quarter mile of the transit quarter and that

[219:01] could keep us within our bbcp limits or maybe it's not a quarter mile maybe it's slightly less depending on what the numbers come out um but that would allow us to stay within our bbcp limits but Focus some additional intensity where there is more Transit so I I like that approach for tackling this and it does Dev tail neatly with that um priority Council priority right is moving in this direction as well thanks thank you Mark yeah I I I frankly um don't understand what it is we're trying to achieve here in the RL one zone um duplexes are probably going to ca uh or be sold at somewhere around $1.2 million per unit and that's if you're looking at a 1250 SQ foot unit and a 2500 foot building which will cost you a million

[220:01] dollars just to build at at today's prevailing rates so without an an affordability requirement I have no idea what why we consider this to be um a positive social objective to create create you know million 2 million3 uh little two-bedroom uh duplexes if you look at that picture up there that that my number of 1 million2 um is probably very low um if if they're going to build something like that um we're we're just we're just building we're Zoning for density we're not Zoning for any other value that um should be important to us somebody sent to me today a um page from the annual report from the Colorado Coalition for the homeless which says um Supply without affordability does not create more affordable housing and and

[221:03] you know begs us to ensure that there are meaningful affordability Provisions in in bills to address Transit oriented development we're doing none of that we're just saying to Developers um you you can now do more things and sell them at very high prices um we will have no impact whatsoever in the rr1 and rr2 zones um I don't have any problem with reducing the the lot size from 30,000 to 20,000 ft but you're only going to get very large houses you're going to get very expensive houses um because the price at which somebody is going to uh have to to pay to acquire that lot is going to require them to build an expensive house and in most of the rl1 zones um even a 4,000 foot lot is going to permit them to build a house um large enough that it's going to be in

[222:01] the mid ones uh from a purchase price so what exactly is it that we are trying to do here if we are trying to to do something that will enhance affordability we need to start to address affordability um we're not doing that this this is just um Zoning for density and we can discuss it all we want but that's that's the the true impact of it there are there are no houses that are going to be built by developers um that are going to be attainable by um anyone who works for the city or is a first responder um and we can try to package it any way we want we've had a what have a discussion on how can we name it in a way that will make it more appealing well naming something to be more appealing without addressing the substance of what you're doing um has no meaning okay that's just marketing uh and we ought to look at the

[223:02] substance of what we're doing not how we present it to the community um and so this is not uh Zoning for accessibility or affordability or any other term that you want to use this is basically zoning um to permit developers to create very expensive housing and more of it and so this is this is not satisfactory as an approach to me um if we're going to do density um and we can make a good argument that density is an appropriate uh thing to do in a number of instances we ought to get something for it not million3 um um duplexes thank you thank you Mark terara well I guess I'm torn because I can see both sides on one hand um what

[224:00] we don't have in some of our neighborhoods close to the mountains are houses that are a million two or million three we only have two three four million do houses and that's why in my opinion we have so few families because very few families can afford that personally I think I mean it takes a long time in your life of saving up money to be able to afford that so I can see the benefit of you know making some of those lots where we right uh right now have giant homes into duplexes I I see that point but it'll only be affordable for people that can afford a million 2 a million three granted that's just something that's a reality that we have to decide as a council is that good enough because that's what we're going to get and no better the question is I guess is is that something that is that a price point that we actually need in this town

[225:01] I mean that's a good question do because we have an awful lot as far as I know awful lot of single family homes that are two three4 million so that's my question and I I'm just throwing it out there into the ether as Matt would say because I'm curious um what people's opinions are on that if we're trying to increase our school enrollment how do we get families and by the way my my family lives in a one of my kids and her husband and their two kids lives in a three-bedroom condo by fair viiew and that's all they can afford and they fit in there to me those are the kind of places that we need more of right now they're going to cost a million to a million three period because there's no way to make them more affordable I mean in this market so I'm just curious what people have to say about that meaning I I'm torn oh yeah yeah go ahead go ahead Tina

[226:01] I I just want to um just talk about the idea that one of our goals as a council is to increase School enrollment and I think that if that is something we want to do we should have a broader conversation about the different things that Impact Family amilies and one of them is Early Child Care the the cost of that and there are different levers we can pull to help with that um and I think housing is also a huge one but I would I would love to have a more expansive discussion because we could do other things faster that might help out families that's it right thank you um Tara I I think what I heard in your question was uh something that might come around in the engagement stage as well as you're interested in hearing from the rest of us that haven't spoken yet did I capture yes and also I'm very interested in bringing that to the community and what you're exactly right I'm torn because I'm not sure what the community would say and where you know where there's more of a majority of

[227:02] opinion on it yeah thank you so you're eager for engagement before you decide thank you uh Taisha yes thank you so much um you know again I I can see the benefit of having um higher density in these lower density areas um and to the Mark's earlier point and and Tina as well which is the affordability side so to have what is it s can you say you got muted to have seven recommendations and zero of them actually meaningly affect affordability when it when the title of this item is zoning for affordability just feels disingenuous so that's just from a trust perspective in community like as a community member if I read

[228:01] that and I'm like affordability amazing and then I start reading the document I'm like wait wait wait wait wait right that just it it it it's not you know again we need to title things to to what they are and to Mark's point suggestion this is actually Zoning for density and that's not a bad thing we want density right that's one of the things that we say we want but um another thing that I heard on the campaign Trail and that we talked about at the retreat was affordability and to me again this seems disingenuous if it doesn't have that affordability component both permanent affordable housing and other forms of uh affordability so um again this suggested to me um without a affordability a meaningful affordability component is not one that I could support thank you thank you and Aon just real quick and answer to to Tara's question just that um if if a lot currently allows a 3,000 foot home and you can only do a

[229:00] single family home with it that single family home would be far far more expensive than the two duplexes that you could now put in there if we change this right so it's not it's not affordable housing with a capital A the two duplexes will be much much cheaper than the one single family home that is currently the only thing that you could build so I would just say that would be the benefit of pursuing this policy I just I'm sorry just to I I to Mark's point I mean the calculations even in the hotline again I I think actually you raised a even broader question for me is I would love us to revisit the terms and how we're defining these terms because obviously and I'm you know others who have already done this in previous councils sorry apparently this took three councils to get here right um but but language matters and how we Define things matter we had a whole conversations about chronic nuisance and how important it was to have Clarity and I think we need to have Clarity here this is something I also brought up um

[230:00] at The Retreat the need to revisit these terms and be very clear and do them in a way that regular folk can understand not real just real estate folk this I Ami and the some some some percentage what is it um in a way that is very very clear so um yeah I just wanted to to to say that you know again 1.5 still takes out that that's not a offer a police officer salary that's not a teacher salary that's not a a nurse salary that would get you that type of house so I just want to want to be very clear on even at a duplex cost that that would not be the socioeconomic stretch that we're talking about when we say affordability thank you um and Mark I saw your hand go up is this the cqu to the cqu or you're muted though we can't to the I don't know if that works okay um

[231:00] just a very quick example the last uh duplex I saw marketed was I don't know about a year or so ago was on Spruce Street it was two duplexes at about, 1450 Square fet each and they each were being marketed at about a million5 uh and they both sold um that to me is not achieving any of our social objectives with respect to duplexes and I think that's what we're going to get and I I you know my question I ask is well what are we doing and why are we doing it if that's the result um where's the benefit thank you thank you Mark and uh Ryan and then I've got been sitting on pins and needles waiting to make my comments two okay two quick things I uh would just generally agree with what I've heard Aaron um mayor Brockett and council member fulker say on this that's my first thing second thing is um

[232:01] Council rer asked uh what what people think and this has kind of become a sprawling policy conversation so I'll just make make one or two points um first I'd like to come to defensive I forgot who who talked about our language but I what I took from the discussion earlier was that there are fundamentally different goals we can have and um when we talk about middle housing and in some cases that refers to the cost of the housing the financial cost other cases and aptly today we're focusing on the form of middle housing that is of between the large single family home and condos and that give different divers more diversity of of ways to live for more people including parents and families and seniors and others and so um I I identify with that conversation earlier I think we we should be we should be focused and I think this is really what council member Wallock was

[233:00] getting at is what are we trying to achieve and so I would associate my interest in part with that and that by itself has has value I also think um and I didn't actually come into this with the a full analytical thought on on goals but I I do think with part of density is that it is a it is a precondition for more uh and better functioning public transit it is a factor in people's accessibility and be in being able to live closer to the where they need to go with less Reliance on a the expenses of a motor vehicle and and both of those are are um inputs into more affordability I'm not I'm not saying that's it and you know clearly the the home price is the very top thing but um I just I I have to say on this subject of well if all we care about is density well would just like to offer that density actually does bring its benefits towards affordability manage it strategic way so that's that's I have thanks great um thank you Ryan and okay

[234:03] I just have um one one question Carl for you around this and just kind of again getting to Tina's Point around the time scale of the changes so um I live in South Boulder there are so many reasonable homes reasonable sized homes that were here um when I first moved in about 15 years ago um that are now giant massive Homes single family homes it's taken about 15 years to get there um still maybe just a quarter of the homes if that maybe 20% that have become these kind of giant behemoths do you anticipate that this type of change would happen over a similar time scale so that you know we're talking like 15 20 plus years out before we start kind of noticing that things are changing I mean that seems reasonable to me I mean again the hope is that it's not that noticeable as a small house going to a big house um and whether that many people choose to do duplexes it's hard to say

[235:01] but yeah I think that's the timeline that we're really looking at here okay thank you um and then just kind of to to my comments um I wouldn't really want to do this just along Transit corridors unless we're absolutely having to for some reason with the density calculations um because these giant homes really are changing the character of the neighborhoods and sorry Lauren for using that term but in in ways that are making them more exclusive and way more expensive than you know even a one and a half million dollar duplex um developers are building more very expensive housing right now um and it feels like this may be a way to kind of get get a foot in the door a little bit here um I think you know I really hear people's um questions and concerns about affordability and I think this is why it is so important that when we're talking about these issues we're clear on what type of affordability we are talking about and so staff I'm wondering if there's a way if you can come up with some language for us that is better um Mark it's not really about you know

[236:00] trying to um um thinking of the wrong sorry it's getting late enough that my my brain isn't working but we're not trying to fleece the community um it's really just about what are the expectations that we each each of the nine of us have that the community has that staff has when we're using these terms um it's kind of Taisha to your point about just Clarity of language clearly this is violating some of our expectations when we're talking about affordability um what what the reason that I asked about affordability earlier in the definition um for staff is that that what I heard staff say is that these things are focused on that that sort of putting the breaks on the skyrocketing cost of how housing that we're seeing and I it was in some memo that the last Council saw um staff had sent us a bunch of amazing wonderful research papers and in some of those research papers it talked about how measures like this they they don't lead to short-term affordability they're

[237:00] not going that is not the mechanism for doing that and if policy makers are looking for that kind of affordability we're looking at things like um you know housing vouchers and and supports in other ways that are getting us to uh to affordability for the community while some of these other mechanisms that are putting the brakes on these skyrocketing costs are getting there and and that um I'm wondering if within some of the financial uh strategic plan as we're thinking about ways to um get more funding for some of the things we need in the city if that's a place where we might be able to um think about what are the types of incentives and and those kinds of things that we are um bringing in to to create actual affordability right sorry not actual affordability but affordability at that 30% of income or um less um level or more deed restricted um permanent affordable housing so um anyway so that's that's where I'm at and

[238:00] tell you I saw your hand go up I mean I definitely hear you on that um and I I definitely appreciate those insights I think for me it's just a $1.5 million house you would need to make $280 $8,000 and a bvsd teacher who's been working for more than 15 years makes 75 so when I'm saying we're really like and to your point like I hope we can clarify these terms and really have a robust discussion because one of the things we heard in affordability the affordability to buy a home and so this is the other piece as somebody when I'm thinking Miss Missing middle I'm thinking of people like myself who are renters who have lived here for a long time and who want to buy a home and want to you know mve into that level and and is not able to and so again I just um you know again $1.5 million for this level of effort without having any kind any kind of affordability component around some of the things it just it

[239:03] feels like we're again putting a lot of focus in one area and then you know one we're not having the the convers the complimentary conversation um and or uh so yeah that that's the piece that I'm really struggling with with with this component so again I can get excited about us moving from single family to duplexes 100% but this doesn't change the the um issue of Working Families being able to live in the city of Boulder families like teachers thank you thank you um and Matt I saw your hand go up and I we've got four more of these yeah I I I I I just I mean for clarity I think we're kind of talking a bit past each other here a little bit and I think it's just worth sort of grounding ourselves on two parts here and and reminding phase one was very much focused on affordability and there was a lot of progress made on the phase one of this work to address affordability even

[240:02] though it carries the same name this work is not that and so to have a duplex that's 1.5 surrounded by homes that are two and three million is a tremendous gain of affordability but in a way that also makes it more accessible there are plenty of families that are moving to our sister cities that are spending perhaps that much money on a big single family home but would much rather be in our community and can take those compromises to do so and so I think as much as we do want to focus on our service workers our teachers our nurses and our firefighters and police offers we have to do that work yes and think about how do we lower the barrier of Entry so that to get into the west side of Boulder it's not just two million or bust how we lower that and make it a little bit more accessible to get into our community so I think it's a yes and issue and I don't think we need to uh choose a path where one is at the cost of the other and I think we got to find a way to figure out how to do both of these because they both are critically important to building a foster to foster

[241:00] a community that has vibrancy on all sides of of the coin okay thank you Matt um let me just summarize some of the feedback that I've heard and then we can just take a quick straw poll on the suggestion um so possibly doing this more broadly along Transit corridors uh either instead of um the the current recommendation or in addition to um I Heard a a desire for considering um things like fire evacuation and how we're how we're fitting this into our some of our emergency plans um let's see uh just general questions that I think maybe are for other uh other discussions what concurrent work can go on to influence that 30% affordability or deed restricted affordable um and then I heard a question that was a real clear question around I think this is engagement research kind of stuff um do we need the price point where this will be at is that a price point that that is needed in the city um and then uh again

[242:01] this issue of how we're defining affordability and talking about it came up and so I think that it's probably a theme among all of this um okay so yes Erin I would just add the I think there's interest in renaming the effort yes yeah and that that was sorry so to be more clear right that that we are defining and even this work um in affordability terms that we can all understand maybe clarifying goals it would be a way to put that this isn't just about messaging this is about clar you know syncing our goals with our with our message thanks that that's a really great Point you're right um I did hear a couple people mentioned that too okay um folks in favor of uh again and this is not a we're we're deciding on this tonight it is moving forward to outreach and engagement um folks in favor please raise your hands of moving forward to outreach and engagement correct yeah y okay I got that there all

[243:02] right I'm gonna vote for both sides tonight that's fine we I think even even with that with you on both sides we had enough okay so it is nearly 10 o'clock folks um we still have four to get through uh Carl I'm going to ask that you might do the presentations on each of these um Al together um because I think this is uh and then and then we will kind of take some straw Pooles give some comments um afterwards thank you okay I'll I'll go through the the next options which are I think easier um and then we can go back and do yeah the straw Poes so the next one kind of dubils a little bit with this convers ation on on the affordability aspect there there was one council member um at the last discussion that asked that we look at uh additional restrictions in low density areas uh as like a condition of approval basically that's similar to like what we

[244:00] do with accessory dwelling units today and that's like having looking at some sort of owner occupancy requirement if someone were to create a duplex on their lot like there would have to be some sort of restriction on on the additional unit um that's something that we were asked to look at and and make a recommendation on so um you know it's pretty common for owner occupancy requirements to be applied to adus it's not very common in our research um for it to be applied to a principal unit like a duplex um we did look around it was mentioned uh to look at Glennwood Springs Glennwood Springs uh we've been in contact with them they they were looking at having this type of requirement but they ended up moving away from it in instead having some sort of like restriction on Workforce housing um they moved away from owner occupancy finding that there were social Equity issues with that um the only other two

[245:01] examples that we found that were kind of along these lines were um a California state bill that enabled smaller lots to have a duplex if they had an owner occup requirement we haven't followed up with them on you know how that's working uh St Paul also had something similar um I think our analysis is that you know this particular option is kind of counter to the goal of the project to encourage housing um this would just create another barrier um there is obviously you know some issues like investment properties coming in to buy up these properties you know some some of that could be slowed down by having these requirements but it would require a lot of Staff monitoring uh it would require um staff to administer there would be permitting delays um so this is a number of concerns that we have about this um so we're we're not recommending approval of this option finding that it's not

[246:00] consistent with the original goals of the project we can we can come back and and talk more about this after um I'll move on to the next one these the next ones are are relatively straightforward so last time we did the ordinance we staff had proposed um maybe exempting missing middle housing from the site review process that ended up not getting incorporated into the ordinance rather uh Council just asked us to rethink it uh should we do this um and we were also asked to reach out to the centers for people with disabilities to see what they thought about if there was more of a promotion of missing middle housing and with the concern that a lot of missing middle housing um doesn't necessarily have accessibility requirements um for you know disabled folks and so we did reach out to them they did express some concern you know our thought is that you know there's already incentives in the code that

[247:01] we've already built in for metal housing there doesn't necessarily have to be an additional incentive um So based on what we heard back from the centers for people with disabilities and how the the building code you know specifies accessibility requirements um which often don't apply to these housing types we're not recommending this option move forward either as an alternative we're putting it out there that maybe we should be thinking again about exempting 100% permanently affordable projects from site review we already do have an administrative process that applies a lot of the design criteria that apply through site review uh we think that that could work um it would also help Us in working towards meeting some of the provisions uh and goals of proposition 123 um so that's what we're suggesting here is maybe we get rid of the missing middle exemption and rather change it to exempting out 100% permanently permanently affordable uh developments

[248:00] from site review so I'll move on I'm not going to read everything on this slide we were we were asked to look at the um site review thresholds again see if we could remove some of the number of of units um as to not disincentivize adding additional units um so we're we're proposing the changes that are up on the slide um a lot of it's just getting rid of the the dwelling unit language and changing it to uh floor floor area or or acreage um we also are looking at the BC zones the BT zones like business zones and the industrial zones and just lowering the threshold to no threshold the reason we're suggesting that is that these are areas that um are moving into more of a mixed use era based on some of the use standards changes that we've done and those might be sites where we want to have more flexibility or developers might want to have added flexibility and also have the ability to allow height modifications you know for

[249:01] more permanently affordable housing and projects so we're suggesting that the threshold be just lowered down to to zero that they can just come in with a site review if they want to ask for one um so that's kind of the gist of of this slide certainly can answer questions on this um we also took a second look at the um research and development definition in the code the way we passed it or the council passed it in uh fall of last year was that in order to encourage more mixed use in industrial zones there's an a there's a higher f for residential if you integrate it with a project that has R&D or light industrial uses in it and the the purpose of that was to encourage residential and encourage preservation or incorporation of industrial uses in the industrial zones um and we were asked to basically figure out whether we should

[250:00] be promoting R&D in these zones and whether we should be allowing all light industrial zones our thinking is that there's no harm in keeping R&D as a use to be promoted with residential um there's no you know penalty for them to not do Residential from an F perspective and if they want to do Residential on site they get more floor area by doing it so it would encourage mixed use uh we did look at light industrial uses broadly and found that maybe there's some light industrial uses that shouldn't be integrated with residential so therefore the bulleted list on the bottom is are are the uses that we would recommend we narrow it down to to be uses that you could mix with residential again it would stay with the industrial character of those zones but would have the the the residential component so we're we're recommending this change to keep R&D and to narrow the list down to these uh bulleted

[251:00] uses um do you want me to go on to next steps or should we talk over these um let's maybe go through these uh quickly and then I think next steps will be a good way to um wrap up so the first two I think four and five um staff was recommending that we not move forward with this um with these two um do folks have any questions they would like to have answered or comments Tina yes um I am so I am really going to be advocating for ownership opportunities and would like to just not give up on this idea that we're going to provide the same Financial Security uh to more people in Boulder rather than less we're at 53% of a rental market at this point and we and we're college town so that has part of it um but I would like to if we're going to be doing engagement to the community I'm wondering if there's a way even if we

[252:00] don't pursue suggestion for specifically can we probe just the concept of ownership especially when we talk about if you're you know if you're living outside of the city and we can offer you a town home but it's going to be a rental can we compete with an ownership opportunity in Longmont or tono wherever it is and so that's the question I'm trying to get at because I my sense is that our lack of ownership opportuni is a big problem um and I don't I don't want to lose this thread thank you Tina anyone else on this one and I'll just come in and say to the point of ownership I just again I I understand we may have done some obviously some critical work before but to have seven additional suggestions and none of them have a meaningful affordability component just

[253:01] and and and by that in this instant I actually do mean ownership um and so you know I just would like to see this component added in a deeper consideration throughout the work that we're doing here thank you stage one sorry can you say that last word I'm sorry TAA I thought you were done no worries I was saying it shouldn't just be in stage one I would imagine affordability and the kind that we're talking about both in ownership and at every level should be in every stage that we're talking about thank you you um so I what I hear here is uh um well sorry anybody um so what I'm hearing here is that there is a desire for the engagement phase to include um some just questions around ownership um and how folks feel about that ownership opportunities um but I was going to ask if uh if there's a majority

[254:01] of folks who want to go forward with the staff recommendation but Ain you've got your hand up oh yeah just go for the stold please yep all right um before you do the straw poll I think I don't quite understand I wish I did or maybe it's late what we're straw polling so we're straw pulling the staff recommendation so who would like to follow the staff recommendation that we not move forward with this one I wna go I want to go with Tina on this one okay um so staff it looks like we uh we do have a majority that would like you to explore this one all right next up number

[255:00] five so this is getting rid of the middle housing exemption and going with a 100% permanently affordable exemption from site review anybody have a burning question on this one yes Tina uh would we talk about accessibility standards do we have those for our single family homes um no okay and so they apply they apply when it's more than five units in the building or if there's two units that are actually on top of each other okay um and and I don't want to move forward with this but I also want to make sure that we are doing what we can to encourage the development of middle housing types so um including in the review process but I I wouldn't want to give up accessibility but just to make

[256:00] sure that we can that it's not penalized the development isn't penalized during the process if that makes any sense Nicole you're muted sorry just gonna turn it over to you eron all right thanks um yeah agree with not moving forward with the original proposal but I really appreciate staff bringing the recommendation to exempt 100% peral affordable developments from site review I've been wanting to do this for many many years I really appreciate this recommendation and this is tied to affordability and uh so I really excited to support that recommendation yep thank you um so then let's take a stop that we not pursue this option but um that we pursue uh the uh second statement about exempting the 100% permanently affordable everyone in favor of that all

[257:01] right thank you moving on to is the site review thresholds Nicole you're muted have a question about this one yes Erin and also um oh see that Mark Mark just got back in thank you um Erin oh I just appreciate how you all dug in into the Weeds on this thing and so don't don't have any anything but support you Tera you know I this is terrible to say but I just want to go back to that last uh question I'm so sorry and just tell me um if if somebody could tell me what

[258:02] would be the detriment to doing uh to exempting 100% permanently affordable developments from site review what would be the negative consequences of that before I say yes I might take back my yes even though it probably doesn't matter I think our concerns in the past were that you know site review is a value ad process in terms of design quality and making sure that the design is you know looks good in the outcome in the last few years um an administrative process has been developed for those types of pro projects that apply much of the same uh criteria so we're we're expecting that those would undergo the same design process but it wouldn't be as lengthy it wouldn't be as expensive it's meant to um allow these projects to move through easier because I do I'm glad to hear that because I do definitely think we need to have some um we need to have

[259:03] some sort of control over the design aspect we can't just let it be a free-for-all in the design world so you're tell telling me that I can be relaxed about that yes okay all right back to number six anyone else have any comments or questions there all right um everyone in favor of staff's recommendations on number six moving forward to engagement Outreach coming back to us eventually okay that's a clear majority there thank you and and the last one number seven are there any questions or comments about number seven as it comes out yes

[260:00] terara I'm really sorry to ask so many questions it's such a late time um what would be the negative I'm concerned that we lose some of our you know it always wins you always make more money with um residential so how will we not lose the um light Industrial in the R&D if we do this well I mean that was part of the reason why we created this provision which is already in the code we' just be modifying it here um right now in the industrial zones you can build up to like a0 five or a six of light industrial that that's the maximum um this provision would require that at least 0 three of these light industrial uses be incorporated into a project in order to get additional residential F so it theoretically would would allow a certain component of the project like

[261:00] you know a fair percentage to to be light industrial still rather than just allowing if you just did residential you get a lower F so you do it's 1.0 F if you do Residential uh alone and then if you do the non-residential on the slide you can go up to 1.23 of all residential so there is a floor area bump that you get uh by incorporating the light industrial uses you're you're muted Tara I said you might as well be speaking a different language with your what I probably would say that better at 7 pm but than 10 p.m but Lauren I have a question for Lauren I hope this is okay Lauren you know how I feel about keeping our allied industrial businesses in Boulder will this affect it in your

[262:00] opinion are you still you up still I am still up I am tired because I'm in the desert and being in the sun all day apparently it's killing my brain cells but um yeah I think that this will it allows us to keep some these R&D and indust light industrial uses and also do some residential along with that which I think is um a good way to go because we're not sacrificing one or the other okay thanks you um anybody have any uh other suggestions or feedback on this one yes Mark oh you're muted yes it's it is very late um and we're all tired so I'm I'm I'm losing

[263:01] the the train of thought on this one what is the point of narrowing the list of light manufacturing uses specific categories yeah I I went through slide pretty quickly so the reason we just took another look at all the the the language that's in the code right now just says R&D and any light um industrial uses but some of the those uses are like you know heavy manufacturing you know things that have a lot of impact on residential uses so it just didn't make sense to have all of them so we went line by line and just try to figure out what are the the light industrial uses that we want to promote and one that we didn't think would be too detrimental to residential if they were on the same site so that's why we narrowed it so I a plumbing business would not be included here would it not I'd have to to look at the code and see what a plumbing business would fall

[264:03] under what about somebody who's got a shop making Artisan furniture that be in or or not in I think a lot of those just fall under the light manufacturing definition again we I'd have to go and look at each of the definitions okay we just excluded the ones that could have impact okay I'm I'm just concerned that we've created a specific list and things outside that list are not going to be permitted and so and but yeah we can take a broader look at that and okay maybe you could show us what's not permitted that would help right Mark y let let's let's you know let's look at this again when when we have some RS that we can devote to it yes and feedback and all of that um okay

[265:00] so I think the only suggestion coming out of this one is just we would prefer um we would like to have some clarity on what all included here um some specific examples so we can point to when this comes back but uh it sounds like every well sorry raise your hands um for the staff recommendation if you are in favor of moving forward with it to outreach and engagement okay excellent we have made it through the seven um Carl I know you had some next steps yeah real quick okay okay next steps um if I can read this so obviously following the C from tonight we're going to move forward with with the options that Council has asked us to move forward with um we'll refine those and then we're going to start figuring out the best way to do um the community engagement we'll be working with our communication staff um and and looking at uh different methods of of getting out uh word on this and getting

[266:02] feedback and then we're going to be updating our housing Advisory Board and planning board um on this project and what directions we're headed I expect that we'll probably have some sort of check-in with Council uh to report back at some point maybe later in the summer um our goal at this point is really to try to start drafting uh ordinances maybe by the fall and and targeting you know maybe October November time frame um for an ordinance so with that um I don't know if there was anything else related to the project Charter the goals and objectives the scope I I've heard you know the the comments about maybe rebranding this and rethinking some of the um components of the project but um anything else we're missing what I might suggest to colleagues is uh given the state of everyone's and staff's brains right now um as you have other if there's anything else that comes up maybe um send that in

[267:02] an email to Carl just please within a a reasonable time um like let's try to get it within the next few days um okay then I think that is it just uh whoever is on CAC with Aaron and me when this comes back um please please please uh let's let's do more than 90 minutes scheduling for this so we don't 30 uh sign off um but thank you so much to everyone Brad thank you Carl thank you thanks to your team um Chris and and Chris and um Mark thanks for stepping in tonight uh thanks colleagues um this is great work and really excited to continue these discussions and here what the community thinks too um with no other items on tonight's agenda I will close this 23 p.m. thank you all so much take care everybody good night everybody