June 22, 2022 — Housing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:00] tiffany there she goes. All right now, you go now, you can go. Okay. Do they have meaning for June 20 way to me will be recorded. and Michael the changes of the Chair start with our roll call. So phil Program. here. Julia boone. Have you muted, but I can tell me. I hear you Julian ramsey. yeah great great to see you Terry POPs. Jen lubitsch. Ever ever ever gotten remember is that everybody. Danny Danny okay i'm, of course, my vice chair. Oh yeah I think he's gonna be sharper this meeting Danny dated or.

[1:04] Okay, well, we do have a quorum and we will proceed. To start by welcoming the new comprehensive planning manager for planning and development services, Christopher Johnson way understand has been on the job for all of six weeks, you might say, I Christopher. Sure happy to do so thank you Eric housing Advisory Board. I am I am new to the city here in Sydney organization. And older been on the job for about six weeks, it is a bit of a mouthful the comprehensive planning manager and planning and development services, but essentially what I will do is is lead our long range Planning Team. Historic preservation also wildlife planning as well and I come here with the history, most recently working for the last five years in the city. And county of Denver did a lot of zoning regulations and updates in the downtown area and also.

[2:00] What is responsible for integrating their new mandatory affordable housing program into the zoning code and updating any existing incentives that were in was running in Denver so. certainly have an interest in and a little bit of experience portable housing so i'm excited to continue continue that for here and. make requests that we, when someone else's speaking everyone else mute because I don't know if you guys are getting feedback, or if it's just me but I had a little bit of trouble hearing Christopher I can make it out, but I got some feedback. yeah having that too yeah I think if we all mute while someone's talking, we should be good thanks. Thanks Chris. Thank you for pointing that out Juliet. We have another new city persons introduce holly hendrickson holly please say hi and i'll mute along with everyone else. Hello everyone nice to be here. yeah I started just, I think, maybe three weeks ago, so I have be Christopher by just a bit here.

[3:05] i'll be working with Jay pretty closely on the planning and policy stuff right now he has tasked me with some middle income work. Potentially at you kind of like all the things in the hopper I think i'll be helping J with. And I come from a background from the private sector, so I was working at a consulting swan consulting firm called today consulting. Working in affordable housing and Community development so i'm you know very familiar with the space and the issues involved, though, because i'm glad to be here and happy to kind of learn about all that you do here. holy mentioned your role with the habitat as well. Oh yes, it was I was on the. Board of habitat for humanity this letters. flatters being of habitat humanity, and you know just left that this month, as a result of this new position so yeah.

[4:02] Great and I welcome I missed that part about your work in the private sector, did you mention, in particular position that you held. yeah it was a project manager at TV a consulting I don't know it's a pretty small firm and working all over the US. cool fantastic well I know we also have john gorilla the planning board on the call he is the liaison between the planning board and have and welcome john it's always good to see. I can. review the agenda so we've already gone through Adams one and two on the agenda and three is reviewing the agenda for will be reviewing and approving the Minutes. Five, we will have an opportunity for public participation, with three minutes, we will can comment on more to say about that in a moment. We have matters from the Board is number six i've drafted a letter for habs consideration to vote on, to make a recommendation to.

[5:03] counsel. And we'll be reviewing the EU regulations and chasing net or on staff liaison will be leading that discussion, then we'll have number seven management, the staff. debrief the meeting and do a calendar tech make sure everyone has the next meeting on their calendar and return, I hope, no later than 9pm. So with that. I think you've all had a chance to see the Minutes do every motion to approve the Minutes from May 25 2022. I moved to put them up the Minutes. Okay now look like a second from a second very good Thank you all in favor of approving the may 25 22 Minutes say I like. Okay, thank you, item five.

[6:00] Public station, do we have any members of the public year to participate okay Well, this is interesting, we had some disruptions. From this portion of the meeting last month and Jay and I and Danny have discussed this won't happen again will be staying the rules of engagement, very clearly it's being meetings and take action if we need to if there are disruptive comments, but that won't happen tonight, thank God. That brings us to Item six. letter to counsel urging action on to page two and the planning reserve, this is something I talked about with Danny drafted about a month ago. People weren't quite ready to review it last month and send it out a couple of times this month with some comments and love to have some discussion on that and see if we were ready to vote on that and actually send a recommendation to Council.

[7:15] don't usually have a comment does something. Like the teacher had to call somebody. i'm sorry i'm you you sent it to my personal email set of my boulder email have to have to send that to you after the meeting I just having a little trouble locating it at the moment, this is the. This is the draft of the letter. To city council. Sorry. Yes. letter I tried to age both and. That Jay has advised me to send out to everyone individually, I think, know. Philip it's actually in the packet. that's right.

[8:01] So it's right after the minute. my apology. Oh yeah it's like the one thing in the packet. Okay. Well, if folks haven't had a chance to read, yet I would suggest that you take a minute to read it, but I don't agree have a long meeting and not put off discussing it. Time question. yeah thanks for letting me spout off a little bit I read this and. certainly understand the the motivation and the reason for sending it. From a practical viewpoint, I, I think that the planning development of the planning reserve and the transit village area plan to are very significantly different. activities and will lead to and require different processes to move ahead with so I was just thinking that it may be useful to separate the letter or at least separate the discussion of each of those two area areas.

[9:20] development processes. For example, I think the TV APP to is is far more likely to move ahead quickly than the current than the than the planning reserve activities, and it may be useful for you just to indicate that you're aware of that and by by separating your discussion of those two. Proposals so so that's all. it's an interesting comment, the thinking that behind this is that both both processes are fairly long, and you know you need to take a first step to get the ball rolling and either one but i'm certainly be open to.

[10:09] separating the letters and ending it into part one, part two, it seems like a reasonable. Duncan anyway, not. Not being one of the signatories here or. Right right, I understand. it's just my two bits worth. yeah yeah and that's a thoughtful comment, I appreciate it. um I don't have much to say about it, I am. I guess I guess the the comment that john just made. seems. I guess I don't know like what we expect City Council to do with this like like that it's not like their hands are tied with respect to. Approving the letter or not approving it or proving half of it, you know it's I think it's.

[11:05] it's it's a recommendation that we're making and it includes two bullet points and I don't know, to me it feels. Like you know being being someone who's who's never watched how these letters of recommendation work and what what ends up with them my my kind of naive point of view is that it's it's fine, as is. Julia do you have a comment. My comment is this is this is out of my area of expertise and I think we're recommend recommending counsel to think about spending money on consultants without really knowing what. That costs and what else is going on and what other considerations, the Council has so I to me it's I would abstain from voting on this because I don't I don't necessarily.

[12:00] See i'm pretty ambivalent about it, about whether this is even something worth putting forth, to the Council as a recommendation. that's my my opinion. I believe we did have some discussion about. juliette's point. That there would have to be consultants engaged and. You know that's part of the process to set the technical. Get the get the technical standards going to make things happen. You want to reiterate, I mean you're really the expert on this one what we discussed Juliet may have missed one of those meetings. yeah I mean I think what I recall from the discussion that Michael landon the last couple of meetings is that this is already a Council priority both of these projects. it's you know, two of the 10 and.

[13:03] The discussion earlier was these two because they have such a long lead time and all the consultants that work that has to happen. That it's important to get it going sooner rather than later. And you know Council already went through that the process of trying to determine priorities and which are more important versus less important, and they basically identified, you know all 10. hasn't important so that's the only context, I can not really offer Julie and I don't know if that helps. yeah I mean, I guess, so what you're saying Michael is, we should, from our perspective, we should recommend these as a higher priority than the others, I guess, I don't feel like it and I don't want to put words in your mouth. But if that's what you're suggesting I don't I don't know that i'm qualified to make that recommendation based on having a full broad understanding of where the other priorities rank and honestly, from a budgetary standpoint it's it's hard for me to know I.

[14:09] i'm always some. careful about when it comes to making recommendations to spend money. Right well. I think we have had this discussion about where can we get the most. Where can we achieve the most progress on creating a future for missing middle housing and that's kind of where this conversation is gone. Looking at those seven Council priorities and narrowing them down a little bit to say yeah this is this is have parity counselors identify that and Here are two specific areas we think you should focus on. I think it's actually a fairly. You know innocuous step. At the same time, it shows that we are aligning with the Council and trying to help them sort out their priorities, so I think it's worth considering.

[15:10] And we're not recommending you know spend $100,000. You know you have to read between the lines to. unpack that conclusion, but you know reality is that that's going to have to happen for progress to. move forward on any of these projects are these two particular big ones. Doing and you have anything good. Oh, I don't really have anything big to say about it, I guess, I started off being a little bit confused with the hiring consultants stuff, but it makes sense if that's like. One of the first steps here and um yeah, I guess, since they have like 10 things on their priority list i'm glad that we're outlining a couple of the ones that we think are the most important yeah.

[16:14] and Michael just so happens that. You know, Christopher is the going to be the one leading both of those efforts, so I mean you could also ask him his thoughts about how this fits into. Well, it would be useful to everybody and Giuliana and new board member. They just love to get your perspective on. You know, really quick outline of the process to. eventually achieve some of these goals for creating more missing mill housing these two particular size. yeah sure and. Take what I say, with a slight grain of salt, since this is all new information to me as well, but um, you know as Jay mentioned city council's already identified 10 priority projects for.

[17:07] You know, essentially this year and next year we we in our comprehensive planning group have already identified both of these on our work plans coming forward it's likely that the. boulder junction or transit village area plan phase two will move forward sooner than the planning reserved study and I think actually Mr Garcia made a good. distinction between these two things in terms of you know, the TV APP to study will. is much more robust it's a you know it's already in urbanized site it's redevelopment potential there's transit available in that location, so all of those things are going to. enable that process to move forward, much more quickly the planning reserve study is really at this moment, it is, it is a very sort of foundational study of.

[18:07] What it's going to take to extend municipal services, both in sort of hard infrastructure, roads, water, electricity, etc. And the more programmatic infrastructure things like schools fire police etc, so the planning reserve study is very. very technical at this point, and really won't get into a lot of discussion about uses or affordable housing or parks or you know any of those kinds of things it's really more about. Just the the sort of fundamental infrastructure that would be required for that area to even develop at some point in you know, future generations, so the the phase two of boulder junction is really, I think, where our primary focus is going to be, you know, over the next 1824 months.

[19:03] Thank you, Christopher. Well, one thing I meant to announce earlier. lubavitch has resigned from the board she felt. There were just too much going on with their organization feed forward and she needed to focus on that so it's likely we will be six for a while. Giving juliet's. comment I know. I can foresee that we're not going to pass this recommendation tonight, but I would love to have a discussion about revising it which i'd be happy to do, maybe taking a giant gorilla suggestion or another tag. Do you think it's important to let people know that we're paying attention and on board on these issues, but you know it doesn't happen have to happen tonight.

[20:03] Is that an invitation from our open discussion. You are you're very perceptive. I just just make a comment. That my the way I read the letter was that we are excited about these projects, and that we recommend them it hadn't occurred to me with what Julian said about thinking about relative priorities and recommending spending. I I. I guess. I didn't realize the letterhead that that much import and the sense of like if you know might be used to two way how. City Council reorient spending or or prioritises it's a work plan. I mean to me it's just. Given all that i've heard so far, it seems like.

[21:02] It won't be taken super seriously or or have a lot of import and and and that the the the man don't mean to completely trivialize it but. You know, like to me I just I would just like to communicate the city council that. We really care about these two projects and we're excited about them we'd like to see them get started and and they can point to something that says that we're excited about them so that that's kind of how I read it. And I just want to reiterate that I am excited about both projects, it was really cool to. Look at the map that Jay shared with this last time that that outlines what TV APP phase two is going to look like I loved your point about Michael about. high expectations for 15 minute neighborhoods. I can't wait to have 15 minute neighborhoods available all over the city, because I want to live in one as soon as possible.

[22:07] I think i'll leave my comment there I heartily endorse voting for it. Well, I might suggest that. It would be worded differently in that instead of. Focusing on the two projects those two items in particular that we rather make a recommendation to counsel that whatever they however they prioritize We feel that it's most important. Given the data that we've seen that we focus that any of their prioritization focus on that filling that gap of the missing middle middle income, housing and. The 15 minute neighborhood because we know those are. Priorities for the city so whatever the whatever they deem to be the highest priority that achieves those goals, giving the offering them a lens.

[23:02] Rather than pointing to projects, because without knowing the financial implications, the demands on staffs time and the ways in which staff gets pulled in different directions by City Council and what the other boards have going on. I prefer to look at things through a lens and direction that way that's a personal preference. To do it in business and in my work so. I tend to that. Well, thank you, I would respectfully not agree with that perspective and think that it's valuable to be more specific. You know we've housing is the is the big issue in boulder and you know just to say hey. We support missing middle with 15 minute neighborhoods is to me to do vague, so I think either its value and is. pointing to you know, helping them sort out the priorities and I think they already expect that the earth is going to move with this recommendation, but i've heard from Council people that will be voted on things they do pay attention to it, they noticed.

[24:16] And I think just saying. You know you're a nice people and you're going to continue to be nice people is really going to have a lot of athletes compared to. Well that's not quite what I said I. know, I know, and yes, I mean I. appreciate, you know what. The word not picking putting words in my mouth and, instead, what I said was that we recommend that they use a lens of. Focusing on housing, particularly middle income, housing, which we know there's a huge gap in here, and this idea of the walkable neighborhoods a 15 minute neighbor Yes, they look at every evaluate every project through that lens that's very different from saying hey you're nice people. So I want to be clear about what i'm articulating here because.

[25:03] we're recorded and I don't want more to put in my mouth, thank you. Okay, I understand that. Does feel to me like it would be. You know a little bit of just giving them a platitude instead of specific direction and i'm not saying that wearing them out i'm just saying that's how it feels to me. So. The other comments we have two possible directions here one is to. Maybe there's more, but let me just say I think there's two. One is to vote on this. Another is to say let's send it back into the mail and revise it and take a look at another look at it next month. Joe. yeah Thank you. Again I can't resist throwing in my two bits worth hair.

[26:03] I think it would be very useful if in this letter or associated with it somehow the HIV indicated that what its priorities are in terms of all the entire universe of. of dealing with housing issues, whether, for example, these two projects are are the highest priority and, if so, why, why is that the case, or are there other programs or options or projects that that are also have the same priority that you think are equally important. But to give some background why why you're focusing on these two. Projects I think would be very useful in your letter, and it would add credibility and and weight to your recommendation.

[27:18] To make it through all me, without even. Any I think that's a really good comment. Rather than just. You know, maybe it's a little bit too brisk the way it is but. we'd like to add a thought on that. Well, I think that's what I was suggesting is, I think, unless I misunderstood john. Why, why are we requesting something like this and it's because our priorities are lens is as we've discussed and the data shows we have this gap in middle income housing right now in the city, we have a gap in product that people want.

[28:09] That desire, this type of housing and if that's our priority. And we think that these two projects most accomplished that. I agree with john that that language adds credibility. But I think the why behind the recommendations is absolutely critical I don't know that myself of those are the two highest priority items, because I don't have enough data I would I would turn to folks at the city and I don't want to put hall. and others on the spot, because of course you guys just got here but you're in their day to day looking at data. Looking weighing the options of different programs and plans. So. that's my comment about dawn's comment.

[29:00] Thank you. Well, I think. If I were to. expand on these thoughts where i'd go with it would be to say. You need. You need land for to make middle missing middle happen. In this is very general. And so the plane reserve kind of the arrow points in that direction and then T back to you've got the combination of kind of an interesting land ownership pattern and potentially motivated miners who are willing to maybe help build a different future. And those are those are conceptual comments i'm sure they can be beefed up with some. data and more research but. We have discussed this and have meetings and.

[30:00] You know the conundrum and missing middle is like where you put it, given the the high land values and where are the opportunities and it seems like that's. These two are where it's really been pointing there are obviously other opportunities sites, but those seem to be the both the biggest and the most accessible ones. Go. yeah I was gonna say that. I didn't necessarily interpret the letter as. As trying to indicate what we think are the two top priorities, because in previous discussions, it was it was kind of about the fact that these two projects are kind of special in the sense that they have much longer lead times required and so it's more about. Kicking that ball down the Hill, you know getting that ball rolling, rather than so much saying that these are the two top priorities and, of course.

[31:02] You know there's nothing in here about exactly how much resources should go into it, you know hiring a consultant. I mean you could hire a whole team of consultants, you could start one study whatever's first I don't know anyways I just, I just wanted to point out that. The notion that they were the two top priorities. wasn't necessarily the the main impetus of the letter but I don't know, maybe, maybe that's how Michael you felt about it, but I also remember just this aspect of the long lead times, making it something that we wanted to to get out there saying we support so that you know. We could get. Would there be. Many people would there be more comfort if we didn't is we're actually less specific about these steps, and I see where you're coming from Juliet and when it does look like we're making. kind of budgetary recommendations in a very general way.

[32:04] You know, maybe. Maybe we don't need to be as specific as saying you need to hire people to do this or that. Although realistically us what's going to take. question is going to just be a call to action with more background, without any rain those particular steps. wondering if it would be beneficial to start with our like overarching goals of 15 minute neighborhood missing middle and then go into some of those more actionable items, the call to action stuff.

[33:07] So the in their minds, they know at the top of that is this is what we're looking for this is a lens we're coming from here's ways that you could. Take action with that those aren't necessarily like our top two out of your 10, but these are the things that we see as feasible to get to these places. Good good comment consenting some consensus building around this, which is good thing, so when we talk about it. i'd be happy to again draft another version of it and send it around for review and comment before the July meeting.

[34:03] I think all these comments are worth incorporating. don't think we need to vote on that, but i'm happy to move forward in that direction. and also to continue the discussion if folks have other comments. See, I guess, I do have a comment. After all. um what what. say this, it would, it would be. Like I assume that when you send a letter, a draft you want feedback on it as soon as possible, we can just email you directly back what our thoughts are about concerns and whether or not we're interested in voting for it.

[35:09] so that you know it'd be a shame to come back in July, I mean, I want to spend the next four meetings crafting a recommendation letter that you know, like in the Grand scheme of things we maybe we shouldn't spend so much time on I don't know. And so. I guess i'll just say that. i'll i'll try to do better about reading it right away, and giving you feedback before the next meeting. Thank you. Well, I haven't gotten a lot of feedback from. You know, in the form of emails and I don't mind spending time during meetings and talking about I think it's very productive use of our time. I also think spending a meeting or two to.

[36:01] craft a good recommendation on an important issue is, you know, not a problem, I mean that's not dragging your feet. and When I when I don't know and taking help me, I hope, is how appropriate is to have email dialogue on this, as opposed to the meetings and consensus with the meetings or for. This is there any problem with you know, to open I having a back and forth on an issue like this, or Juliet and I or anyone on the board. I just wouldn't recommend the back and forth, but definitely one way is fine. um. So phil has added please feel free to send them to you, Michael and you can incorporate them and share them with the group, but I would avoid the back and forth emails. Right. it's more of. A discussion that you really happen at have. Okay, good and that's what we're doing great. alright. let's say, please send me some additional comments.

[37:04] will get another draft out while before the next meeting, and if it seems like it's something we're ready to vote on, will vote on. And I hope we will, I really do think there's value in. Focusing on these two as priorities for some of the reasons we've hashed out today. One being. The length of time it would take to get things going on these two sites and the other being the they are, in my opinion, higher opportunity sites and some others and bolder if you're looking at that missing middle outcome. So that sounds good. We could move on to item be under six review of accessory dwelling unit regulations with Jay but I will give you an opportunity for further comment before we do that.

[38:09] Okay Jay I think you are on. All right, i'm going to share a presentation that's a. little bit, I think it will be extremely helpful. So you're going to hear me talk. For quite a bit, so, if you please ask questions interrupt me if something's not clear, if you are curious about something, and it could just be a lot more interesting for me and you that way, so I have about 48 slides some will go very quickly. Some are a little bit more dense, so this is an adaptation from a June 5 or no i'm sorry no June fifth 2018 this was the public hearing at Council on the EDU update So this was fairly lengthy process.

[39:11] So we basically Council in 2017 was looking at this, they identified, it is more of the Council priorities just this past February. They provided feedback planning board provided feedback we did all sorts of public engagement. Where we basically launched the project we had open hearings are open meetings. If you can see, the picture that's me. Getting grilled by. fairly friendly group of about probably 60 people up in North boulder. jb don't see a picture of you, we see the. The not presentation mode, but the actual. Oh, thank you. Design mode. See how do I change that, though.

[40:04] let's see the way. I. put it in presentation mode before I share. Now it's. super slow. sorry about that.

[41:06] interesting is that. That, I think I got it. Or maybe, let me try it again. you're still seeing the presentation mode. Now we see presentation. looking good. Right yeah that's the challenge with not having my second screen.

[42:02] So yeah here's the image of the meeting in North boulder. So this was a fairly extensive process, so it was basically to eat over two years of work engagement lots of different iterations and so i'm going to go through sort of what the final outcomes were because I think it's helpful context. To understand sort of where we've been and. Where we might be going and also keep in mind, you know what Council prioritized in terms of the EDU update is really specific to one topic and that's saturation. So we haven't had the full internal conversation as to what this update is the next updates going to look like, but it's not going to be this extensive for sure. So I just wanted to create some expectations going in. The so, even though we started in August formula with the public process August of 2017 it wasn't until February 1 2019 new regulations were implemented.

[43:10] So just talk a little bit about what is an accessory dwelling unit I think everybody here knows that basically in La apartments separate and complete housekeeping unit. So kitchens sleeping or in. And it used to be that there were two different types there's an EDU and there was also this only owner accessory unit and they were it it got really confusing. In terms of what they are, and one of the great outcomes I believe was really simplifying it to be clear that we're just talking about attached and detached ad units. We got rid of the whole term owner accessory unit, so I won't go into a lot of detail because it's really quite murky as to the distinction between the two. But here, it is basically an EDU is was always attached would either be in basement or say on third floor, but it could also be on the first floor second floor and Oh, you could also try to be detached or attached.

[44:13] But they're also limited in terms of which zones were allowed so again very confusing lots of complexity. But what we learned about the existing aid us prior to 2018 is that over half of them were in people's basements some of them on the first floor a few on the first floor or over the garage. You know, not that many in a completely separate building second floor. And just to give you a sense the detached we use a lot of them are sort of close in neighborhoods that without the access. And you really couldn't see them from the street it fairly well disguise even the detached ones.

[45:01] Will I like to show this photo to basically like, no one would know that there was an ad so the entrances around the side it's obscured and that's intentional not supposed to detract from the same family character. So a little bit of history fascinating stuff so you know, the first ordinance allowing a to use was in 1983 prior to that you could not build an ad in a single. home. So it was sort of the early adoption was is very cautious so very restrictive boulder like to consider it was a privilege to be able to have an. accessory dwelling it it wasn't anything that was by right and real concerned about potential impacts, the neighborhood that you know is intentionally very restrictive. But as those attitudes changed over time that ordinance was mended 1989 9799 and always came up as as one of the tools to help us address or affordable housing challenges.

[46:12] So 99 and again in 2014 it's in our toolkit there was work done in 2012 sort of a national survey also a survey of owners i'll share a little bit of that. There was polling done as part of the COMP plan update in 2016 which show those shifting attitude so 62% supportive allowing accessory you units in some single family neighborhoods. But they weren't getting built so as of may 2018 there are 231 legal accessory units more illegal ones, but i'm really very small percentage half of 1% of the entire housing stock, so there was there seemed to be fairly. Robust agreement that we should work on this issue.

[47:04] let's try to encourage more than. This is where were they were in 2018 and I would guess if we updated this, it would look very similar more dots in the same areas. That survey and a great response rate, but you know, really, the reason, a lot of people created was for that supplemental income to help them to be able to stay in boulder to be able to afford boulder escalating housing costs here. And we also have sort of what's the rent tenants, and I have more slides on this, but basically it shows that you know, the vast majority are people. of modest means and so it's def those Rentals are definitely serving the market that has intended. Again interrupt me.

[48:00] If this is really an. interruption. Please. Your your sound quality keeps. I think I think there's something about the position of your microphone that it keeps cutting in and out so sometimes it's it's full volume and sometimes it's kind of like it's off in the distance, so I don't know if there's a way to adjust that or not, but. i'll just try to speak louder how's that. that's great. As or else I can do, sir. I say, I just want comment. 231 legal units that's that's that's a surprising statistic. Oh yeah. very small number. of you know. The punch line to that is that in two years after 2019 when the new regulations went in place we've doubled that number, so we produce more in two years than we did in 30 some years of having the regulations in place.

[49:07] So we did quite a bit of comparisons of rents, there was definitely you know I think City Council at the time, and probably still. While they recognize the eds were affordable, there was a lot of concern that they might not be in the future so we'll talk about these affordable at us that they created, but it does just again shows you how affordable. The typical renters were back in the day and I would guess that that is still remains consistent today. um so again just more the rents, but basically at the important things important takeaway was that 80% of at us are affordable to people earning 75% of a mine. And below. So, to me, that was a really startling statistic.

[50:06] And just how they're used that was super helpful so that survey told us, you know, based on average occupancy of one and a half people, the vast majority or long term renters 64%. Some short term mentors were you know would they would build the Ad for short term Rentals or that's just the way it worked out. housing for visitors relatives and you know nothing, many people actually living in the EDU and renting out the main house, I thought it would be more and then even fewer offering a place or offering rent free for in exchange for services, this was another opportunity as well. So. I can. Several Council members were really into why statements and purpose statements, probably still are trying to be super clear what it is we're trying to accomplish with us and.

[51:09] You know. There was a lot of discussion Community discussion just you know words, nothing this this statement, but it really is what guided the work. and also the purpose statement and really emphasizing that we were talking about incremental changes simplifying the regulations and removing barriers and really trying to stay. Be clear that we're trying to be compatible with the Net and then trying to achieve following that additional flexibility like I talked about, and also to increase workforce and long term rental housing opportunities. So we did not do, or was the men, the building code or zoning code requirements we actually did end up, I can modify Council and ended up modifying the occupancy limits.

[52:02] But the owner occupancy requirements those also remain the same, but we player that those on the table. Since we were talking about incremental changes. And some just some basic evaluation criteria that helped us in terms of. exploring the different alternatives and then these were the. topics that were discussed in detail throughout the process, so i'll go through each one of these. And they're really they're ranked so, starting with the what we learned from our work, what was the biggest barrier our course and then saturation and forming structures so trying to really start with difficult clients. And you know we we got through quite a few things. But some things Council wasn't quite ready to take action on so, for instance parking so our recommendation was to remove the parking requirement we provided the rationale.

[53:10] You know, showed what the car ownership was tried to emphasize that occupancy limits hadn't changed so we're not talking about a lot of additional people. And the type of structure doesn't always dictate car ownership right, so you can have a family with you know four teenage drivers and very different drug car ownership than, say, you know. An older couple so. Despite all those arguments, you know they did that was again number one concern that we heard from the neighbors to was about that lack or loss of parking in public right away, and then this is basically what got adopted so. They were willing Council was willing to not not require the just no parking if.

[54:01] The owner was willing to create an affordable ad Basically, they would limit the rent to 75% Am I. They also put in an exception for property that's landmark. or as a contributing structure store. But they did loosen it a little bit for all properties, so they do allow parking now in the front step back and they removed the requirements for paved parking so again, not the full removal of that parking requirement but. You know, they did make some concessions, but they wanted something in return particular encouraging is affordable at us. So saturation and, as I mentioned saturation is definitely the focus of this next update so at that time 10% of the homes within 300 feet may not have an EDU you know really the clearly was to prevent that overabundance of non single family units in family homes, and you know.

[55:07] In the spirit of being incremental we suggested changing that from 10 to 20%. In Council basically didn't do that city wide and even increased it to 30% again if the property is landmarked or contributing structure and historic district. But they there was also a discussion about whether or not co OPS should be included in calculating the saturation rate they decided that they should eat. And they also. Will surprisingly to me they limited to wear saturation. And i'll show you a chart later so it's really specific to the URL zones, so not every zone as as the saturation. yay we're quick question um what count as like as many like would that counter several at us, or would that count as like a house with an EDU.

[56:02] it's just it'd be one. Okay, I didn't know if it kind of for like three or four because there's a lot of people. ya know that gets super complicated. Luckily again. I apologize, I have to leave because i've got another board meeting tonight that I got to attend to. Thank you i'll. This is super interesting Jay and i'll watch the meeting afterwards when it's posted. yeah give me a call anytime if you have any. idea, and I assume we can get a copy of this presentation as well Jay. Yes, it'll be in the. packet materials online definitely. Okay, good night Julia. Anything Thank you. So we did some analysis to try to help with the Council to understand the saturation issue, so this just gives you a sense of. The parcels in each zoning district.

[57:00] and obviously rl one is sort of the big zoning district in boulder when it comes to us. And, but the. And then we you know, basically, with the rules we looked at which ones are not eligible just to get a sense of you know how many units. could possibly build. An EDU so but we're recognizing not everybody wants any right, so you basically have to have the desire or the wherewithal. And then here's the existing so that shows you the one half of 1% and it's really only 1.9%. Of the housing. Currently, or the old rules were eligible have one. So what if we said well 5% get though so just to try to give some numbers to counsel to help with their decision making and understand it, because that's a question we often got was well if we listen these regulations, how many might we get and it's really difficult question.

[58:10] 5% is saturation. Know that's basically if you were to assume 5% as opposed to the 1.9%. Which is the current so if we were to add more than double production like we have now so that that's. A that's. A 5% of the parcels. yeah. So. yeah does that make sense. Well question. So could you achieve 5%, given the current standards for saturation. Well, so we increased it to 20% that the challenge with the saturation is it's so specific to each parcel it you can't even do an analysis, because it's parcel specific each parcel in the city as would have a different saturation.

[59:04] Because you're you're basically taking a property and then drawing circumference or radius of 200 feet, all the way around every property that touches that. Has a calculator and it's frustrating for property owners to because you know they come in and say, can we build an EDU and and the person at the counter can't tell them because they have to go back and do. This you know lengthy analysis, so that that's just one of the many challenges of the saturation. So there are lots of different options, you know, increasing it getting rid of it entirely. So, but we'll talk about that probably more. In the next next part of the discussion. Next month, or the following month. So just moving on just to give a Council also and and and planning board so, by the way, john gusto was on planning board when this went through.

[60:01] Planning board also made a recommendation to counsel and you can see a lot of their influence overall proposal, but I just wanted to acknowledge that so here's that current saturation rate that we're talking about here is the 5% what it would look like and sort of a standard. stuff sold the neighborhood. This is what 10% will look like and here's 20%. So just try trying to give people a sense of you know what are these numbers actually mean. Anything else about saturation before I move on. Yes, do you think there's any appetite for just doing away with saturation standard terms it's going to be an incremental change. I think, potentially, I mean. it's it's a little difficult to predict, I mean that would be the simplest quickest way to do it.

[61:04] Right. I mean a lot of seeds or vibrate DC being the most famous example, I think. I know. Everybody can pick. Any color is unique, with the saturation limit I would. I was hard pressed to find any other Community with anything even close to resembling this. very interesting, thank you. um so non conforming structures. So the those are these are basically you know duplexes triplex is that were permitted a long time ago when and mostly on the hill. There they the regulations were changed after they were built, so there are legal, but they're non conforming to the current. zoning is the best way to explain it and part of the reason for including non conforming structures, and this is to prevent that overabundance of non single family and it's predominantly in single family neighborhoods.

[62:07] And really the we've recommended to remove it, and the large reason or the basic reason why is that these these units have been are these homes have been there for 50 sometimes 100 years they're already part of character of the neighborhood, but I think there was a lot of pushback particularly. and university, as well as ableton. That they're just you know concerned about at us and further deterioration of that single family fabric, I guess. So Council basically didn't accept that change so there's no change on that one either. This one is basically talks about. All us so remember chick.

[63:00] Can I can, I think. This is backing up too much, but can you explain the process for determining if your House is eligible for an ad you like, do you do, submit a form to city. And someone has to do a study is you pay a fee for that study like How does what's the procedure. No, no that's a great question, I mean so typically someone who wants to build an ad you will go into planning and development services contact them online these days. And they'll work with a. Special specialist and the specialists will look at their property and they will check pretty much everything else, are you in the right zone are you allowed to have. An ad you, you have you know the middle and lot size, all the all the other stuff and then they'll say or if the end if there's a waiting list as well. And then they'll say we need to get back to you in terms of to figure out the saturation it'll take you know, a couple days, probably.

[64:05] they'll go in and do the analysis, we did figure out a GIs tool to make it quicker, but you still have to identifies the circle easily quickly, but it still requires us to look at each property because of non conforming status. But there's no charge for that, basically, is just exploratory so we wouldn't accept an application for the land use review until we're fairly confident that they could meet the requirements. And in I have a slide with the total fees later, but it think it might have gone up at a it was a $450 basically for the land use review and which is pretty reasonable and then and talk about this more later, so I think boulder on that front, has done a decent job. But it's not something that your average homeowner can just show up and with you know back of the napkin drawing.

[65:05] I mean. yeah. One of the things that that strikes me as being really unfair about this is if you're considering purchasing a property. And you don't get it you'd like to build an ad you and that's part of your calculation, you have to sort of jump through this who first if that's even allowed for property you don't own and then you know, whatever delay that might incur. You know, property sell pretty quickly around here, so I don't know It just seems like. You know if you're if you're trying to have an ad at you. policy that encourages building a to use like. You would think that you'd want people to be able to buy a property with some assurance, they could actually build one, but it seems like that's. Oh we'll talk about it, and the more slides that.

[66:00] I do. A lot of progress. towards getting that. You got a question today. Sir. So everyone knows, we have an EDU and when we made that step and walking into planning services and it see if you're eligible it was like very easy. Someone looked at a map and said, you can you can do an ad you within your home, which is we're converting a REC room so i'm not quite understanding why it's so what the difficulty is in ascertaining for the homeowner whether they can do an ad or not conducive explain that one. yeah and you know, Michael yours situation in newlands is different than, say university hill. Right a. lot of it does have to do with these non conforming structures so it's difficult for it yeah and they probably shouldn't have given you and answering. But it's. possible that the saturation levels so low that they felt pretty confident.

[67:03] With the number, but if, once it gets gets close to the 20%. There is a lot more research that has to be done for each of minutes. it's more than looking at a map. executive summary okay. If I if I could pipe in sorry guys did. Not video appearing but. I think I think going back to that notion of the certitude I think Jay that's that's part of the rationale for like you were just saying for. Getting rid of this whole. This whole absorption rate because that's the part where it gets really. Uncertain or indefinite for any homeowner in terms of being able to figure out pretty quickly what they need to do right. yeah that's part of it. But there's more that. we're just getting into it. Okay, all right. yeah so we talked about non performing structures, the allowed zones, so it was a fascinating way you is we're not subject to the saturation rule so just super again more complexity.

[68:11] which I think highlights this issue for Homeowners trying to understand whether or not they can and cannot build one. So basically there was a lot of discussion about what should be allowed, where and which zones and. There was this great you know I think we ended up in a good place so we show the existing the pro proposed is what actually got adopted so we allow a good use and detached a two years and all the zones, we added our mx one and two, as well as. Agriculture and also public zones. And then clarified that's the saturation limit only applies in our lessons so again much more straightforward than it used to be. And we also renamed everything like I mentioned earlier, so everything that's attached net attached to you everything that's detached is detached they're different rules super clear super obvious.

[69:13] But that to me that was like my my crowning achievement. There was also a lot of discussion about interior sizes of both attached and detached. So current you know it was fairly complicated the idea was to ensure that the session smaller in size and subordinate to the main home so for an ad or those interior had to be less than 1000 square feet or third of the principal doing in it, and this created a lot of issues for people. Because basically if you were on a split level ranch with the walkout basement wanted to create an ad you in your basement you would have to wall off portions of your basement or not allow you to have access to certain.

[70:01] Parts of the basement to stay under that 1000 square foot tab so again trying to provide more flexibility we recommend changing it from one third to one half. Also, basically said well yeah if you will do that, but you have to create an affordable. So does give more flexibility, but an exchange Council get something in return, but for those market rate attached to us, there was no change. previous regulations. basic question. So. If you have a 3000 square foot house, you could have a 1500 square foot at you. Know it's whichever is smaller. Oh sorry sorry. Whichever is less so yeah you. can never more than that. All right, so if you if it's 2000 square feet.

[71:01] yeah I was, I was focusing on the wrong thing it's 2000 square feet, it can be at the Ad you can be 1000 square feet, so one half the size. Well, no, it has to be a third what what it depends if it's affordable or not or market. Oh, I see. Okay, I was I. I clearly with spacing out when you. When you brought up by the pink box yeah but getting did the market rate one the maximum size would be 600. and A lot sizes so again, you know the lot of the this was originally intended. thinking that smaller lots might not be appropriate for an additional accessory unit, but we did recommend lowering it to 500 from 6000 to 5000 square feet and that would basically help helped about 475 lots.

[72:03] Council did do that they lowered it from six to five. detached size so currently the or the old regs were 450 which is can be challenging particularly with a like a two car garage. And, but there is a lot of concern you know your typical detached garage head. is typically up on a second floor. And it has the potential for more implants right in terms of noise and privacy solar access your neighbors. We had recommended increasing that size limit to 800 square feet, similar to what most other jurisdictions do across the country. And you know, I think that the size limit was also related to concern about compatible development and and we'll talk about this a little bit more, but once. They do regulations were adopted, prior to the compatible development standards and the compatible development standards were adopted citywide to ensure that infill development didn't.

[73:12] Significantly negatively impact their neighbors so solar access setbacks. And things like that so. We basically That was our recommendation Council so yeah we'll do 800 square feet if it's again if it's affordable. And they will increase, but they did agree to increase the size limit for the detached to market rate from four to 550 to provide that sort of extra flexibility and they remove the one third percentage limitation it just doesn't really make as much sense, with a detached structure. And they were very generous with a landmark or contributing structure and allowed up to 1000 square foot and that was really in consideration of.

[74:01] Trying to encourage older homes to preserve you know if there's a carriage house or something that would be larger so thousands per foot was. Is a lot for those situations. Right and design is I was just talking about the medical development standards, so there were lots of design standards in the. accessory dwelling unit regulations, and it was super complicated for Homeowners to try to meet and it didn't always match what was. In the primary residence, so what we had recommended was to get rid of all those and realized early on the compatible development standards and and I think that's worked fairly well. So Council did adopt that yep. And this one, you know Philip you're talking about.

[75:00] A homeowner trying to understand whether or not they could build a need you used to be a home had to be five years old, to create media, so the and the, again, is it was this privilege concept. It was a privilege to have an accessory dwelling unit, and it was so as for existing promo Homeowners to remain in their homes, not for new Homeowners. So, but what we found was that a lot of people would build the house with a EDU and then just wait, the five years to go through the permitting process. So Council agreed and remove that. There was also a permit system so. They used to be pirated. You could not renew your permit to have an accessory dwelling in it, if someone was on that waiting list because of the factories. So basically. If someone reached a saturation limits in the end, in your neighborhood.

[76:01] Or if that the neighbor reached it, you would be put on a waiting list. And then, when you went to sell your House, if you had a neighbor who was on that waiting list you would have to remove your ad you'd have to remove the kitchen and remove the separation and to allow for that person on the waiting list to build their accessory dwelling. So I think Council saw. That you know, there had been a significant shift and attitudes towards accessory dwelling units, so that was that permit system was removed entirely and then now we rent we rely on the existing rental licensing program to make sure that. homes that are rented are up to standards. So yeah we removed the system, but we still require a declaration of us so that's basically it's not quite a covenant, but it is recorded with the deed.

[77:04] On the property and it has specific language about the affordable EDU what those right restrictions are as well as penalties for not renting at or below those limits as fascinating Council came up this this system on the fly is the saying that. Leaving enforcement up to the renter so if a renter finds out that they're being charged rent in an affordable EDU that's above 75% EMI. They can complain to the city, the city will go after them, and not only does that owner have to pay the renter all the overcharged Brian, but they also have to pay interest on that money and pay the city of fine. we're getting close I promise so short term Rentals so they were they used to be allowed and accessory dwelling units or the principal dwelling unit.

[78:10] And you know that was basically a citywide and lot of the feedback that we got was you know this was. Just as airbnb and. The others were really taking off, so what we heard from the Community was a strong desire to prohibit short term Rentals. Entirely in accessory dwelling units Council agreed with that. We thought that maybe you know because we had an owner occupancy requirement that the owner would ensure that their renters would be behave responsibly. But there wasn't a lot of faith in that I guess, and it was also contrary to the project purpose, which was to try to increase workforce long term rental housing opportunities. So a lot of people who had short term rental licenses they could rent for basically the way it was set up is they could continue until a certain date leave it was close to five years.

[79:10] or until the time of if they didn't renew their rental license or they sold the property. Oh there, they are yeah as a. yep if the forfeit Oh, and if they wanted to create an ad you if they had a short term rental license for the principal boiling it have to get that up in order to get their permit. And then occupancy this is this was really fascinating as well. So the idea with us, you know initially was that we didn't. increase the number of people allowed to live on a property by simply creating the the accessory dwelling in it, but Council was very concerned that it would the way that our current occupancy rules are written that it would not allow to sort of.

[80:11] Two households with dependence to live on the same property does the way that our current rules are three or four unrelated people, so you would have sort of your household right and every person in EDU would count as an unrelated person, so if you have. No one, a couple. Or you know single parent with two kids that that's three unrelated people already right there and it also we do we move there was also rumors were prohibited and we. So basically the the change was to not include the owners or the renters. In the account so that was the solution that also came up with.

[81:02] lots of other minor code amendments we deleted that a lot of code. Lots of. sort of minor stuff that I won't talk about we provided some explanations showing what a typical accessory unit would look like and how they're. compatible development standards work So these are basically the different pieces of the compatible development standards that were adopted in 2010. So basically you can't have too much bulk in the side yard, you have to have articulation. Maximum building coverages and then also floor area ratio requirements. As well as the seller is also apply So those are the 12 options. Trying to think what else I have they were just you know, a comparative work that we did what Santa Cruz, is looking at in terms of providing more affordability.

[82:03] portland talking about sort of their that number of units that create that were created on an annual basis, based after you know after certain. fees or regulations were changed and it's just fascinating to watch it's really the cost the stc favors waivers. Which folder does not have, because you can hook up to the existing water and utilities for each house. So it doesn't create additional expense for one portland wave those feeds the number of applications grew dramatically. And then short term Rentals were allowed and almost doubled and then began with a relaxed design and setbacks standards, so you know some jurisdictions are going even further. And it's a you know, conscious policy choice that made up in their part.

[83:01] What else just shows all the non conforming properties. uses are the fees, I was talking about. But you know all the fees for building electrical and the application fee or to me quite reasonable compared to other jurisdictions. And then just some stats on sort of the median average lot size. Either us or us and that's it. so happy to. chat some more hopefully that was interesting that. I think. Thank you yay. Incredibly interesting it's disappointingly low number of videos. All told which is not the fault of anybody on this call, but. love to hear from everybody in the boardroom at your son is.

[84:01] You know where Council is already considered a number of recommendations on this and made some changes. We could maybe talk about where would be most useful for us to advice like there's a pretty long list of what 12 things at least, and we could maybe device more of our own seems like the potential to increase the supply the US is really, really large. Sorry, I can raise my hand one thing i'd say is. While the numbers low, I think it was really encouraging that just in the past few years, were able to have such a significant increase in percentage. With the idea is once the regulations are changing I think that's a really positive harbinger of things in common, I think it really weren't continuing to explore what other sorts of regulatory.

[85:02] catalyst, you know we might be able to implement to really keep that keep that trend going and that's one of the things Jay said it really I took away from just the. The number that we've been able to experience in the last couple years and guys in the first 30 years I think that's something for us all to really keep in mind as we're moving forward on this, because I think it's very encouraging. Thank you for putting a more positive spin in my statement, and I agree with that. So you. You said that about your Michael. You said that the number of a to use doubled in two years, and I thought you were going to end up to be show, did you show a slide that that had that number on it, no. No. I haven't pulled the numbers recently, so you know, one of the things that was supposed to happen, two years after the EDU update was adopted was were supposed to do an evaluation.

[86:02] Right well how well did the regulations do, how many units, did we get what are the continuing pressure points we haven't done that, and it's not clear to me that that's what Council wants, so what we're trying to do is and we'll there'll be a study session with Council in September. And, basically, it will be. christopher's team, as well as the code development team that's run by Charles pharaoh they will be the ones. discussing with Council, what is the scope of this change to aid us and so far they've said saturation is what they want to focus on. But I you know, for me, I would like to present sort of the update how many units that we got i'd love to just send it put out a Pole, or a survey to all the people that applied since. To understand okay well how you know how difficult was it, what pressure points are you still experiencing understand who started the process and who didn't finish it.

[87:10] But again it's sort of that's The big question right is how big of a update is this going to be and what's council's appetite because the more they want to do the bigger policy questions they want to address the more Community engagement that needs to happen. And to be clear, the September study session on is just a band aid us in the October stay session that we've referenced it several times is more generally about missing middle having that right. i'm close, so the update is is lumped in with. Other Council priorities around. You know, smaller, more affordable homes other code changes to encourage smaller, more affordable units, so they get you know it's not very well defined.

[88:08] So Part of the purpose of that study session with will be to get clear direction from Council of what is the scope for those but yeah they are separate so at us is going Chris Tucker and charles's group the. The middle income piece. will be through housing and human services, all of them myself. And Michelle Allen talking about middle income, the pilot and also middle income trying to encourage more middle income with revisions to our inclusion rehousing Program. My screen froze for a moment me. i'm sorry. My screen froze for a moment, can you hear me. Oh, I can hear you yeah. Okay, great it looks like it's okay now.

[89:02] I think it's done the front end of your question inside didn't hear you what she said. Oh yeah I was asking about my screen. Okay. My next question is. An. attempt to sort of question that. As we move us to wait what comes out of that Council session on at us and smaller units before we you know leap forward and made a recommendation on a to use. question mark. there any way you think. i'm Sorry, I think I lost you there for a. Second. Hello. yeah did you hear the question me. Could you repeat it. yeah you think we should wait for the Council, that have a study session about us and smaller units before we.

[90:06] Leave forward and make some. kind of recommendation ready to. use. I think it would make sense, just because I think that uh maybe within within that within scope of that conversation we can get some insight into you know kind of as Jay was alluding to. Whether they're looking for you know more broad. perspective changes or adjustments to any US or more. Specific ones so maybe that. Their. direction in terms of. How. You broke up toward the end there Danny.

[91:09] Can I make a comment that might might be a question or. Are we ever gonna sure. So what one of the. That hope that helps slideshow was kind of. Where at us were before 2018 and what the what actually happened what what the current state of ad policy is now. Every slide had kind of a nice theme of like here's here's the problem that that the at the current system that the the. system had here's the here's the recommendations that we made and then here's what City Council actually did right so like there's there's almost always a gap.

[92:00] there's often a gap between the recommendation of what City Council did, is that is that I mean you kind of highlighted that in a number of places. And I just wonder if. If that represents kind of an opportunity, I mean like. A lot of work and study went into making those recommendations and I almost wonder if, like one possible road for city council is just to like get the same. presentation we just had, and say here's the gap between what you could have done and what we recommended and here's why we would ask you to reconsider what you did. Or is that. Or do you actually think that you have a new set of recommendations that you would make given what you know now. yeah that's a great question Philip. I mean I wouldn't characterize it that there was.

[93:01] always a gap, because in some cases they went farther than what the staff recommendation was which so they you know they basically made it their own, which would be a way to describe it, but. yeah I mean theoretically if they felt that the Community engagement was you know robust enough. And you know at the time they just weren't quite. sure what all those changes would mean and if they understood I think they would have to understand sort of what the impact was so I think they would want to know. What what the evaluation tells us about how the regulations have changed the landscape. But and that's the question i'm not sure do they want us to do that or not. Or does that help answer your. Question questions. yeah it does, I think I think I was trying to imagine if there's like a.

[94:02] path of least resistance to get bigger you know. More change in this area. But, but it made me think of another question, as you were talking, and that is. So. I. I learned a lot in this meeting in that presentation, so thank you for the information. I. I had the notion that people who are really pro more housing and pro at us. And i'm conflating this now with the The co op. ordinance changes, so I know I know that people who are in support of co OPS are often frustrated with the recent the latest set of revisions, that it may be actually. constraint people's ability to form co OPS, and have them and I kind of thought people that make that that complaint also complain about the at you.

[95:09] restrictions. In so I kind of expected to hear that well not, not much has changed and. With respect to building a to us, it seems like it's been. Maybe not like you know, a city makeover but you know doubling is is no small is no small thing if if we actually have you know, a over 405 on nearly 500 at us now. I don't know where i'm going with this this just kind of a rambling comment i'm sorry. that's fine I mean that was something I was going to raise I mean, so I you know I showed the picture of me presenting to a group of 60 people did that a couple times, and you know there were definitely some fears critics and the audience and in the Community.

[96:04] But what what astonished me was that it was their fellow it was their neighbors that would respond and push back so wasn't staff always defending this. You know, there is different, I think the attitude towards at us as changed dramatically and the people that were pushing our our. Homeowners living in single family neighborhoods throughout boulder and they wanted this opportunity and they made their voice heard, and I think that's why Council went farther in some respects what the staff recommendation was is because they showed up. And so. Okay, so so i'm probably just getting oriented to something you said earlier, but I guess we don't know exactly at this point what city council's appetite is for expanding ability for people to build at us.

[97:02] But I mean I guess just for my part i'm I I love at us i'd like to see lots more than I would love to see that higher saturation limit or no saturation limit, and so I just I just put that out there that i'm happy to help endorse whatever liberalisation. That that we want to consider. As as my general comment. Thank you Phillip I think you and I, at least on the same page and that possibly other spit. back to my earlier comment you know I want to be sure that when that makes recommendations their. coach and trench and and. Effective and listen to so. I would love to hear exactly strategically where we should.

[98:06] not intervene and make a recommendation really goes back to our earlier conversation about the letter you know we don't want to be generic. And just say we endorse the platitudes more housing, we want to be strategic and specific as much as possible, in some cases, I think we can do that without. getting into. You know policy one plant and really just. helping them sort out the priorities and encouraging them to to act because they're the ones are going to have to sort it out with. public presentation, for example, and the debate uncountable and what is legislation actually look like and so forth, so that's kind of where i've come to after however many months on him this. kind of get gets back to what we talked about in our retreat last year, how can we be effective and.

[99:02] seems to me that's. that's the direction we should be going. So. Rather than just issue a ringing endorsement of must have at us or we're going to tell them figure out how to do it enjoy it. Well, well, maybe, maybe we could get them political cover by by giving them. Kevin Kevin i'm edition that's way way past where they're willing to. lose absolutely and i'm not being critical of anything you said i'm totally on board with you on that. So what else we got about at us, they make your living in a you. Think I technically do it's a it's all a rental property but i'm in the basement unit. So. megan an ad right. doesn't have a separate entrance in your own kitchen in bed oh. yeah yeah but it's just not the owner that.

[100:00] Lives upstairs so. that's probably not need to you. Sorry okay. And there's more than one two units in the whole building. They just to. Just to. Maybe this. But they're both rented so they could be a non conforming. hmm. can be illegal. that's it. yeah. We want saying. I don't want to. issue too much, but I wonder if there's been. Any analysis of. shortage of housing for students and more students kind of joining the flood of. commuters choosing to live in superior broomfield Westminster i'm hearing this from friends who have undergraduate kids and they can't find it housing in boulder. With a strictly anecdotal and you know, I have no idea how we're taking a letter issue, but you know I guess the professor's already left of the students next.

[101:05] is an interesting question to ponder. yeah I would love to see data on that if somebody already. Well it's interesting do you hear that among your colleagues. um I don't really know anybody like i've known people struggling to find housing here and there's been like okay well just like. commute from my parents place in boulder earth sorry in Denver I don't really know a ton of people who've had to go outside of boulder city limits, but I know that it's it occurs, for sure. yeah yeah. Maybe just something to be aware of and think about and keep an eye on for the future. yeah yeah definitely among people who aren't supported financially by their parents, I assume. casket follow up question is very related to it to us.

[102:01] Yes, you may. Do it do we know if if college housing is always at Max capacity, like kittredge and we'll fill out those always full. yeah. Remember that matter of the privately built student housing. yeah across. Across 28. Will number of places. This is the rates are extremely low for everything okay. i'm. Plenty people yeah I mean what I my daughter's going through the same thing. You know she she can still find housing, but it's really expensive because she didn't sign up. You know. keep you from. Going months ago no i'm not not encouraging that. You know. experience. I have a question about at us now.

[103:01] So. I I I think one of the implicit things, maybe Maybe it was explicit and in the in some of the early slides is that. At us are understood to be for rental. That there's an owner and then they rent out an ad you to a third party. That either, are there any at us that are. That have a different ownership model than. That were. Like the resident of the ad you own stare at you. Is that possible. model yeah. Are you talking about a condominium model or just an owner choosing to live in EDU versus the main primary residence. Oh, I guess, I was thinking probably a condominium model then. yeah then it's not an EDU so it has to be a single ownership to be considered, and who do. and basically subdividing or creating a condominium is that would be significant change to the zoning so keep in mind, these are you know typically single family homes and single family neighborhoods.

[104:12] Right. So you're you're. Creating a legal age not violate single families owning but still I go if you're ready you what that's what you're saying. To interesting bobo. Well, I I i'm always looking for ways, where we can expand ownership opportunities for affordable housing, it would be. You know, maybe this is is too naive and to wishful thinking, but I think it would be super cool if there was a path towards or an ownership model that allowed for people to own an ad you especially like and my mind, like a detached one would be really. Something cool anyways, I can tell john probably has an opinion.

[105:00] yeah, I just wanted to say, the issue that came up when these these ad EU regulations were revised previous land, and I think it was it was very clear that the owner would remain. single ownership Provence, and I think subdividing lots, which is what that implies would would be a major development that would cause a lot of consternation in town and in the planning office. But I don't think that has been clearly addressed. Other day, that is not allowed under the person's and it was never. Alright, so john what's your hot take is consternation is one thing, but is it is it a good idea or bad idea. Well, I think it's legitimate to ask the question and to look at it, I think that there would be a lot of resistance to it but uh that's not the same as saying that it's a good or bad idea, but uh I think that that implies a major change to the whole concept of at euston.

[106:17] hmm. And i'm going to. generalize a little bit here, but if you want to read more in this film. cities like minneapolis have. looked at it really more than tweak their single families are going to allow duplexes try plexus lots and that's seems like more of a trend. Maybe a useful one I mean it's also been done in the east colfax in Denver, for example, the some of the same ideas in mind, create affordable housing allow owners to. stay in place. With income stream, rather than having to move because their property taxes going to hire they retire whatever reason.

[107:07] You know, it seems like a lot of cities are looking at in minneapolis and a few others, have led the way. I think I just say to what it's certainly a notion that has some merit and and. Certainly, can help address a lot of issues, I think, by by very definition a talking about you know turning into duplex or triplex zoning or anything of that nature is. The opposite of an EDU which is accessory but it's you know very definition and so far we've been talking about there is kind of changing around the zoning. To allow for more density, rather than having accessory dwelling unit, which is tied into the main density or the main parcels, so I think it's it's it's something that certainly. As as pressures increase merits discussion and density is a great tool to.

[108:02] catalyze employee, you know local housing programs, but I think it's completely different than a view so just my stress that I think those are two completely different issues. That are just you know boulder has experimented with that concept, though, so it was called a house behind the House, so there are quite a few they look like at us, mostly in whittier and girls groove so. A lot of them have early access and the city for a while, was allowing. You know divorced couples to basically split the property build an EDU and backyard and divided. So it didn't last very long and created all sorts of other issues but. That model has has actually been driving in boulder and I don't know, maybe john those more of the history, but that was way before my time. yeah I did I did a bit of door knocking in gas grove once and I listen, I was amazed by how many properties don't have a aren't street facing on any street you know they may have access to an alley but so that must be a result of that house behind the House Program.

[109:16] we're here, as well as the famous example. yeah but you know, I think. At your experience in. My bed, I think, for attendance in five years it's. You know it's really designed for a young person out of school or first job, maybe they're still in Grad school and working part time. You know they're not looking for a home ownership opportunity to look for a place to live in boulder until they move on to the next thing. we've had several single people have moved on to a married, for example. So we're very happy with that and all those folks are falling within that demographic the day described, of making well under 80 sometimes under 40,000 a year.

[110:02] And you know that's who that a program is really aimed at, not to say that your idea is not worth examining, but I do think that each of us have that that niche and can serve that purpose, very well. Okay anybody else have any other comments and add us. So. You said that. We don't we don't know what city council's interest is in and and relaxing the saturation limit, or do we have some sense that I think I think we have substance that some City Council people would like to increase the saturation limit. Do we know. yeah saturation is the focus.

[111:02] What. yeah What about so saturation limit was two on the list of problems and those were ordered by priority I think you said parking was above that do we have any sense of like City Council wants to revisit the issue around parking. Or is that kind of. Not not something that's on people's radar. And is and is parking still a major impediment right now. I haven't heard that so. I mean again Council, they said yeah we'll relax the standards we want something in return and that's an affordable idiot right So if you can't provide the parking you always have to create an affordable you. know, and you know that the rents are fairly competitive with the market at 75% a month, so unless you're building a super high end, you know spending $600 a square foot.

[112:09] You probably can make it make it work, the financing. hmm. I think it'd be useful to define that affordable at you like, what does that mean does anybody use it and you know what is it really more potential for that I assume it means voluntarily agreeing to limit your read, based on a standard. it's not voluntary it's mandatory so. If you want to do it like we'd be doing, we do it. I was, I was surprised I mean that the numbers, I saw over half, I believe. being created in the past several years were affordable. Because. He that says that they were not able to get around the parking and the other issues, and so they went, the affordable route and they saw the table.

[113:07] Thank again, you know it was Council is trying to look ahead right and say Okay, these are affordable now, but we want to make sure they remain affordable. and So if if I enter the photo ID program I will be agreeing. To limit my. rent the amount I charge in the manner of increasing for forever yep. I mean you're not required to rent you could always use it for a family member. But if you do rent and have a rental license yeah you have to follow the you know the rent table changes every year, so we, the city publishes the rent limits for different am I, and you know basically yeah it's but it's up to the renter to enforce that.

[114:01] They see oh it's affordable and then. 75% of a my average. Correct OK OK, so people are doing that Julie can get them from it. that's my theory, but again I mean we haven't done the full evaluation so. yeah. Well, that that conversation was really interesting to me because. My My first reaction when. I have kind of a gut reaction when when they when you say. Something like you get you can skip this part if you make it affordable or or like. Like I always kind of wonder how the economics work out of it like are we actually incentivizing affordable. units with these rules, or are we actually sort of bludgeoning supply by adding affordability requirements and.

[115:00] So, like the way you presented it My first reaction is like well this could cut either way I have, I have no idea like whether or not you're just you're just limiting supply by affordability rules. So I. guess i'm just reaffirming that it would be nice to have to study and have some data, so we could look at what it all means. You can understand the motivation, you know why did someone create an affordable ad is because they couldn't meet the standards other ones, or are they just they felt it was important to be part of that program they believed in. Okay, well, I think clearly we're agreeing that we're going to listen to counsel and try to support them and we can with a strong recommendation on moving forward on increasing the supply of at us just a statement that proposal for recommendation to vote on.

[116:07] Can you can you quickly reiterate the thing that you said in response to my enthusiastic endorsement for lots more at us, you said something about like how we need to be strategic about. How we make a recommendation oh. Yes, can you summarize that against. yeah well, again, I think it goes back to our earlier. conversation about the the brief recommendation that we drafted it's to say let's do more than we need to be rods a please move forward, we also need to be strategic in in specific and say move forward here, you know point your direction. You know I think that's our role as part of our role. We can also be technical and given the capital technical advice, but.

[117:01] I think pointing to specific directions can be can be abused, because there's so many different ways they could go. So for focusing on saturation and coming up with a strong reservation and and that that they might listen to I think that's a very useful role for him and saying we will focus on that, but that could be where we go. we'll see. Okay, like that good. So i'd like to wrap on at us, for now, unless anyone has any other comments. I will note i'd be happy to share this document that Denver has a new program to incentivise into us in West Enver which is primarily lower income Latino area. By providing various for to financial assistance to. folks that want to create a to use in their property low interest loans, for example, and they have a pilot program I think they could just create a diversity to you and.

[118:08] they're about 10 in the works if anyone wants to see that report, I have a copy be happy to send around it's not completely parallel and germane to boulder, but I think there's probably some good lessons learned in there. Okay matters from the staff at seven. um yeah, the only thing I have is you know agenda items for July in August. Or, if anyone has questions for staff or something you want to hear about. Welcome, I hope we can. revisit a revised recommendation in July and be ready to vote on that to be on the agenda.

[119:07] Do you have any requests for informational sessions all the ones we've we've experienced I had to be really excellent. Whether it's about the deed restriction program and tonight's presentation, I need to use certainly i'm sure more material that can be covered the two of them a burning desire to learn about a particular area of housing policy or initiative that we could cover in July. I. I love the. East boulder sub Community plan presentation that we had, I assume that what they're there exists, one for the something very similar for Alpine balsam maybe it's a matter of me going through and watching old had meetings.

[120:09] But. I don't know, for some reason I oh yeah that the hhs newsletter that we got lists. had mentioned the Alpine balsam. project, and there was a link to it and I observed that the that when you go to the city's project our website where we're now in implementation phase which. Like hey that's great news, what does that mean like. It still looks like a war zone over there, so. I don't know. I keep hearing about it, I know a little bit about it but we'd love to love to have a presentation if there's one that's ready to go that someone could give. option is to go back and listen to counsel or the had meeting I can give you a quick overview right now, or you can do it a separate time because it's my other one of my other projects.

[121:09] Be I think you're going to see some some changes pretty quickly so that the deconstruction of the hospital. is going to begin, probably in the next for at least four to six weeks. So you'll see that block look very different, we are in the design phase for the greenway sort of the northern strip along balsam. So we will have some staff as reviewing some initial designs, hopefully, in the next three to four weeks and then we're also ramping up. consultants, so this city is hiring a design team to basically come up with a program for the city own portion or Dallas idiom but the future city Western city campus.

[122:02] Which is the pavilion building and then both the housing partners, which was chosen as the co developer for the housing portion of the site they. are in the process of hiring their design team and then those two design teams are going to work together and craft a content plan for the entire site, so how to stitch together the city or in city campus and the housing. How do we meet all the requirements of the form based code, how do we incorporate the storm Water Facility, how do we incorporate district energy, which I think is also very exciting for that site. Trying to make basically create a the entire block is net zero energy and deploying all the sorts of new technologies. So a lot of design work is going to happen and that implementation phase, and then the you know, ideally, that would take probably a year and then we begin construction of housing and the city billion, or the city Western campus in.

[123:13] So. that's kind of a quick status update but. Still, a lot more work to go in terms of implementation, but the framework is there, so the area plan was done there's a vision, the form based code was adopted, it says exactly how you implement that vision. And now now it's up to you get all the details straight. So there isn't really a you know, a whole lot go back to counsel or planning board or city council it's you know the form based code it basically says meet the form based code. you're approved. that's great um I I had. Bad information that I won't repeat here, so I. So exciting to hear that. Things are underway and.

[124:01] It does it doesn't sound like anything's gummed up it's like it's just these things just take time. To do. You know and it's it's been challenging with the pandemic too. yeah. And the city is you know, trying to figure out what are what are our offices right, so the whole environment has changed in the last two years, we thought we were going to be relocating people from. office buildings into that one building. and new Britain across the street or the Brenton building across the street so, but now we're you know our chief architect, is trying to figure out what is the future of work for the city. What does that look like how much space, do we really need and how do we incorporate things like age wall West so at ninth and arapaho. Our current senior Center or older adult Center. We would love to relocate that out of the high hazard zone redevelop that as.

[125:00] affordable housing and move that the Center to help my boss. And even build some senior housing as well, so lots of things happening in that implementation. But yeah hopefully that's helpful yeah Thank you. yeah that's a good update Jay Thank you. A couple questions, one is. This php like. To be a master developer. For the project are. more likely to be just developer. selves. Is that sort of thing being parsed out yet. yeah well so both the housing partners was selected by the city City Council approved them as being the Co master developer for the site. They would develop all of the affordable housing. The question right now is you know similar to 30 Pearl do we sell off parcels for to a different developer.

[126:02] To build ownership, so you know there's definitely a strong interest from Council and the Community for ownership opportunities that's not what he does he builds affordable Rentals right so. I would say, minimum of two of the four blocks will be affordable Rentals that one block is will be ownership, so the one closest to the park ninth and balsam. And then the broadway and balsam site I think that's The big question mark right so that could be senior housing that could be location for aws. We don't really know for sure. But. yeah but php is that decision has been made yeah. Thank you Phillip I would recommend if you're going to review a have video the one more we went over the proposed formed a Sony and Center recommendation to counsel that a lot of good mean in it and we made a good recommendation.

[127:05] On that so maybe it's a. Nice example of being effective. And then, a question kind of game back to what we discussed with the letter Judy say. You know, let me mention that ever been impressive started happening up my boss into the types of things we put into a letter. So do you think they are seeing positive parallels between action steps taken to make Alpine Boston happen, and what could could happen at tea bag, for example. This question today. you're gonna tell me beforehand, Michael. Even more revenue than usual.

[128:00] So, can you sorry, can you repeat your question. Is what we're losing in our draft letter in a way that shaping up good as a potential to be a catalyst, the way some of the steps of lead to some positive change an outcome to the Alpine balsam yeah with maybe some action happening next year or two. I don't know I mean that's that's purely speculative on my part to. try to answer them sorry. yeah I mean have placed in advocacy role, and I think that's that's a space that you guys should definitely pursue. yeah I can't tell you how effective it is or not effective, it is. Right. Okay well the Rockies ever win the world series. That, I can tell, no. No.

[129:04] Does anyone else, want to recommend that agenda item for the July meeting or for a future meeting. will also invite new planning director. To the July meeting. know. When we get to do some Q amp a. With them yeah. You will have been on the job as well, six weeks at that time, probably right. But that's The only other item I have on the agenda. that's a good one, though, thank you. Well, if anyone has agenda items to suggest we have a month, and please send them to be happy Jay and tiffany and Danny. Think we're ready to go to animate meeting debrief.

[130:01] He was late to the meeting because he had a flat tire and I think he already told us, he was going to leave early. So I mentioned again we have a board making tea because Jen has resigned. is not likely to be filled anytime soon, so we will be proceeding it's a six person board. We do have a happy hour on the calendar for next Tuesday at wild provisions which is nice boulder and somebody who have rsvp for that. If you are able to make we'd love to see you I think Jay will be there Danny myself done and hope few others, even come it'd be really happy to see you, maybe tiffany tiffany in person. I have a bit of news have. been appointed to another board it's the regional air quality Council that's a governor governor's appointment and.

[131:07] will have no effect on my head work at all actually complimented nicely. believe strongly that there is a connection between her. hair quality images. are having issues it's not an original thought, but that's really why I was appointed to the board that meets monthly and there's some potential land use. coming forward that will have a chance to weigh in on that starts next month. And I was going to review, I just got a letter for Dan here, so we can pass on that. The next meeting with Dave.

[132:00] July. 27. Excellent July 27 that will continue to be. zuby we do have this purely social and business meeting happy our next Tuesday June 28th and. To see some are all going there. let's say men have any other comments before we move to adjourn. Okay, thank you, right here a motion to adjourn. you're enjoying this too much. I was just thinking that maybe to leanne would wanna. Make the motion oh sure i'll make. It get an amen. Okay, so here's the thing we don't have a quorum, can we actually turn maybe not.

[133:00] asleep oh man. I think you're gonna have to be the second. Second okay. All in favor of returning to June me. Take can everybody enjoy the rest of the summer heavy solstice and see you all next week. Everybody. In a. Thank you.