September 28, 2022 — Housing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:09] Okay, Michael. Okay, I think we're good to go. Thank you. Everybody for joining us for the September being of the Housing Advisory Board. I'm. Michael Jason, the chair. I will call this meeting to order, and we'll start with roll call. Make sure we have a quorum, Gulian and Ramsey. Thank you do you full of over him here? Ah, Terry, pamela's that's what kenny uh Terry before he is there. He's giving you a thumbs up. Okay, great. I was muted. Not too good. Yeah, I don't have the full screen. I'm doing it on this phone. Um, Danny Taylor.

[1:06] It is, I believe, delay coming back from a memorial service. But we do have four present at the form, so we will launch into the meeting again. Thank you all for attending gender Review. Name number two again at Number Three will be approval of minutes, and then we'll have public participation. It's my talk. You're breaking up

[2:05] in October. The Michael, can you hear me? Um! And unfortunately the the vice-chair is not with us. Michael, are you back? I'm sorry I don't know what's going on? My so. Um give me a moment. I hope this will stabilize um. So the item six is matters from the board is the A. To discussion. Item, seven hundred matters from staff we'll go to the debrief and calendar check, and we will seek to adjourn by nine Pm. Um. Before we go to our next time as a welcome. Our next, our new planning director, Brian Mueller, had the pleasure of me today. I'm going to ask him, jay and Staff, for you ramble for public participation.

[3:07] So turn it over to J for a moment. Thank you, Michael. So, um thank you, everybody for joining us. We just have some ground rules for the meeting for those of you that may not be familiar with how the city operates these types of meetings. We try to strike a balance between meaningful transparent engagement and online security. So we have adopted these rules. This meeting of have is used to conduct business of the city of Boulder. Any activities that disrupt delay or otherwise interfere are prohibited. Um! Sorry about that. I'm not sure what happened. There's time for speaking. They just saw on the agenda that Michael just covered, that's coming up shortly, and that is your opportunity to address the board, and no person shall speak except when recognized by Michael,

[4:10] and you must stay within your a lot of time. Each person please register You're using your real name. Any person believed to using a pseudonym will not be permitted to speak at the meeting. If you need help. Tiffany or or Board Secretary can help you with that. No video is permitted except for city officials have members, and those speakers and presenters invited to speak. Everybody else participates by voice only. The person presiding. Michael shall enforce these rules by muting anyone who violates the rule and the chat function, if we have it enabled, will be used to communicate with Tiffany, and there should be limited to technical questions.

[5:00] I'm not sure why my computer has a mind of its own right now. But so, yeah, the chat is really just for the purpose of technical questions, and then only the host or individuals designated by the host will be permitted to share. So those the rules, and i'll stop sharing. Thank you. Jay. Um. Now i'm. Item three. I'm delighted to introduce our new director for planning development services. As I mentioned, I met bread today, and he comes to us from city of Greeley as a to you, Grad, and I really enjoyed it. So say how you bred. Maybe you can comment about some of your thoughts about having issues in boulder, and where you think we should be going. Well, I thought this was going to be easy until you set up the last things, but you on the spot, Man, it's a pleasure to meet all of you, and thank you for the welcome to your board and thank you for that kind.

[6:13] I could not be more happy with with meeting folks in the community, and can't tell you just how warm and authentic the welcome has been from staff from planning Borg other Boards Council from the community. Um, it! It's just been a wonderful um privilege really to be able to walk into this role and recognize the great legacy that exists in there as a city and a community, and also the great work that's been put ahead of me by the department and the leadership

[7:14] formative years, and really came to see you to get up couple of undergraduate liberal arts degrees, and then actually had a first career at with the Disney Company in Florida, doing operations and corporate sales, many other things that they have to share over a beer sometime. The but I was always interested in this concern or this idea in many parts of the country, but especially along the range that I was familiar with, that growth was just inevitable and range would be one giant city like Los Angeles, and there wasn't any way to change that. And lo and behold, there's this wonderful profession that ended up going to grad school for city and regional planning at Cornell in upstate New York,

[8:16] and then made my way back West to family, and I have since worked in a number of places up down the front range, starting in Douglas County, which was the fastest Berwin county in the Us. At the time just a wide range of experiences there from helping develop downtown to transit or into development to affordable housing. It. It works there for um over a decade in a capacity that's fairly similar to here. Development, review engineering, compliance, historic preservation, mit functions, administration, long range planning

[9:13] all of the above. Uh. We did my last work to develop a housing plant. I was excited to see that Boulder has as well, and, in fact, you know one of the rules that I see myself having is being an ambassador for the city. To the larger it's exciting for me to be able to report that Boulder does have a housing plan that it does have a vision for providing for maybe the underrepresented and those who have been marginalized over the years. A lot of that, you know, being represented by the possibility of affordable housing, been excited to learn about the needs around the missing middle

[10:11] work of this group, and others really throughout the city, because housing is not just a I've been excited to already begin to have partnerships with some of the staff that hss a fun little fact. Kurt and I are long time acquaintances and friends actually Haven't gone to college together, knew each other well, and have kept in touch over the years that we would be peers, So that that's been exciting, I guess a little bit of my thoughts about housing again. There's a direct synergy with the work for may chase as we are here to support their goals, and they are very supportive of ours.

[11:13] We recognize that there is a continuum between ah housing um price points and choice, and the city's values of diversity, diversity within the community without geographic diversity, diversity and housing choices, which is everything from aesthetic choices to layout to price point to areas of the community, to affordability to relevance. And it's

[12:01] geographic location to activity centers, transit services like park and police libraries in school. So it all is truly comprehensive, and I know that Boulder has a long legacy of considering things in a comprehensive way, which in itself, just by virtue of being a cooperative plan with the county, really speaks to the comprehensive nature of the citizens and leaders of boulders over the decade really excited to be part of that in that regard. I look forward to working with you all working with the Planning Board Council, and as policy as evolves over time, and we continue to move forward.

[13:02] Thank you, Brad. I really appreciate you. Taking the time to make those comments and welcome. I also should mention we have John Gerstell, Our planning board, Lia, is our on board. Welcome to him earlier, and we have the alternate planning board. Ah! Representative lined up, I believe, is a a speaker. At this point we can go to public participation, and i'll just go as we see on the screen, so I believe Susan Lot is signed up to make three minutes of coming. Is that correct? I didn't think that I was i'm not supposed to be on video. Am I? Um, my Michael, you Haven't. Ah, you haven't approved the minutes from last month. Oh, i'm sorry. Let's get that over. Um. Okay? Ah, I think everyone's had a chance to review that. Give me everyone on the board the minutes from August twenty, fourth, two thousand and twenty two. Do we have a motion to approve?

[14:06] You got one from Philip, and we got a second from Terry. All in favor. Aye, okay, we've already gotten a lot done. We'll go back to Susan Lot for her comments. Uh, welcome, Susan, hey? Thank you. Uh, I'm mostly listening in, because, uh, I live in Gospro uh I live at one thousand seven hundred and Eleven Grove Street. I'm. Currently a coach chair of the Gospel Neighborhood Association. So we're um very interested in the Maybe you issue. We've had a few go in here, and there are some concerns about the enforcement of the ownership issue. Ah! As well as um. Some concerns about own owners building a to use, and moving into those and then charging market price for their main home, and not really adding to the affordable housing in the stock. So

[15:04] we're interested in pursuing. Ah, you know discussions and learning more about the policy. So i'm here to mostly listen. So thank you for posting um. Thank you for those comments. Could you clarify a little bit your reference to the ownership issue? I believe we have time. Yes, just quickly. We have a number of homes in our neighborhood that most of us are aware Airbnb, or other rental companies most of the time, not, as we understand it, with owners living in them time that they're supposed to be living in it, and that's an enforcement issue in our mind. It's difficult to enforce and understand. But most of us know which houses those are, and our know that that's happening. So we just see it happening in our community and it and would like to

[16:03] discuss more about how how we can enforce these things if we're going to actually use them to make affordable housing and and not add to more expensive stock. So that's what I meant by ownership issue. Okay, So just to paraphrase, if i'm understanding you, you're concerned that there'll be ah, ah! Basically a form of abuse of people um creating a to to rent out for short-term Reynolds rather than actually providing housing. Yes, we already have ah we think of an enforcement issue with the program we have for allowing the search or rentals. And so we think it. Could I ask? Ah, Kay, or someone on staff or clarification, as what? What are the regulations on short-term releases. I thought they were pretty well regulated. Maybe there was illegal abuses going on. But Jay, could you come in on that?

[17:07] No. Jerk: Um: yeah. I mean it is, Susan pointed out. Short-term mentals are prohibited with If you have an ad you and our rental compliance team actually does look at Airbnb at, and other short-term mental ads, and does try to or does on a regular basis. Try to catch those folks, but I can put you in touch with the appropriate staff, and they can look into it. Okay, Thank you for that. Yeah, thanks for that comment Susan Terry. You have a comment. Relate this:

[18:03] Yeah, and more of a question and a comment. Susan, how many you know? How many people do you think are doing this in your neighborhood that you are sure of, You know. Well, is it one person or ten people, or I? I'd say more like ten? No one. Yeah, Now, Some of them may be perfectly legal. I don't know about them as much, but some We've had discussions in our uh neighborhood meetings, and have probably five houses that we are concerned about. We have used the we have reported them. We're not shy about the reporting, so some of them may have been taken care of. Okay, we're keeping an eye on it. Let's just put it that way. We're in a my neighborhood. That's close to downtown and smaller places that are easy to

[19:01] thank you. Thanks for the questions. Okay, thank you. And I believe Mark Mcintyre, a planning board has signed up for public comment. And so Please take it away, Mark. Hi! Uh, Can you guys hear me? I can. Okay, Great thanks. Um. First I I just i'm Mark Mcintyre. I currently serve on the planning board. I'm the alternate liaison to Ah, John Gerssel. So you're in great hands with John and i'm glad that easier liaison. And so i'm speaking strictly on my own behalf tonight. The but I have not attended as many have meetings, maybe, as I should have as a playing with Michael this morning, and you know it's um it. I just wanted to make a comment that prior to being on planning board, I was on the Transportation Advisory Board, which is somewhere to have in the role being strictly advisory,

[20:07] and sometimes that can be frustrated. Sometimes it can feel like you're shouting into the wind, And so I just wanted to comment that I think that in recent times, as I have followed your progress, and not through as much attendance, maybe, as I should have. But you guys have been doing good work, especially on the ad you issue, and I commend you for taking a leadership role on that. Not every agenda item needs to come from staff, and I wanted to encourage you to be bold. Your advice, I think our counsel, our council values, our advisory board's opinion, and they appreciate well thought out advice from from our boards. And I think you guys are doing that. I want to encourage you to do that continue with that.

[21:09] So you know, a tos are not going to completely solve our housing problem. But you know I I have a personal philosophy in that personal philosophy as you do when you can, and that progress is good; and I think that if Boulder makes progress on abus, and making it more feasible and more allowable, and it's more common for people to take their large lot and add an abu to a bike housing, whether it's for family or acquaintances, or just so that they can stay in their home. I think it's an important issue that you're addressing, and in regard to a to use and any other issues. I also encourage you to address issues directly. One of the common concerns from neighbors about a tous is parking, and as a transportation advisory board member

[22:08] you need to address parking directly rather than as a symptom of a to use. So, anyway, I I commend you for your work and your service to the community, and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. Thanks. Well, thank you, Mark, for those very timely comments. I'll remind other members of the public. If you'd like to speak, raise your hand. The next person to have done so is Kathleen Mccormick. So take it away for your three minutes. Well, good evening. This is Kathleen Mccormick. I'm. A member of the the better Boulder, award. I'm. Also a member of the older housing network editors group, and I was part of the policy Abu policy group that put together a letter to the Housing Advisory Board.

[23:00] Um. Suggesting some regulation change and six regulation changes that would be easy. Um! A fairly ah inexpensive to do, and would not require a lot of staff time there that they're the low-hanging fruit for making eighty new changes. That would make it easier and somewhat what made, perhaps somewhat less expensive for people in Boulder to build a to use. I um, my husband and I, and and full of full disclosure. My husband is Michael a chase. Your chair. I spoke to you. I spoke to you all um in in. I believe in July, about the same issue we built an ad on the back of our house six years ago in a in a wing that we no longer were using or needed. It was a family round, et cetera, et cetera. Our kids are have blown the coop and um it's a four hundred. So ah! Twenty square space. We put in a little kitchen. There was a bathroom. It's got a lot of light. We share a patio. We've had a series of young, professional and graduate students who have been living there for the last six years. They are completely delightful. We offer them affordable rent on a long-term basis. They have all said to us that they appreciate living in a nice neighborhood with

[24:14] with access to a backyard and at an affordable rate that they could not afford to live in an apartment on their own and anywhere else involved. I just want to encourage you to look at our letter. There are six recommendations. One of them is eliminate. Saturation limits another one is eliminate parking requirements. These are all things that I have heard about again and again from um neighbors, and from other folks of Walter I'm. Also an Arts Commission member, and I've talked with a lot of artists about the need for more affordable housing. So I think this will benefit people who need a little more income, perhaps for retirement. It will benefit folks who may want to live in the ad and rent out the main house. It will benefit um. Many people who can't afford to rent otherwise in bolder, so I do encourage you to be um to look very carefully at these recommendations, and to make these changes that are easy to do, and and would, I think, encourage many more people to a preach be able to appreciate the benefits of accessory dwelling events. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate you. Listening to this, and considering these matters

[25:26] well, thank you. Kathleen. Next person, raising their hand, is Diane de Warren, the Diane. You're still muted. I know now i'm unmuted. Thank you. Um. Thanks for these couple of minutes, in which I might add my remarks to the ones already noted. Um. In brief, I've lived in my house for forty seven years. Same house. It had a small studio converted from the outbuilding garage when I moved into the house, and over the forty seven years. I've made numerous

[26:07] improvements and upgrades to that space, and it has become an integral part as a registered license ad you, and a long term rental. I strongly support everything that Kathleen just said, and I will not repeat that and endorse strongly the six recommendations to which she refers. I've had a lot of experience with the process since one thousand nine hundred and seventy six to today, and how it has morphed and changed over the years. I couldn't agree more that it is an enhancement to our neighborhoods to have a variety of ads and ways in which they may be used, and serving the property honor as well as the neighborhood. One thing I would add to the list of six recommendations that may be under consideration here is a strong suggestion that the property be owner-occupied,

[27:10] I think, when it is owner-occupied, and you're living with your very closest neighbors, who are your residents in the Adu, or the the original house. If that's how things change over time that an owner-occupied property will always be a good neighbor, or as good a neighbor as anyone has been, as it relates to the impact of um more coming and goings with having an ad you. If that is indeed the case, i'm very happy to hear that the Housing Advisory Board is taking up this subject. I think that Boulder is far too restrictive. What is permitted. I have observed many friends and neighbors who have either made their way through the ad you process or not, because it has become so onerous. So I will leave it at that, with the, as I say, additional recommendation that owner occupied, I think, brings a lot of

[28:09] quality to the situation, and also allays many concerns that people might have about speculative use of ad use. So thank you for your consideration. And once again thanks for taking up this topic. Thank you for those comments, Diane. You have Lynn Siegel up next i'll. I see some other names of the screen. But you, Haven't raised your hand yet, and if you want to speak, do so when you're ready by raising your hand So, Lynn, please share your thoughts first, Michael, Could you please put the timer into one of the windows because I don't like the looming time in front of my face. I don't have the ability to do that, but someone else might it. It's done in other meetings.

[29:00] No, i'll figure that out when thanks for those. I meant to do that for this meeting, and I I forgot I'll just wait. I I don't know how to do it, though. So you're gonna have to. We're gonna have to deal with it tonight, and i'll fix it for next time. Yeah, please, Because this happens in all the I follow eight city boards, and this happens all the time. There's inconsistent. But let's stay on topic. Lynn. Can you maybe start your comments, please. Yeah. And my comments are a lot to do with process, which is, I want my friggin video window. I had one last night at the Human Relations Commission Meeting, and you know what's the deal, you know Again you're going to say. Oh, the City Attorney Security. No, I don't buy it. I don't buy it like there's no terrorism going on with having a video window. I'm sorry you know. My words might be caustic, but you have to listen to her, you know, and I'm going to try and be nice and happy, and everything. But i'm not happy when i'm just respected, and I am Now, when I don't have a video window, and when I've got a looming

[30:11] numbers in front of my face. Okay, now, what I want to talk about is housing inequity fundamentals of what you're doing in boulder ads are great and everything. But there's a bigger elephant in the room that is market Value is going to drive what happens here, and as an example, Okay, sombrero March. But sombrero marsh. Um That is partially owned by Boulder Valley School district, and I know Jay is going to be big time supportive of this manufactured housing thing that's going in there, and that is not okay. It's another scheme for quote unquote affordable housing, looking good. Oh, manufactured housing where we train the people, how to build houses, and they build them, you know. And then they put

[31:04] and on the panorama, or or I forget the name of it. Ponderosa, one of the mobile home places. That will be a permanent, you know, housing with this manufacturer process. That's really delightful. But that's not a good place for this to happen. Someone testified about the rare birds today. It Robert habitat is is impacted there. And you know, Oakley Thorn, who drew the blue. A line around Boulder basically is a is a a border and involved with sombrero march and sombrero marsh, and this is ah considered today for the habitat community. The habitat conservation area with the open Space board of trustees retreat meetings, and even the Osbt didn't know what was what Jay's plan is for this manufactured housing set up there in between the excel power lines. You know this is not a good place to have a large scale situation like this,

[32:12] and I know the city of Boulder constantly. There's nothing that if it's got affordable housing, it's going to get through. But you know what happens. More affordable housing creates the demand for more affordable housing by the services that it demands. So don't buy it done. Um. Thank you for those comments. Lynn duly noted. Um, next raising her hand, is name Michelle. Would you appreciate if you give us your full name if you have a last name as well please. I do have a last name, Michelle Bishop I. The Cosgrove neighborhood. Also I'm, currently treasurer for the gask of neighborhood association with Susan Iyon as the chair. I want to thank you for revisiting some of the Adu Um regulations that we have in place. I absolutely favor affordable housing.

[33:11] However, in this neighborhood the the rental pressure is so great, you know we're close to the university, and so market rate is what people want. So we don't get to benefit from that affordability, like someone in a suburb that has a ah unit in the backyard, which I think is fabulous. Number of neighborhoods have. A number of neighbors have spoken about the fact that some of our revel properties that are getting a to use put on the back of them are owned by an Llc. And so you know, we're kind of wondering how that works with your ownership that somebody has to live there, because we know

[34:02] the owner is not living there and not going to live there. But we understand that there might be some sort of a loophole involved with the Lc. So we hope this is one of the things that you can address. All right. Thank you much. Oh, thank you. So you're saying that there might be a corporate entity that's actually aggregating any use and bring them out like the Rbos. No, just um whatever metal unit a house with an ad you on the back is owned by an Llc. So, and and the owner doesn't live there. I'm Well, that's i'll confer to staff on this, but I think that's against the rules. Oh, can you come in on that? Yeah, that's correct.

[35:00] There are situations where you may want. We We are looking at this issue, and Lisa can talk about it more when we get into the discussion. But yeah, there are some challenges. So say, if you're building an A to you with the primary residents a lot of times those might be in a Llc. And they don't eat the the ownership requirement. But but the intention is that it will be in the future. So we're trying to provide some flexibility while still trying to maintain the intent of under occupancy for all. But that's definitely part of the conversation, and we will. We will look into that more by Larry is the issue, whether it's because it can be owned by an Llc. At the owner of the Llc. Can be living there. So what's please? Clarify

[36:00] It's a listed as owned by an Lc. And the owner does not live there. Okay, Got it. So it's really the issue is not what it's owned, how it's All The issue is the owner of the the issue is that there's a There's a loophole here somehow, but I hope you they will be able to address. That happens when a rental house has has been a rental house for decades. Now i'll see you for an eighty. You has been added to the back of it in the backyard, and now both of them are held by that. Llc. The owner is not living there, and the owner has never lived there. So this is a loophole that I hope you'll be able to address. Thank you. Thank you. And for the record. I I believe there's been some discussion among housing advocates about whether to eliminate that owner occupancy requirement which is not something I could personally support if it came up with, have, I would argue strongly against that, and

[37:00] I would agree with you that it's not a great situation, Michelle, so I hope that loophole can be personally out. That loophole can be closed. Um, Next we have Alexia Parks. Yes, Hi, i'll just be brief. I have a couple of messages and our questions, and the first one is I want to say, one hundred percent support. Um. The eighty you for allowing seniors like myself to age in place. I've lived in my home and property for the last fifty, three years. I love it. I've created a wildlife corridor. That's a permanent quarter, so that they all the animals who come off of black staff can benefit, and from large to small. That's one thing. The second thing is, I was made aware that a seven hundred and seventy circle drive was purchased recently for six million dollars, and they plan to tear it down and approval for destruction. Demonstration got approved

[38:01] this past week. I believe my concern on that is, and and to have people keep an eye on this, on your, in your um, your organization, Their agency is that it has a public right away. It's for the neighbors. It's the kind of thing that happens when you know that there is an alley between. I mean, you know, a walkway or a pathway for neighbors to pass through on one street to the other, for example, from spruce to pearl, and in this case we can actually walk, and I've done this for fifty, three years. Um walked a couple of times a week directly to the flat irons through this person's front yard, and they cashed right in front of their front door The way they designed. Their house was right against a driveway. That was Ah, but it actually for the neighbors. They know It's a public access. I want to make sure that seven hundred and seventy maintains that public access is not meant for everyone who arrives from boulder to walk through that passageway. But it's a courtesy to the neighbors because it has been a former, I guess, ally that was abandoned that gave them direct access, and I've done it for years. I won't

[39:08] dogs for fifty years through there, and that is maintained as a public access and definitely the ah Adu! I would be one hundred percent supportive to have that because I plan to age and place for the next twenty years. Thank you at least. Thank you. Thank you for those comments and your support for any years. We have Ah, another minute in the same back from the board. I have a question for Alexia, but I I will add one more thing then. Um! And that is, I support access for animals because a lot of people recently at um, one thousand and eighty five. There was a beautiful home home by Bernie Reader, who was very active in the community. She had a historic sort of architecturally elegant Italian red tile building that was probably about two thousand square feet,

[40:01] and somebody bought it for their forever home, and then changed their mind that they bought it, got approval to tear it down, and for the last year. Ten million or a home is being built there that's going to be on the market for ten million. That's just a risk that people will buy a house, think we're going to keep it forever, and then change their mind and move out of the state which is apparently what happened so a beautiful home got torn down that was affordable, and um and a giant home was put into its place, and it still has gone unsold at ten million. Thank you for that. I would love um. What's happened gets a little deeper into its work. Plan to take up that issue of ah tear downs, and how that affects affordability. It's not currently on our agenda, but I do think it's important. We see that in a lot in our neighborhood, and it's a little disturbing. Yeah. Why, Don't, you want to keep the people, or else make it into a

[41:00] co-op or multiple You know multiple families could buy into one large, you know. It's probably about twenty thousand square feet, my gases, and below the glass house on Flagstaff. But if you had, you know, if you had four seniors buying into something and ah living there ten seniors, and in this case moving in, then it would be affordable, because they could all live in a communal space as seniors and age, and place in one big house, which is another good idea, I think, in the future interesting. There's um a lot of communities are grappling with that. And again, I would love to have a really robust discussion of that when it's on the agenda of a meeting in the near future. But thank you for bringing it up. The only other person who Hasn't spoken, and I don't know if he cares to speak. Is John Herrick. Okay, hey? All? Yeah, I'm: just actually here to listen. And i'm a journalist with the boulder reporting lab. Thanks.

[42:04] Okay. Well, thank you for joining us. I appreciate that. Um not on the agenda, but I meant to mention earlier. It mentioned earlier as we uh, or losing a board member, Juliet Boone has resigned from the board, and I just wanted to mention how grateful we were for her service on the board. I know she did a lot of hard work, and um! He was forced to uh to some priorities. So we are down to five people on this board not clear uh yet is going to get a a ruling on this, whether we need three or five, three, or four to maintain a form we have for tonight. So it's not a problem tonight. Uh, but I really appreciate um the consistent attendance. We are going on the board, so we can have effective meetings and take legal hopes and so forth. Um, so, anyway big. Thank you to Julian. I wish you reviewers for your thank you, and in person. Ah, Lexi, who have to apply to be on our board, and I believe those applications will be coming up um next year. Um, I've heard maybe February as soon as February or March one and these two openings at that time.

[43:11] Okay, um matters from the board. We I do want to have a really good Edu discussion tonight, but Jay inform me at the last minute that we have two staff members present to provide some additional background in aid use. We should we do that first and hear from Polly and Lisa. Yeah, um, and then introduce Holly and Holly will go over some slides as well. So I figured that this was a good opportunity to provide a little context for your conversation and and share some of the the data that we've collected today. So all right, Go, take it away, Lisa.

[44:00] All right. Good evening. It's nice to meet you. I'm like I said. I'm lisa hud i'm a senior city planner for planning and development services, and I will be managing this project for the accessory dwelling unit updates. So Paul and I are currently working on an evaluation of the Adu changes that were made most recently in two thousand and eighteen, and they were put into effect in two thousand and nineteen. And so Jay asked us to be here just to give some uh introductory uh numbers that we've been seeing in the data just to kind of frame your discussion. So that's why i'm here tonight. Um, I've also been doing some research of other cities. So i'll be brief. But just throw a lot of charts at you, and Holly has some more to. So uh this is related to uh, a two thousand and twenty-two two thousand and twenty-three city house a work program priority, where they identify the city council early this year identified updates to the accessory joining unit regulations as one of their main priorities. Um. And that objective is really to increase the allowance of being used. I know you guys know some of this background. But um! The Council members who discussed it during the retreat related to the priorities focused on removing the saturation limit which

[45:09] restrict the number of ads in a neighborhood area, and also looking at potentially allowing both an attached and detached adu on one lot. Um. And then they wanted us to also analyze potential barriers to Aidu construction. And uh the schedule so far is that tentatively, we're on a meeting agenda in November, with city council to start kind of spoken out the issue. Um! So it'll be great to get your feedback and hear your conversation uh in advance of that. So we'll dive into some of these numbers. So we've been doing an analysis. This is kind of this chart shows the whole history of a to use in boulder, so dating all the way back to one thousand nine hundred and eighty-three, when the first ordinance was adopted, and then it's showing how many unknowns were approved each year. So you can see kind of the Uh milestones when updates were made to the regulations, and you can see there's a a large change after the most recent um updates in two thousand and eighteen. So what we've been seeing

[46:08] in two thousand and nineteen, and beyond is what i'm going to talk about tonight. So we used the new eightyu regulations went into effect on February the first two thousand and nineteen. So all of this data comes from that date until the end of July of this year, and in that time we approved two hundred and eighty applications, and ninety six ads were built. In that time. We also have forty, four that are currently under construction, and thirty two that are still getting their permits reviewed, just diving into kind of those that same data, but just looking at two thousand and nineteen to two thousand and twenty-two, two thousand and nineteen was the most a to use that were ever approved in folder. I think the previous record per year was like twenty-eight so up to eighty after we made those changes, there was definitely a backlog, as we were working on those regulations. That might be a reason why uh twenty, two two thousand and twenty was an odd year, but uh, still about sixty applications that were approved for a to use

[47:06] two thousand and twenty one went down a little bit more to forty-six, and in two thousand and twenty-two. Obviously, when the data we only did the data up to the end of July. So we're about halfway through, and at that point twelve had been approved. We still have thirty, one that are in some sort of the process. We're anticipating that the numbers for two thousand and twenty-two will probably be similar. Obviously we don't know what the rest of these months have in store for us, but probably a similar number to two thousand and twenty-one. So we go into those two hundred and eighty-six, and looked at them a lot of the different features of them. So of the two hundred, one hundred and seventeen. Of those about two over three were detached ads, and eighty three of those are attached to interviews. We also looked at location about three over four of those are located in the Rl. One one of our lower density residential districts, but about ten percent in the residential estate district and Rmx. One which makes these residential district.

[48:02] We also looked at lot sizes, since there's a minimum lot size. Ah! The average was a little over ten thousand, but just taking into account skewing of large lots. Ah, we also look at the median. So the Median lot, size for an eightyu was about seven thousand nine hundred we've mapped where any use we're approved in use, are located in the city. This that might be a little hard to see on the Powerpoint side. We're working on getting it to an interactive capabilities. So you can zoom in. But, uh, you can kind of see that the icons that have the yellow outline. Those are Amy's that were before the changes in two thousand and nineteen, and then the kind of greenish blue as they use that were afterwards. And This is just the norm half of boulder, the challenge of landscape screens, and a portrait city. Here's the southern half, so we've been mapping those locations as Well, uh we also have been looking at how many of these eighty-s were either market rate or affordable, because some of the regulations that were approved in two thousand and eighteen two thousand and nineteen uh, gave some extra flexibility to affordable units. So of those two hundred one hundred and thirty-three of the unknowns were market rate. Sixty-seven of them were affordable, and I also thought it was interesting to look at of those. Are they deciding to do a detached or an attached so for marketing rate. It's pretty similar.

[49:27] A similar split between detached and attached, but for affordable, it's interesting to see that almost double the amount of attached units or affordable units, were built as detached rather than be touched. We're also looking at the size of the unknowns that have been approved in these last three years. Um, Again, looking at both median and average to try to understand that. But kind of the average size overall between detached and attached is about six hundred square feet um little over six hundred median below. Um! But then, looking at detached and attached, you guys, i'm sure I think you're familiar. You've talked about the size limits before, but um detached is limited if it's marked a rate of five,

[50:14] one hundred and fifty square feet, and the average that we're seeing is detached is five hundred and forty, seven square feet, but that includes some affordable detached, which they are allowed to go up to eight hundred square feet, so the average for affordable units is six hundred and thirty, four square feet, and the average for market rate is four hundred and ninety, two looking at attached. They're allowed to be a little bit bigger, so they can be a thousand square feet or a third of the principal structure. And what we're seeing is that the average attached size is about seven hundred, and there's not much difference between a portable and mercury. We also have had a few applications go forward to Boz, our board of zoning adjustments for Uh variances, and all four of the applications were approved for variance to the maximum four area. They all interestingly, were kind of similar situations where it's an existing um house with the basement, and they were converting into an Eu so um the sizes that were by Bosa. You can see on the screen range from just over that one thousand limits to up to fifty.

[51:24] The saturation limit obviously, was a focus of council. So we've been looking really closely at that. So we looked at all of those two hundred and eighty-s that have been approved over the last three years, and what their saturation limit was that they were what the saturation limit of their neighborhood was, including the approval of that ado, and this was interesting because about a quarter of the applications that were approved. Don't actually have the saturation limit apply it only applies to certain zoning districts. Um, but those forty-one in that light rain those are properties. That the saturation limit was above ten, which used to be ten percent which used to be the limit it was increased to twenty, so those forty, one eighty-s would not have been built, if not for the changes that happened in two thousand and eighteen. However, it's still the vast majority that are under ten percent anyway, which was the previous.

[52:17] So those are kind of the numbers related to people that actually go through the eighty- process and successfully build an edu, And that gives us a lot of great data on that. But in our conversations we've also been thinking that it'd be. It's really important to hear from the people that are interested in building an Edu, but maybe never get to the process. Ever get through the process fully, will talk about some people that maybe started the process and then withdrew. But the the way that we um these people that are kind of inquiring or looking into doing an Au, and maybe what barriers they might be running into. Um is our using our inquire Boulder ticket service. So this is, if you haven't used it before anyone that can put in a question, and it reaches staff and um, they can get an answer to a question related to a city service. So we looked at just the Edu the inquiries that came in from the beginning of this year through mid-september, and

[53:15] the city received two hundred and eighteen inquiries related to eighty-s, just to put it in context that's about five percent of the inquiries that we're getting for planning and development services. We get four thousand of those in just that portion of the year we dug in to see what kind of the main topics were that people are writing in about. And what was interesting is that saturation limit is absolutely the number. One topic that people are um asking questions of the city related to so thirty, nine of those two hundred and eighteen are related to saturation limits. This is an av you allowed category, I think, for people that maybe Aren't using this specific term saturation limit. I think it's still kind of applies or is similar to that. There's kind of general inquiries, building code, size and setbacks, things like that. These are the most common things that come up.

[54:08] So that was an interesting way to look at that. I I also made this slide. Just these are quotes from these tickets. Um! Just to try to show how people are asking about this saturation. So I think the one in the top Right? Ah really sums it up that i'm interested in building an adu. But I need to confirm that it's not saturated. How do I do this without submitting a whole application and paying the fee. And so that's kind of what everybody's getting at, and it seems that saturation is really something that is widely known about. But it's something difficult. Only the city staff can do the kind of Gis mapping calculation to make sure that you're meeting the saturation limit or not. So it's very challenging for people to kind of get past that first barrier of understanding whether they can uh build an ad on their property. That's kind of the quantitative data. I also wanted to give just a really brief introduction to some of the comparable cities research that we've been doing when I say comparable. We've been looking at about thirty four cities so far around the country. It's really hard to find an exact analog to older to any city. Really, every city is unique, but we're looking at a number of different factors to make sure that they're

[55:23] comparable in some way to boulder. So a lot of those thirty four are cities with large universities. A lot of them are trying to find ones with smaller land areas so smaller than one hundred square miles. Credit bank cities that have a similar population density, so population per square mile, which ends up with mostly kind of smaller cities. So below two hundred thousand. And then there's some cities that just they meet one, but not the other especially related to this range of medium value of housing at rent. You guys, I'm sure are very familiar with Boulder is fairly unique on this. And so, in order to find some cities that are comparable in terms of that feature, they might not meet some of the other things. So we might have to go to cities, look at cities that have a much higher population, density, or something like that to get a,

[56:11] However, all of the forty-four or thirty-four cities have a persons for household average between two and three people. And then we've also tried to pull into some other comparisons to other cities in Colorado that might not meet those exact other features. But um just the context of being in Colorado. We want to look at that as well. And then we also found some other cities that this have recently tackled aeu updates. Just so we understand the contemporary topics that people are addressing with updates in this comparable city analysis. We're looking at a lot of the main features of the regulations that we currently have related to ads in Boulder, and they can get pretty specific. But I think the general topics that we're looking at of how cities address a tous is where Canadians go in the city? What do they need to look like? And then also, who can live in them.

[57:04] And so that's what we're trying to understand from all of these comparable cities, and we're not done with this research. We're still in the process of doing it. But I did want to share just a few highlights from the initial thirty four, the first one being that not a single other city has a saturation limit for eighty-six. I have struggled nationwide to find anything. You get close. Um! But we are the only city that has that um saturation limit. Only a few of the cities that we've looked at have a minimum lot size for abus that seems especially common in recent updates for people to be eliminating minimal plot sizes. Um! Almost all of the cities, however, that we looked at do limit it to one hundred and eighty you per lot um, and then related to maximum size. There's there's a lot of variation on that. But I would say that generally holder's maximum size of detached units is smaller than other cities. When you look at other Colorado cities, it seems like Colorado kind of tends to be on the smaller side of allowing a to use or having smaller ads, but generally nationwide. It seems like

[58:08] they're mostly around eight hundred square feet, or they've set a limit of the percentage of the principal structure, so that one's kind of interesting and variable. There's also variation around the country on parking requirements, either not requiring parking at all, or only requiring one space, or there's several cities that well require parking, but exempt it if it's close to a transit, or if there's on street parking, or certain features like that, Almost all of these cities say that the city that the eighty you cannot be sold separately, so it can't be made into a separate lot. It It really needs to remain an accessory dwelling unit to another ah structure. And then about half and a half really evenly split on, whether cities require owner, occupancy, or not. So those are the highlights that we've learned so far. We are happy to hear if there's other cities that you know of, that we should dig into um. Please let me know we're still working on that, and that the evaluation is still in progress. So just wanting to give some initial highlights so that you can kind of use that to frame your discussion, and i'll stop sharing my screen and hand it over to Hawaii.

[59:22] We want to actually have a question for Lisa. Oh, yeah, if you have questions happy, too. No, we don't tell a punch. Go first, so you're ready to go. Yeah, I was gonna ask about the last thing you said about a to use not being sold separately. I went to a workshop a week or two ago about co-bying real estate when you go in with other partners to buy housing. This was kind of geared for the denver metro area of more than boulder, which has occupancy restrictions which make that probably more challenging. But it does. Does the not cleaving off the Edu as a separate property, prohibit an arrangement where you could Co. By a property with with shares that are well-defined.

[60:08] That's not something we've talked about I don't know. J. If you thought about that at all, it's something we can definitely look into. I haven't heard that, but I can't see how it would be an issue. I mean just as long as it's remained. There's a principal dwelling and an accessory dwelling, and it remains in a single fee. Simple law shouldn't be an issue as long as that there is a number of occupying it. Yep, it's like when I go um. And then Lisa uh your Your chart showed a really robust production of a to use. I think it was in two thousand and nineteen, and then a big drop off. Is that all? Covid related between General Sandstill and difficulty of requiring contractors, et cetera.

[61:00] Yeah, it's challenging. I mean It's challenging to pinpoint it on one certain thing, I think it went really high up in two thousand and nineteen, because people knew that the changes were about to happen, and it was going to be made more flexible, so that could be a reason. But there was definitely a lot of um, not a lot of, but several applications that were withdrawn, because they couldn't find a contract or architect, or just general like. We have no idea what's going to happen while we're in the middle of a pandemic that there were definitely comments like that. So I think it definitely impacted the amount in two thousand and twenty. Okay, and then um, I I stumbled upon the website for a town called Leavenworth, Washington. Recently I was surprised to see that they had a really good program for a pre-purge au designs from the village of two thousand. Oh, no, he froze for me! Did he of any of the thirty-four communities.

[62:00] Sorry, Michael, You you broke up for a little bit, so I didn't hear your full comment. So. Okay. Oh, gosh, Um: Yeah. So the question is, is, Have you in any of those communities you survey? And look at the idea of the pre-approved edu designs where you pick from a pattern book that speeds up the process of reading A to you. Yeah, it's not something that we've been specifically looking for with other cities. But I know that as I've been looking through all of these, I've stumbled upon a few examples that do that. Um, so. Um! We can definitely use that, or try to focus on seeing what other cities might have that of those thirty four. Okay, those are my questions. Thank you. Oh, Terry's got one. So excuse me at least. Obviously all these statistics are under the current rules and regs. Right.

[63:00] Is there any way to to project or to make some assumptions on? If things like saturation limits weren't in place, how many ads we think we could get is that or is that too far-fetched? No, I think I mean I can ask Jay, because he did this with the last update, but we did do some projections, but I think there's so many factors, I mean we can certainly do some analysis of how many lots Um! Might it open up? It's hard with the saturation limit, though, because they all affect each other so one like, there's no way to automate it. Unfortunately, I had to go through each one to look at what their saturation when it was So it's a challenging data point to get, I would say. But obviously, if there's a twenty percent limit, and then there is no limit, then eighty percent more than previous might be allowed. But there's so many other restrictions that would limit it. And other factors. Yeah, Jay, do you have anything bad? Yeah, I remember back in two thousand and eighteen. We shared with counsel and and have a chart showing what happened to Portland. A similar touch with Lisa just shared, showing the history of how many units were built,

[64:11] and the different changes that were made, and the things that made the biggest change in terms of the jump of number of things like removing the short-term rental restriction, removing on our occupancy. So I I don't get the sense that that is going to happen in Boulder. It could. But those are the big things, because again, not everybody wants to build an avu. So the numbers, I think, are going to remain small in my sense is, Yeah, we had a big jump in two thousand and nineteen, because there was a lot of pent up demand. We're going to probably see steady growth similar to what we're seeing right now. But I don't think we're going to see a big up tick unless we drastically remove barriers,

[65:00] and that's why we would Demo look at the saturation limits over these last three years just to see how big of an impact that ten percent had. And if you can remember from that pie chart. It was less than a quarter, I think. About twenty percent of all the applications were in that ten percent to twenty percent limit that wouldn't have been approved before. So just using that to inform what might happen in the future. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions before. At least I've been before. We moved to Holly and some preliminary survey results. Okay, thank you, Lisa. I'll take it away all right. Well, good afternoon. Good evening. Everyone. Thanks for having me. Then i'll show you the mean. So i'm Holy Hendrickson, i'm with the housing and human sort of the human services department with the city on this. On this project I've been working with Lisa and J. To organize

[66:11] and administer the Abu Survey for two two thousand and twenty two. So this is a survey that was also done in the previous years, so just replicating it to see if changes over time it's in. So just to know before we jump in. These are preliminary findings. This is kind of a draft summary. At this point the survey is technically still open. We're still accepting responses. But since there's been a a pretty serious slowdown on those responses, we kind of don't expect any huge changes, So these are some key takeaways that we don't expect to change too much over time. Ah, so just some some boring stuff. First cover before we get to the graph uh. So we've had a total. We've set out a total of four hundred and thirty, nine surveys, and we've received one hundred and eighty, six responses, which gives us a forty two percent response rate.

[67:06] Ah! To do this, we sent out a paper, an initial paper bailing to all of these contacts, so our contact list included included all those who were approved for an eight-year permit. We spent a purpose statement in this initial mailer There was a kind of a purpose statement, telling everyone why we were doing. It included A. Qr code and A. Url. So people can do, complete the survey online. And for those who are not interested in doing outlined. There's a paper copy of the Survey with page posted upload, and that a few weeks after that we sent a reminder postcard to ensure that we got that last bit of interest with people sent in a few a few more from there. All right, so we'll jump in here. So the first question we just wanted to engage with. I should say this isn't the complete all the questions that we're asked, those kind of a long list of questions, but because it's

[68:08] seven P. M. I wanted to kind of tr in it, and I get the conversation going to the more interesting findings at this point. So the first question here we'll discuss is just when the eight year was created. We know I wanted to make sure we were getting a good representation of those eight years that were built after the last that change the big code change, and about twenty five percent or so um of participants in the surveys uh do represent that group. So we have a good showing of that group overall. So the first kind of meeting question that we asked is if the part, If the participant, if the respondent noticed an increase in their property taxes after building an au um, so generally

[69:01] I was there that this finding or these results, Haven't changed over time. So this is almost identical to the two thousand and seventeen responses. The one exception is that three percent more of respondents to the survey recorded a large increase in property taxes compared to the two thousand and seventeen group, so it's notable. But generally this this pie chart looks pretty much exactly the same as it did in two thousand and seventeen. So those experiencing these large beach and Taxes Haven't changed over time. So this is kind of where we we start seeing some interesting variations between two thousand and seventeen and two thousand and twenty two. So we asked where the was located within the property. So the bar, the Blue bar is two thousand and twenty two. The Yellow bar is two thousand and seventeen, and so we can see that between these two surveyed survey points that there's been a decrease in people in households locating their abus in basements

[70:08] and a big increase in having ads located in these separate units of these detached units. So that's kind of a big difference that we saw between these two survey one. These two survey points in time, all right. So the next. And if there's any question, it might be easier to just jump in and interrupt me, since that we're kind of talking about these specific numbers. So please please interrupt if there's any questions along the way. So the next question here is, how you currently use your au to get a kind of a better sense about how these are actually being used in the community. Again, the blue of the top line is two thousand and twenty two, the yellow line, the yellow bars of two thousand and seventeen. And again, this is a kind of an interesting result. We can see that there's been a drop in the percentage of a survey respondents for these abus that are using it for long-term rental to paying tenants.

[71:07] Um! We've seen a decrease there, and an increase in housing for relatives having for visitors and overall a pretty big increase. And people are using these units for just extra space, I think, you know, just like everything in two thousand and twenty-two is. We can't see this outside of the pandemic. And so we and you know, while thinking about why or how this is happening, considering, you know, there might be some reasons why people don't want to rent out extra spaces in their house during a global pandemic, and then also extra pressures and households to um have in-house office spaces for learning spaces for their kids. I think this is one of those results. You kind of have to fold them back and look at all the things that are happening here. But an interesting change nonetheless.

[72:04] So The next question is, we asked about basically the primary benefits. What are the primary benefits of maintaining this? Adu? And it's kind of the same flavor as the slide before, but kind of a different um. We can see some different reasons here. So top line again two thousand and twenty two results, and then the yellow line is the two thousand and seventeen results. And so we can see a pretty big decrease that responded survey respondents using the data use for supplemental income and a greater percentage of respondents using the space from visitors or relatives. Um kind of so the same thing as before. Just fewer people are using this as a tool for supplemental income or as a rental space. All right. So the next question here we asked about, you know who's occupying the space just to get a better sense about

[73:03] um. How did they use? Are actually impacting how they and how people are housed in boulder in the city. So generally. These abus are occupied by adults, middle-aged boats, thirty, thirty, ages, thirty, to sixty, five, and uh generally these are single occupancy. It's not not anything more. They're At the time that I pulled this data, which was Friday evening, there was not one unit that had more than two people. I'm so. But we can kind of see like I said, kind of how this actually it's housing people um in the city. So we added a question in the two thousand and twenty two survey. Because of the code changes that created the designation of an affordably we curry the participants. We cory participants about the primary reasons for pursuing the affordability designation.

[74:08] Um, This slide has the actual numbers of the respondents rather than rates, because um, you know, you know comparative rates, because it was such a smaller sample size didn't feel exactly like apple staffles, so we just pulled out the numbers here, and I thought this was an interesting result. So of the people that responded to this question about why they pursued an affordable adu. The same amount of people are pursued it for the lower parking requirement. As for the desire to provide long-term affordable housing and the city, so it was. It was surprising for me to see this kind of more altruistic reason for pursuing it rather than kind of these other benefits that we're offering for for saving these uh for pursuing this affordable doesn't need.

[75:03] Okay, And then you know just the more kind of trying to figure out who's actually living in these units, what industries and occupations of the people of their in your residence, and I wanted to include this slide, because I think the biggest change and interesting finding here is this very bottom, this very bottom a data point. So again, the blue line is from the survey of two thousand and twenty-two. The yellow line is from surveying to two thousand and seventeen, and the biggest change between those time. Those time points in this survey is that there's been a big increase of units not being rented or off at the time of the survey. I think you know it's just important to see. You know these aren't going to more students, or necessarily to more professionals from the respondents of this survey fewer a bigger proportion are just not renting the out at all,

[76:06] all right. So the next, the next few questions in the next few slides get to kind of the community perception about a views and kind of the policy issues surrounding them. So we asked, You know how have your neighbors expressed an opinion about your A. You and a very, very large majority have um generally no opinion, or they haven't mentioned anything, or they approve. Ah, this is an interesting Ah! Finding because this is essentially unchanged since two thousand and seventeen. So the two thousand and seventeen responses look almost identical to this. This is interesting, because, you know, there was this big coach that was implemented in two thousand and nineteen, and it's kind of you know, not seeing this pyramids change over time between when there was this big changes, I think speaks a lot. So

[77:07] all right. So this is a busy slide, but i'll try to kind of bring it down a little bit. So this is either just two questions we asked um, and support our opposition to possible changes in that you give your ordinance. So we asked about whether you support or oppose eliminating the Off-street Parking requirement and whether you would close or support. Removing the saturation limit. And I think there's three three takeaways here. So the first day when I first that I feel like there was the biggest change was just. Disinterest is growing in these questions. There's fewer people that have an opinion about these very specific policy questions. It's for better, for worse. Ah! The other observation that I have is support for both of these, for support, for eliminating the parking environment and removing the saturation limit

[78:07] is slightly waiting, and opposition is slightly increasing. You know the somewhat opposition has grown a slightly over time. Um, I don't know if we can take too much from from this, and kind of these changes aren't huge, but I think it is important to to know. Um. I will say we were talking about this earlier today, and I think one observation of this um that should probably be discussed again in terms of like. The The whole picture here is that the people that filled out this survey didn't see these things as barriers, maybe because they they've been through the process. They completed the process, and maybe they don't See these barriers and something like the inquire boulder tickets, for example, that we discussed can kind of provide the other side of those people who haven't been able to or have them to, you know, hold back on pursuing these eighty years

[79:05] because of these saturation moments. So so there's you know. I feel like this has limited limited use, but also important to kind of say, um get the feedback from those with existing units, all right. And then the next question we asked: Um, you know the scope of the project from the city. We this was a question we had in the two thousand and two specifically for that survey to gauge public perception about. If you could. Would you develop an additional avu? Um? And generally there was just not a lot of traction around that concept of building. At another eighty you on their property, seventy, seven percent a survey Respondents were not interested in pursuing, while only twenty, three percent were interested in that. Um. And so I have that the I have two more slides,

[80:02] and that I just wanted to quickly discuss some, some, some real solid feedback from the survey. So the last question of this survey asks for participants to share their feedback to share experiences, you know. Share your story with us, and I've tried to pull out. I've identified a few things of positive and negative, and i'll just discuss those quickly here. So the first one here on this slide are kind of the positive experiences, positive responses. People who have expressed that they have a positive experience with the city and kind of are enthusiastic in general about this. Ah! Generally these positive responses come into two buckets. One is that the supplemental income provided by the Edu is kind of a game changer for their housing situation, but either to keep them in the city, or it helps

[81:02] the other concept, which is a little harder to grasp and kind of has more dimensions. It's just the concept that these fixes are used really flexibly over time helps households Kind of what I've like turned here is like future proof. So this person says, Um, my sorry, but they you has evolved and become an important part of my life planning scheme. You know we're not renting it. Now. We plan to do that in the future. And then this one, the last one here was um discussing the concept of more of like aging in place. Um, and I think one of the um members who spoke earlier mentioned this like the ability to have the Abu Um. It makes so much sense to respectfully create more separate a few more separate, independent, living spaces within the city.

[82:00] So that kind of concept of these spaces are used really flexibly over time, and help a household just kind of figure out how to live here, I think, was um everly interesting, and that that had some a lot of context for this conversation. And then finally, i'll lend on a bad note. Um! There was. Ah, you know this line kind of i'm trying to make calculate the the negative, or like just improving proving of of complaints, I will say, Ah! By far the most complaints were about the actual process, which is kind of what we've been trying to figure out how to improve. So that's where, when there's negative the complaints. Most of them are at the about the process, and very few focused on the concept of abus in the community, and how they were being like changing the community. Very few of the concerns or complaints focused on that. But I did want to. I wanted to pull a few out here, because I thought they again add to this conversation about

[83:02] about how these are being used in the city. So the first one here one concept is is the excessive cost. Make building, indeed, you very accessible for the majority of in boulder, So it's kind of a tool that cannot be had by all because of the cost, and it's a pause for you If you're a kid screaming the background, I didn't spend time. Here another person expressed a concern that you know A. To use are the problem for overcrowding. At least the student population is really the problem here. It's far more important to me to use them, and already does walk. Um. And then I had someone reach out to me via email separately, not in the in the survey that really expressed concern about the role of the university, and alleviating some of the housing challenges within the city, and they said, by allowing additional a to use folder, is once again being manipulated by the University and a vocal student population to accommodate their needs at the expense of reference.

[84:10] So the idea of the burden of the housing and situation of boulder is not being shared by all, it's being shared only by the residents. In this concept of expanding you, and those were really kind of the big critiques. In the final version the final summary, we'll pull out some other ones for round out these conversations, but that is all I have for now. Are there any questions, comments? Um, yes, thank you, Holly. That was really uh used. Oh, now, My, but we lost you again. Useful is what he was about to say. I think

[85:00] how you want to stop sharing. Yeah, okay, Looks like I was afraid my scream is frozen for a moment. There, it looks like we have pretty good support, based on your survey for making some policy recommendations, so that was useful to here. I was really surprised to see the drop off, and the percentage of a to use being rented, and I don't know if that's something you can address. Um. This is something for the group to discuss, I guess, through incentives to ensure that people are actually creating housing to be used. Um. I did know you had a new category for two thousand and twenty-two. Ah! Which was people that were living in their aid use, and running out their houses, which may be also construed as a win that that helps people stay in their homes by providing an income stream. But I just wonder if anybody

[86:01] from the staff side or the board has any thoughts about that that issue of, or that statistic that came out in holy sort of survey. John: Yeah, thank you. That that was a very interesting presentation. I was wondering if there has been any yeah collection of reactions so far by to one of the main concerns that planning board had when it dealt with eighty use over the last several years, and that is the impact of A. B use on missing middle type housing, and that the concern is there that by encouraging people to build eighty Us. Values of homes increase to an extent that impacts the ability of

[87:06] you know, of modest housing to be affordable by those who move our income Limited. I didn't see any comments on on the survey you presented, and I wondered if you'd heard anything about that. Uh, I haven't heard anything about it. But I think there is this. This is a uh. It's kind of a dynamic problem to a dynamic solution, right? Because we saw in the survey that there are people that kind of couldn't that wouldn't be able to stand their houses, and older if they didn't have this option. But then you also have the dynamic where people are saying people um aren't, you know, can't afford to actually make these improvements. You know these improve this. That's building an ad. You isn't accessible to a lot of homework. So I think that this is,

[88:04] It's not the song, all it's. It's a kind of a it's a dynamic solution that can't just be has the downfall, as you've mentioned. J. I don't know if there's anything else that you can add from my previous conversations or the previous update about that. Oh, really are no longer affordable to middle income households. Um, not ship sale years ago, So as Tolly was saying, the ads are an opportunity for those who are able to get into the market early to hold on and remain folder and keep their housing costs low by generating that additional income, or providing different options for different family configurations and whatnot. So. But yeah, it's It's a challenge.

[89:05] I appreciate what you just said, Jay. It kind of summarizes my thoughts as well. I think there's you know most people agree that there's very few paths where we can consider making single-family homes as conceived by single-family zoning affordable in boulder like it's not really a narrative that's being kicked around very seriously and in any ways I mean, it's still possible to have policies that exacerbate the pricing and make making single-family homes more expensive, but I don't know I like. I like the idea that ads generally have people in them that need the affordable housing.

[90:00] I was intrigued by the comments about Cu and the possible impact on um neighborhoods where people have issues with student housing. That's something that maybe we can talk about as we get into the details. I don't know if there's any. If it's an actual problem, or if there's any way of fail-saving against that. But I can see how That would be a negative issue for those who are having a hard time living on the hill because of um problems with students who, of course, i'll exclude our student member of the have here. We just wouldn't do something like that to our neighbors, but you know it's a real impact. I've certainly talked to a lot of people who I've had some issues up on the Michael. You're breaking up again.

[91:11] I'll try turning off this video. Does everyone else want to jump in while Michael's rejoining us. Terry, Are we starting the conversation? Yeah, anyone else have more questions. The discussion? No, I don't know any questions for the staff. Very, very good presentation, with an enormous amount of information. It's a lot to process a quick question. I assume these slides. They're they're preliminary, but you're you're putting them together for the

[92:00] the study session on this. That's kind of like the main goal like is to put the presentation together, for that Is that right? Right? And pulling together whole evaluation which we'll present? What City to City Council in November? Yeah. What's the date for that? Again, it's November tenth, and those are always kind of tentative dates. So that's what we're on right now. Well, should we start discussion Who, Terry? You want to begin? Um, you know one of the things I I I I got was two hundred new living units have been built under the old rules over the last couple of years, and obviously in the last three years, or the very odd years in everybody's lives, you

[93:00] with the restrictions and and what I love about that is, we didn't have to. And yeah, there was no new development. We didn't tear down a building to build something new. We didn't, you know. That was just with lots that are in place now two hundred units. And and the question I had was, and I know it's impossible to answer. But I have to believe that by eliminating a lot of the barriers, and I don't know how specific we get into that. Is that the goal of today's discussion to talk in detail about the barriers, but I have to believe by doing that those numbers are just going to go up and up and up. The housing costs are just getting more a to use can can help in so many levels, whether it's additional income, whether it's running it out even the short-term stuff which i'm not totally opposed to. It's just such a good thing on so many levels, so I guess. Of course I support it in every way. My question, though, for tonight's discussion is, how detailed are we going to get in in our recommendation? Is Is it a specific, as you know, Eliminate all saturation rules. You know. How do we? How do we guide this,

[94:14] hey? I'm: sorry i'm back. I had to switch to Kathleen's computer because I was out of control with mine, so I missed about two minutes of discussion there. Um! Have you mentioned the letter from the housing advocates yet? No, I was. It's funny, you said that I was just about to go to that when you popped in my question. Michael was in tonight's discussion. How detailed are we going to get in our recommendation to support more ads and support a to use in general. The The housing out of you guys making's group has thick suggestions. Do we want to use that as a guide and go through them one by one. Do we want to come on our own list? How do we guide this discussion to come up with a recommendation? Or is it as general as we just support ads in any way

[95:06] more of them are better? Yeah. Well, um that's a great discussion open, I would personally would support the latter, which would be to offer detail, suggestions of any to use as opposed to just tear-leading for the issue in general. I think these six ah measures that the theing advocates I mentioned are all worth considering we could adopt them a lot. We could sort through them and do our own editing, we could add to them. I think I was aware we have a little more time to do this because Council has moved there a new discussion from October thirteenth to, I believe, November tenth, and that influence the agenda for this meeting as well. So Yeah, we can have a good discussion about that. I personally would support these six measures. But I don't think that's the whole universe of options, and if We have objections to one or two of them, and wanted to hone in on a smaller group of recommendations. I think that could work too. But I think

[96:14] again, following that um the lead, in a way of what transportation Advisory Board did on West Pearl Recently they sent a very detailed when i'm always counsel for preference for some good analysis, and then really got an immediate recommendations. I I think that's what we as have, or are charged to do in. I should say we like it to use. Go ahead and do something. I totally agree. Um! And and I've got a feeling we're going to say that, and I think these fixed recommendations provide a good guideline. I think some of them are good the way they are. I have a few questions about some of them. Maybe Jay or the the presenters can maybe answer. Do we just want to go through them one by one and kind of say, Yes, we all agree to this, and then has a discussion from each

[97:01] point. Is i'm just trying to think mechanically how we get through this. Let's let's go to Philip for his thoughts on those issues. Yeah, um. I just have a kind of a a general high-level comment to make before we dive in on the specifics of the the sixth, the letter, and the six proposals that we're in that. Um I've really enjoyed all the detailed information and data in the presentations, and it's been very thought provoking. I guess I just wanted to make a broad comment about why like how this fits into like missing middle and an affordable housing. Just to say that you know, in in bolder the daily camera came out with another one of these articles that our population had declined by about five thousand people the last five five years, and which suggests that we have

[98:01] fewer people living in more housing units, so that this demographic trend of people aging in place and living by themselves, is kind of another narrative. In addition to C. You, being a poor neighbor, perhaps, is another narrative that's competing. But another narrative is that there's a lot of vacancy in this town with anti bedrooms, and you know, nearly empty houses, and I think an interesting thought exercise is. Just think about like Well, if every bedroom had somebody in it, what what? What? The housing situation be like, and I know that's That's just a thought exercise. But um! The the fact that we've sort of normalized one or two people living in very large houses by themselves, you know. I don't want to take away people's, ability to have choices and to age in place. But I I do. I would like,

[99:00] you know, the the easiest, lowest, environmentally impactful thing that we can do is to have in fill with the currently existing housing stock. And And so this all kind of falls under the banner of gentle infill, and so obviously the gentlest of the gentle and fill is reforming occupancy, restrictions, and in my mind. The second, most gentle of gentle infill is eighty-six people worry about their neighborhood character being destroyed. Ads provide a way for for people to to live in these established neighborhoods that have a lot of organic networks and um resilience. Um, you know, when I think about resilient neighborhoods. Ah! Having people of diverse backgrounds, diverse economic um ah! Of abilities of housing, market, purchasing power ah! Or rental Ah! Abilities to pay rental

[100:08] prices, having lots of different kinds of people in your neighborhood builds resilience, and I think that you know we can. We can look to a to use as a as a really like a pro-social pro-community way of adding people into our neighborhoods that's That's both gentle. It's not like It's not like we're asking for apartment buildings on the end of the block. It's, it's it's taking the existing neighborhoods and enriching them. So there's obviously less gentle, gentle infill. You know the the zoning changes around duplexes and triplexes that I know people are talking about as well as like housing pilots like the project that David Adamson has on North Street, where we can have housing units that has more people than just what an ad would allow. But anyways, I just wanted to say that,

[101:13] and a kind of high-level hand-wavy sort of way it is really provide an important role for for strengthening our communities. Um, thank you, Philip. Um, I I would. Well, we can talk about this more. I think I I would consider the have members to be very pra to you for all reasons you just stated. Um, but we can. We can tease that as we continue to talk about it. So Johnny Gerssel has his hand up. Thank you, my my thoughts to my comments, not intended to alter the outcome of of the discussion tonight, but just to to suggest that in making recommendations on ads

[102:01] for consideration by Council and other boards, I think it's very useful to consider the reasons why those restrictions were adopted in the past, and to discuss why balance may have changed in terms of whether they're still appropriate, or to to make specific suggestions on how they may be altered while keeping those concerns, you know, to address the concerns that were initially there when those restrictions were adopted. Just ah, just a suggestion to to make your comments and recommendations more effective. Um! And I think the letter that was written, and that that you're considering tonight is excellent. But again it doesn't. Consider the reasons why those limits were initially adopted, and I think that

[103:03] responding to those concerns would would be useful. So I just wanted to make that point that that's good, Jonathan. Could you clarify that? A little bit about the original concerns is that, for example, primarily related to the hill and some concerns up there, or something else. Well, I I if we go through the if we go, for example, through the letter that ah, that ah Kathleen sent, and which I think is is very good and clear. Um. The reason there was concern about parking, for example, is because people were concerned about they were going to be able to find their their own parking place in front of their house, and maybe that's no longer an issue. Maybe things have changed in terms of people's use of cars to an extent where that no longer needs to be a concern. But I think merely to suggest that

[104:03] be eliminated doesn't really address the the concern that the Council had when that restriction was adopted. So So that's an example of trying to address what the concern is, rather than just throwing out the restriction without dealing with the concern. So yeah, I think that's um. Well, i'll put this out just as a high level comment. Also, if you think about item, one eliminate saturation limits and item two, a little bit like parking requirements. Maybe we could talk about having more nuance to that. Maybe there are exceptions. If I lived downtown, and there's really hard to find a parking space, you know. Maybe i'd want some consideration of that. Um, I think i'm. I'm guessing that probably in eighty percent of bold and neighborhoods like mine, parking is not an issue, and you know it shouldn't be raised as an impediment to the development of it in you. Not quite sure how you, I guess you could create districts

[105:19] where there are exceptions, but I think that could also be true in the saturation limits, where there are some limited areas where they should continue to be considered. But for a lot of the city it just wouldn't be an issue because it's fairly spread out. You know most of the world is post-war submarine development. It's not particularly dense. Um, Yeah, I think that's exactly the nuance is good. And ah, I'm i'm just thinking of, for example, the gospel of neighborhood, where we had a couple of comments earlier this evening, where I think it's very relevant, both parking and saturation. Certainly, in in other less dense neighborhoods. Maybe not, but

[106:04] good to make that point when you, when you make your points to Council, for example. Hmm. Gary A. J. That this this idea of districting come up at all in any of this analysis, creating areas, zones, whatever you want to call it. Yeah, like where parking would be required. I mean, I remember throwing him the idea that we're. There's a neighborhood parking program. We would retain the parking requirement. So what places we even know where there's a challenge. It's just It's just difficult because there is there isn't an easy way to do it and delineate the city. It would just be, I would say implementation would be difficult, and I think, actually administering the rules would make it strategy. Yeah, I agree. But it the fact that neighborhood parking programs exist.

[107:02] I'll suggest some kind of an outline for the areas we could look at for exemptions. Do you think that's true? J: Yeah. I pitched that to Council, and they they shut them down pretty quickly. Okay? Well, we can always recommend it, and they can shoot us down. And Philip Yeah. Well, I just want to point out that as someone who's lived without a car for a long time. The the of car supremacy is is rampant here in this particular discussion. I would love to see a lot more opportunities for people to live our lifestyles in denser neighborhoods where they're not required. You know the housing itself is not required to have parking for every occupant, and I think, developing a culture where we understand that in their neighborhoods not all the units are going to have a car. Parking for them is really important for opening up options for people who want to live that way, because we've declared a climate crisis, and

[108:09] we need to provide a lot more options for people who Ah don't want to live with a car to to help. Ah minimize carbon footprint. So um yeah, maybe part of it is just normalizing the the fact that you know, if you're going to build an ad you here, you're going to have to have a different kind of tenant than Ah, you might have in a in a suburban-style neighborhood like like like yours, for example. Yeah, seems seems to me like that would be a good discussion when we get to, you know. Item number two here on eliminating, parking for a to use, do we? Uh? Do we want to maybe dive in like one at a time and see if we all support, you know. Item number one, and then have a discussion about that, and then I go through it one by one. Michael:

[109:03] Yeah, I think that's a great idea. We've already talked about saturation a little bit, but maybe look at it like, Do we want to recommend the eliminate saturation limits that are outlined in in the memo here as is, or do we want to tweak them? Um. I would support, recommending the pretty much as is recognizing there could be a pit bull involved in that, but I think it might be too complicated to tweak without drawing highly artificial boundaries, and you know we just heard that we were the only city of all the a survey that has saturation limits. So why do we have them? And what's the downside to? Nothing?

[110:00] So maybe does anybody have any objections to? Item number one, which is eliminate saturation? Okay? Well, I think we're four for four on that one cool. What about the Are we? Are you comfortable with the language? I don't remember one, or do we want to draft our own statement on this pretty clear. Just no limits on saturation. I don't need to go back and change any of the language. I think it's pretty clear, and our time is probably better spent looking at the other of the other items on the list. Right?

[111:00] Um, I mean to contradict you, but but to two possibilities that come to mind for expanding this. Perhaps one is There was ah in in Holly's presentation. There was mention about the anxiety that an uncertainty people have about whether or not they should go ahead and apply because of the because of the saturation limit which, as it says here in the and the letter. People can't do it on their own. They have to have city staff involved. And so there's just, you know. So I like like the notion of Well, yeah, just just referring to her data, basically saying that people people actually it. It wasn't it Wasn't: I guess this is. I never mind this this isn't hypothetical in here, either. It says. Only city staff have the data tools. Um, i'm sorry i'm kind of rambling.

[112:10] It's good grabbing the the um I lost my I lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. Okay? Well, I I I thought. Um, it's not exactly a tweak, but maybe a little bit of a fail-safe. What if we're going to recommend a fairly extended pilot of removing saturation limits say two years um kind of re-examine, the evidence and see if it needs some tweaking at that point. How do you think that would fly? And is that a practical? I did it proposed, I guess, for me. How would that be different than adopting it? And then a couple years down the road? If we see it being an issue tweaking it, then

[113:03] um! I think it would recognize that there are often unintended consequences and actions, and expressly stating that we want to see how this works and revisit it is. Ah, you know. Possibly. Ah, not a bad idea! It doesn't it doesn't attract me to it. I'm not i'm not compelled by it. But I I see your point. I mean I don't. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I thought of the thing that I wanted to say earlier, and that is the kind of the most damning thing that was said about the saturation limits was the fact that you can't find examples of it anywhere else in the country. It might, It might be worth a sentence just to say that, hey? You know the the city staff has looked into this. They can't find how this is working elsewhere because it doesn't exist elsewhere.

[114:11] I agree with that statement. That's a good idea. Okay, so at least among the Corpus. Here i'm hearing a pretty good consensus that we would endorse the removal of saturation limits. Maybe it needs to be word, Smith a little bit which we have time to do. Um. But if we feel like we've got enough agreement on that we can move on to parking. I think it might go connect just that one thing, sure. So one of the things that you we discussed with Council back in two thousand and eighteen about the saturation. T is that you know the currents concern A lot of the concerns here in particular, on the hill, was a loss of people owning their homes right. The people that long-term owners of homes on the hill were selling and getting converted into rentals.

[115:05] If, from my perspective, and what I what I tried to point out was that it, this is actually an opportunity to make sure that those homes remain as ownership by providing that abu option. So I don't know if that's something you want to mention or or not. But I just wanted to share that piece. Does that make sense? The first part didn't make sense? Because I don't see how he would back from home ownership. But the second part made total sense. You're just suggesting that that by having a to use more people are going to own their homes and stay there. Yeah. So basically if you have a need to you, you can't sell it to somebody, and they can basically rent it out as two separate units. Oh, because it's got to be on the right side, as the owner occupied It's kind of a back door way.

[116:00] No, I think it's pretty explicit. Actually. Um! Do we want to talk about parking? Sure. So the housing advocates are proposing just a limiting a partial requirement off-street parking requirement for a market rate. It you Um! I generally support that idea, but I could see how there could be some exceptions for areas that are parking challenged, and i'm my heart is with Philip the need to move towards a non-car centric society. But I got a better I on a car. So that's the reality of a lot of people, and you need a place to put it. Well, I guess i'd push back on that by saying that the neighborhoods that would most likely that you'd most likely want to carve out for parking

[117:07] requirement. Exemptions are the ones that are the most walkable and closest to the University and other places of employment where walking actually isn't, you know, walking and biking, and not not not driving everywhere is is actually an option. So I think we ought to encourage uh, more of that. Okay, Good. Um again. Oh, John, please. Yeah, I I I recognize that I I am not a member of the board, and therefore my recommendations, Aren't included here. But I was just wondering if you'd considered some sort of a condition in which residents of eighty us in these areas. Whichever areas you determine are not allowed to own a car,

[118:05] you know, place some sort of a condition of that nature rather than required. You know in those areas where a parking space Isn't required. That's one way of addressing Phillips. No concerns. I love that area. You just just just for the record. That's a cool idea. Any thoughts on them how that would be enforced. Yeah, What do you think? J. On Enforcement? Uh there she at best, I mean we did think about that a few years ago, too. But I think the market kind of takes care of this, you know, if you're in an area where we're parking's tight, and then you're probably

[119:07] not going to rent your ad you out, or maybe you're using it as a second. You know office. I mean, you know. Let's just let's just make it easier to get a to use in town. Let's just do that. So that's a comment in favor of blanket, elimination and parking requirements, theory, one hundred percent, one hundred percent. I just thought of one more little thing, and that is, I am not a big fan of more asphalt, and and having parking requirements that are Off-street, you know, requires more asphalt in this city, which already has five square miles of it. That's too much. You can. I correct that part of the their memo did that. We did change the code back in two thousand and nineteen.

[120:01] It is not no longer required to be paved, and it can be within the front set back. So that was one of the concessions that Council made. There's also kind of a bit of a nuance here. So remember Council in two thousand and eighteen chose not to eliminate parking across the board, they said, Well, if we're going to eliminate parking, we want something in return, and that's an affordable idea. So um, you know, I think that's just keep that in mind with your recommendation, because I think that's going to factor into their decision making. But I think the issue another. Another nuance of this number two is that we um if you build an ad you and the existing principal dwelling does not have an on street parking space you have to provide an off-street parking space. So that was not we.

[121:01] And that would be extremely challenging. Um, because basically we'd be saying that, you know, if you came in to build an accessory to all I earn. I'm sorry it's an accessory office space for something else. It's not happening. You would be required to provide that parking space to be in compliance with the, and it impacts all different parts of the code. So saying that you don't have to provide native, you Don't, have to provide any parking could be problematic implementation. Does that make sense? I didn't quite follow, either? All right. So um do. Does everybody want me to try to repeat that. Okay?

[122:00] I'm: sorry. So if you have a you, you, the basic requirement is you have to provide one off street parking space that can be in the that's the current deal you build an affordable. Id you do not have to provide that one off-street parking space Right So basically Council did, said We're not going to get rid of the requirement, but we're going to wave it if you provide an affordable. So they're getting something in return. Everybody clear on that. Yeah. Yup, It's a quick question before we continue. Uh, how many people, what what percentage has it's bought into that and done the affordable A to you. That was in at least the presentation. Lisa, do you remember? Offhand, it was a surprising number. Yeah, let me pull it up. Just one second. Yeah, interesting that people went to an affordable to you. I think it was eight of them or ten of them said it was because of the parking

[123:07] an interesting core layer would be. How many ads are unaffordable? How many market rate ads are unaffordable? Does this such a thing even exist? It does. And we had that number. We did that market analysis um back in two thousand and eighteen. It's in the memo that, as I recall, is close to ninety percent of all abus. Our rent had had seventy five percent ami or below. There are some pretty nice ones, but they're pretty far and few between sixty-seven of the twenty of the two hundred for affordable units. Thirty percent. Yeah, Pretty good number, Yeah. And then and then I guess it might just just to add on to what I just said of those one hundred and thirty three, how much of those, how many of those are affordable, despite the fact that their market rate.

[124:09] I mean, I know they're not affordable designated, but maybe they're affordable for for the market. I would argue that it's close to that Ninety percent. I doubt that's changed. So what the National research has shown is that people um, they don't try to get top dollar for their ad. They? You are much more interested in having the right person rented to someone that they can trust and want to actually share it for Facebook. Yeah, these are. So they're they're intentionally going to keep the red love or reasonable. Yup, Julian, you look like you had a comment. I'm just processing things. Now I'm wondering if the parking requirement is waiver for affordable housing, and we take away

[125:06] what we're trying to do with number Two on this agenda or this letter? Are we going to stop. Are we going to stop incentivizing that affordable housing by not having the parking requirement on it? Does that make sense? It does. Yeah, I think, Phillip, I'm. Going to interpret, and then you jump in. I think your point is that we're getting the affordability. So why not just eliminate the Parker requirement for one. Is that what you were driving at? Um. Well, because what exists right now is if you make it affordable, you don't have to follow that parking requirement. Is that so? The tread? Yeah. So if we change things now, we might not be incentivizing affordability anymore, because people want to make their a to use affordable if they don't have to provide that off-street parking,

[126:05] he's all right. Thank you. I was actually trying to clarify this. Yeah, I guess. Yeah, My point was that the incentivation incentivization is kind of boot, because ninety percent of the market rate to use are affordable. So it's a little confusing, because in the graph that she showed, or the little the metric that she showed just a bit ago. It showed affordable and market rate affordable in that context, means affordable, designated as as per the rules of what it means to be affordable designated in the city. But my point was that of the market rate. Ones. Ninety percent of those are are actually affordable in terms of they're They're below seventy, five percent ami, so they're affordable, anyway. So the market rate market, so to speak, for a to use does not, does not trend towards outrageously priced exorbitant housing units they almost are all affordable,

[127:10] so the incentivization structure is sort of like. What's the point? Except that it you're saying the city, in a way, is giving. Send it away without really getting anything back, because we're getting the affordability, anyway. Yeah, I guess that's what I hadn't thought about it that way. But I was. I was thinking more of It was just a moot, but it really nice, I think. Also, it's a little bit tail-wagging the dog right if we're going to try to impose parking requirements that then we can wave to try to get affordable units that are, that that aren't really much more affordable than the market rate. It's. It's a little circular, you know. Again for me, I think, getting rid of any barriers that that we can that can create more ads

[128:04] the direction we should go. That's my thought, and and the market will take care of, you know, parking and and whatnot. If there's no parking in these neighborhoods, people Aren't going to build a to use, and if they build them they're going to random people. We don't have cars because they can't park their car there, so why are they going to rent the place. If If they don't have a parking space, they know they can not be able to park there so that they'll naturally gonna go to people who don't have cars, and that's great. And in you know what I mean. I just think it works itself out, and that and that actually um reduces the costs, you know, like like the the market for people without cars who are interested in living in those places is not likely to inspire a lot of control the way if you provided i'm speculating. But if if i'm trying to go rent an ad you and I have a car, and I know I need my car every day, and my choices are one in God's Grove, or one in Old North Boulder, or one in new ones. I'm probably not going to go rent one in Gosh Grove, because I know I can't park them

[129:08] so it's going to be really hard right well again, There's nuance this um. I live in their limbs, and it's really walkable neighborhood. But there is parking available. Goss Grove is walkable, and it's not parking at home without calling for an actual vote. I'd just like to take your wind's temperature, and we have another month to think about it and kind of a straw poll. Yes or no. Would you prefer not to do the or would you prefer supporting elimination of parking requirements or developing our own recommendation? When more nuance I'll start just by saying, i'm i'm persuaded to go with a simpler word and make the blanket recommendation, and i'm parking to eliminate the requirement. Um, i'd love to hear what others think.

[130:05] I'm with you. I like I like it as is. I like. It's a simple, simple role, and look at myself not to clarify that. No, there wasn't a vote There wasn't a vote. You're fine. I just wanted to. There was the whole second part to this that I wanted to get back and get back to you. Okay, that's right, all right. So in that first paragraph it talks about how there are two parking spaces that could be required if you want to build an av right, so you have to ride one for the Edu, and if you don't have one for your principal dwelling. You have to provide that, too. So theoretically, you have to provide two parking spaces. This recommendation says we should not require that either. So, just to be clear. What I was trying to convey is the the challenge of treating A. To use differently

[131:09] in this context than any other type of building permit that we approve at the city. So if you do anything else other than maybe you, you'd have to provide that parking space for the principal dwelling. And What this is saying is that No, we're not going to require that if you're building an avo are there principals? Don't have a parking space already. They're sure there were houses that were built before the parking was required. I'm: sure there are some. But I mean as a percentage-wise. What are we talking? Yeah, well, I think the highest like question of the group that prepared the letter, and they have examples. It's been identified as a barrier for at least

[132:01] couple people. We can ask that question right? So um, we'd be creating a parking exemption for ads. But we want more in use, so it seems like that could be a good thing. I just want to make sure everybody understands what the language says. So just so we're clear. Maybe i'm going to phrase it a different way. Shape Right now. You have a house. It has no parking space. That's okay, because it's grandfather. You go build an adu. If we eliminate the parking requirements. Then you still don't need to provide a parking space for the house. So what changed? Well, currently, if you you don't have to provide the parking space for the of you. But you do have to provide a parking space for the principal dwelling, Understand? But i'm just saying I get that part. But what i'm saying is, I own a house with no parking space. You

[133:00] Okay, Right now I build an adu. I have to provide two parking spaces, one for the ad for the house. So i'm actually going back. If we eliminate the parking requirement, we'll start again. No parking requirement. I own a house that doesn't have a parking space. Fine! I build an ad you. It doesn't have a parking space, and the house doesn't still have a parking space. But so I really haven't changed anything in the world of the house. No; but if you were to build anything else, you would be required to provide that parking space that's to me in anything else discussion. I want your ability to you little more reason to build, not something else and more a to use it. Okay? Well, we certainly have further discussion, but we have. We have support for going to the limit on that one, and we can tease it up. I'll try to aggregate all this and do a plan forward when we go through the entire list.

[134:02] Um, item three. I think it's maybe more straightforward. It's a one sentence, two, two sentence recommendation will eliminate lot size minimums for eighty years. Does anyone see any downside to that? It's probably not too many. Five thousand square foot or smaller lots, anyway, so it's probably not. But why why would they not be allowed to? There might be some like eighth and spruce neighbors like that that are a little tighter. Yeah, um. Item. Four is increase in Eu size limits. This is intended to create some larger adu apartments that could support um one of our other Ah have goals, which is to address missing middle housing. You had larger apartments. You might get the single parent living with a kid. For example, it could provide some family housing. There may be some other benefits that we're talking about.

[135:10] So how do we feel about? Item four. Well, what I need this one I'm interested in. So it's basically saying for detest, we should go from five hundred and fifty square feet to six hundred and fifty square feet, and eight hundred square feet to nine hundred square feet, and affordable is that the idea? So we're increasing it. One hundred square feet. Is that? Am I reading this? Right? You're correct, Terry. So you get one more ten by ten room in the ad. You can be a bad day. It's a kid's bedroom. It's an office. It's a bedroom. It's something. You.

[136:01] Yeah, it's a Home Office. One thing I like about this is the sorry. I know, that this doesn't necessarily directly address this, but it's It's related to the discussion we just had about giveaways for um uh, or allow a special allowances for affordable. And it seems like this, you know, if someone were to complain about Oh, now you're just giving the parking requirement away because you didn't make it affordable. I think a nice retort would be. Well, we've we have this extra incentive, for if you want to make an affordable at you, you have a larger housing a lot. So I kind of like the fact that this exists. I i'm, of course, i'm in favor of increasing the size of both both designations. I'm. Assuming j Same thing is normal, or, as usual, that basements Don't count against the square footage right?

[137:01] Or do they? Uh no basements do. Oh, it is you have a split level. I mean the only thing that doesn't count is anything that like mechanical rooms, and I believe it's anything under, or is it four feet at least? Lisa will correct me if i'm wrong. Fifty? What, Lisa? Briefly. Anything on the tree for you? This came up in the presentation. The the four exemptions from Bosa were all basements, and that's so. The classic example is, you have a split level. It's exact same square footage on the main floor as the ground as the mark out basement, and and you have to wall off that. Are there three hundred and thirty, three, or figure out a way to separate it.

[138:03] And what, Bose, I said, it is. No, you should not to do that. Got it. I'm thinking more along the lines of backyard, Edu, whereby you know, if you could have a if you're just thinking of a six hundred and fifty square foot footprint above grade. That's fine. But then, if you were to take that six hundred and fifty square feet and go below grade by way of a basement that counts, you're telling me you can't do that, Lisa and me. Yeah. But if the Atu um is in the basement we would count that floor area. So they built up the second and the detached ad you. Yes, in the detached ad you correct? If they in the basement would be part of the Edu.

[139:03] Yes, and then that would count. So we're very with that square footage measurement. We're very strict about that, and like even the stairway, to get to the eighty, or we have to count into the the maximum like up to five hundred and fifty. And actually the stairway issue comes up a lot where that takes up a lot of space. Hmm, Terry, You talking about doing a two-story ad you? That's one up and one down. I'm: I'm: talking about. Yeah, I will your mind's eye. Yeah. Walk in the backyard There's a detached, free-standing building there, The first floor is six hundred and fifty square feet. Well, right now it's five, fifty. But let's say it's six, fifty and market rate bill. Then what i'm saying is, if you were to put a basement into that detached freestanding ad you in the backyard. What I'm hearing is that basement's face counts against this. Five, fifty, or six hundred and fifty square feet.

[140:03] Is that right? Yes, the world of single family homes that usually doesn't count against that they are, and all that stuff Here's like Why, they got a bigger, more flexible face that made you within these confines Is that where you're driving at? I'm. I'm driving it Well, i'm just curious What what's more, Just a question of whether the square footage counts because in homes it doesn't count against F. A. R. And all that. So why does it account against data use? We just decided That's That's the way it is. Yeah, it is a make four area measurement. That's I was at it, or maybe updated. You might know more of those details, but it's in the Adu regulation. So we actually measure floor area in a different way for a to use than we do any other part of the code, and that's something that's come up pretty frequently with all kinds of stakeholders as something that's confusing, and makes the process

[141:02] more arduous. I do this all day every day, and i'm having a hard time understanding it. So so I guess I guess maybe what i'm getting at is we're kind of backing into something here, or I'm backing into something. Here is is, and we tweak our recommendation to allow for for basement space in an ad to not count against this increased amount of square footage. And let me tell you what basement's face when you're building something is the least expensive space to build. It's. It's you already have to go down foundation wise. You already have to dig a hole, et cetera, et cetera. So, by way of example, if your foundation walls for this ad you are, or five feet right to put a spread footer in, or whatever I don't get for detail. Now you can go another three feet and get an eight-foot ceiling down there, and all of a sudden you've got a whole basement that works for not a lot more money by way of construction costs.

[142:02] I don't know if this is off-target. I don't know if we're veering from the path here to me, you would think you could put a basement in a detached K. To you, and not have a count against this for footage. Similarly, you can put a basement in a house and not have it count against. That's where folks in the world of square footage calculation, by way of that they are I It sounds like you're angling toward a original recommendation on this issue. Terry, what do you think when you say an original recommendation? Well, I mean that's not in the letter we're looking at to kind of innovative idea that could increase uh the kind of diversity and flexibility of the types of eight years that are built to accommodate different types of tenants. I I couldn't have said it better myself, Michael, if you, If you did say that

[143:01] you said in one sentence, I said it like twenty. Okay? Well, i'm going to. What did I? What did I? What did I miss? I'm sorry. My Internet uh freaked out on me, and I had to really want to be connected. Yeah, Terry was saying that if you allow people to develop a backyard aid or a freestanding building with a basement that that basement could potentially not be counted as part of the total square footage. You can wind up with a larger unit that's more flexible for different types of tenants, you know, with really no impact to the neighboring, because it's it's a subterranean structure. No additional impact, anyway, compared to a two-story building, and that could actually be something good to use it. I drew a recommendation. Um! One one thought I had. That sounds great. Um! One thought I had about a a recommendation that was related to this conversation is Um Lisa's comment about the special rules for measuring square footage for a to use. Um, Maybe a recommendation would be to eliminate that or just, you know, standardize it to the way.

[144:11] Square footage is normally calculated. If that if that makes things easier and it's, it's a pain point that comes up over and over again. What? What's the the the counter argument for that? That someone might raise? I guess that's a question for Lisa. Yeah, we need a devil's advocate. Well, Jake can provide more. The of how that came to be in two thousand and eighteen, but it was. I'll just let Jay Jay can answer this better. Um, yeah, I have to be careful here. So there was a concern raised by a Council member area in the code was penalizing people who were building, using straw bale construction

[145:04] because draw a bill. Construction is thicker, of course, And the way that we measure entire space basically meant that you have that six hundred or that five hundred and fifty feet, with the closer to one hundred and four hundred and seventy-five or something. So we came up with a whole new way of measuring floor, I mean for Idias, and it's like like you said it's created a significant pain point for not just applicants, but also for our code administrators. So I thought, was a surprising answer, because I but what you just told me makes us uh makes me think it should have sort of made it easier for pdu builders rather than more difficult. No, I think it's pretty unique to that specific type of construction to give that exemption to be able to measure that way. Um! And I think that the five hundred and fifty square, one square foot limit, especially for detached um is a challenge, because we all the definition also includes all of the egress. So, as I was saying before,

[146:14] you know, if you're going to build a unit on top of a garret like above a garage. You have to include all the space tape like up the stairway to get there. And so that's not really space that's used by the eighty year, necessarily. But um. So yeah, it's it's kind of quirks of the down. It seems like it seems like it cuts both ways, so it it makes it easier for the people building the straw bale walls by by by measuring from the inside of the wall. But then for the egress and the other considerations, it sort of like takes away. It makes it hard. It's more constraining. Okay, interesting. I'm not a well construction, I think I think it's a great idea, but I wonder if anybody does it, and if it's worth it, you know,

[147:05] in hindsight, we would we should. We Staff should have argued for to just go through the board of Zoning adjustments. Just make the case that it's a different type of construction, and therefore they should get more flexibility, the opposed to changing how we measure for every every at the Yeah. Yeah. So that's not thanks for saying that I I mean I guess I i'd be inclined to tie the recommendation then for that for the measuring the square footage. That's that's been historically a pain point. And then and then you're put to your point, Michael, about number of people needing an exemption. They could go to Bosa, or and hopefully, hopefully, you know, we could say that that would be an acceptable exemption. I don't know if that's the sort of language recommendations have or not, but

[148:00] feels like we're talking about. We kind of veered off here. We started talking about basements recommend recommend recommending the basements can be allowed in an edu, and not count against the square footage, and then we get him in the discussion of how we calculate for footage. So do we want to make those both part of our recommendation, or or or one or the other, or what two-thirds one is. It needs to be technical enough. That we're actually, you know, making a specific recommendation, but it also it would probably be similar to have all those issues related to square footage bundled into one recommendation. Um! I'd like to get someone Ah, more versed in these issues, and I agreed to draft a recommendation for our consideration for the next a meeting.

[149:02] Lisa, let me ask you this. I was this core footage calculation, formula it like three things that come up all the time that are that are complicated, or is it like tempting. Uh, I would say the egress issue is probably the most of that stairway, or they access like, if it's a even if it's not a stairway. If it's. If you're accessing from the front of the house and the units not to the back, you have to have the whole path for their count towards the Edu. So I would say that. Um! That's the main issue. It's also very just difficult to read, and it's different than people do with any other kind of instruction. So just generally like user friendliness is the issue. Um. But in relation to the basement floor area, one question I would pose is, Does that mean that? An attached unit? So it's something that's in the basement like a basement unit, Would you say that that's a zero square foot? A to you in that circumstance.

[150:03] The basement is already there. Okay. So I have a house. There's two thousand square feet above grade. There's a thousand square foot basement already there. Somebody wants to make that thousand square foot basement in eighty year, right for these rags. They can't do it because it's too big. If it's over a thousand, or if it's over, yeah, if it's over a third, that's right. Well, then I would argue that if it's an existing basement, the square footage is already there and built, and you want to make it an ad you then. No, it shouldn't count against any sized refrigerator. I mean you already have it. It's already there didn't change anything. You Some of the cities that I've been looking at, only a few of them. I think I can't remember which ones, but they do have some exemptions for existing structures.

[151:00] So in the case of the four that needed the variance, they were existing structures that had a basement that they were turning into an edu. Most of them were related to having to include the stairway in the their floor area. Calculation. It was the reason why they went over that thousands per foot for the um. So looking for that. Then again, here we go. That's kind of even a third thing to think about That's an existing house existing basement, you know. That's different than what I was talking about earlier. But to answer your question, Yeah, I don't think that should count. It's in the basement. The basement's already there. It's probably been there for a long time. What we're doing is turning it into a place to live for somebody else. I could see developing a recommendation to to address existing space conversion. So I think, just mentioned, Some communities have exemptions for people who want to convert their basements.

[152:00] For example. And you know again, if the basement's already a certain, size why penalize somebody exactly more than thirty-three percent of their. They They are okay. That's another one we can work on. I think it's eight, thirty. So I want to keep moving. Ah, next one, I think, could be. I'm merely a treat by this is Number Five. I think it could also be a little more controversial, perhaps a one one attached to one detached a to use ah detached or two detached eighty-s per parcel um you know someone who has an attached edu and the potential to do another one say by comparing our garage. I'm. Certainly I'm treated by that for selfish reasons. But I can see that having some utility, I could also see that maybe triggering a maybe a higher level of neighbor, an objection which would not be a reason to avoid that recommendation. But what do people think about Number Five.

[153:11] You look, I mean I I kind of always want to be yes or more to use. But but um! This does feel a little gratuitous, perhaps, and and maybe uh, less sensitive to people who are ah less inclined to be excited by a to to kind of be poking them in the eye. I don't know um, so i'm. I am a little worried that it might be less less popular. Do you support it in concept? Do you think it's worth considering. Um, yeah, I mean, I really I really feel like um.

[154:00] I am not a big fan of large yards that that go unused and sit around Phyllo for years and decades, and I think I think people ought to be able to build a to use on their on their otherwise bonds. So, Julianne, what do you think about this one? I like it in concept, just because it provides more housing, but I think it is going to be one of the harder ones to get around just because it kind of captures a lot of issues, you know, like the parking issue would be huge. That involves a lot more people living on one property. I feel like that might not be the one to push, just because it's going to be harder to get other people behind theory,

[155:01] you know. This can be surprising, probably for me, but I don't like it. I like the idea of one hundred and eighty, you per parcel. Um elaborate. Oh, I mean I I think this could be abused, you know you could all of a sudden start getting an ad in the basement, and then two ads, you know, detached, you know you can get. You can turn what I think. The concept of an A. To us is primary home, and then a smaller living unit in the back room of the graduate, and this, I think, lends itself to to starting to have two, three, four units. How many can we do here? I'm trying to read this to attach day to use for personal one detached, or I don't know too many. It just feels it feels like it's not in the spirit of in the ad. You idea

[156:00] it. It never came up in the presentations as a pain point for people who want to provide or build a to use. Um. I doubt it that you could find any data at all that I suggest that eightyu building is is significantly being hampered because people can only build one of me. This doesn't just doesn't seem like a rate limiting sort of thing that that even you know that that really needs to be addressed right now. It's interesting thing about Number Five is the it doesn't Give a lot of other guidelines, so that i'm saying, Let's allow it. There's no mention of um sizing it, or how does it affect occupancy? Perhaps occupancy. Um, I agree with you about, you know big, unused yards. But there could be some solar excess issues around this as well. If you started popping up more mini-houses on, La, for example.

[157:01] Um, Okay. So we're a little loop where i'm on that one. I'd say we're negative on it. Say negative. Um. I would say, let's take some opportunity to think about it, and perhaps we can actually vote on it next month, and we might vote it down. But i'd i'd love to. I want to have more more time to ponder it than maybe even do a little research before we go go there. Item, six allow eighty and per day before at the same time as house permitting. I guess this is now a two-step process. This is really a streamlining recommendation. Ah, how do people feel about this definitely. Okay, Um. Seems like kind of a no greater

[158:07] um Any other comments about M. Six. Not necessarily. Item six. But I would like to layer in with respect to process something about creating a special review track or a pre-approved option for a to use. So we don't have to go through the entire process every time. I don't know if that's a six, or maybe that's a seven. I don't know I just think the idea of having two or three pre-approved options by way of size design architectural, that you can just plug and play will be really helpful. Yeah, i'm. Actually a little surprised at the housing advocates did not include that. I have heard anecdotally that

[159:02] those pre-approved plans are not where they're available are not so widely used. But if anybody has any other. Well, inites are hard data on that. I would appreciate them speaking up about it. Maybe they're not out there yet. Maybe we just come up with our own reapproved plan. You know. We say the backyard setbacks got to be x the side your stack back's got to be why, and and as long as it meets that it's not taller than this. Go right. The example I did some research on really included a design of a building, not a level of decorative detailing, but certainly massing or pitch setback placement of demonstration doors, access, and so forth. Uh, and I thought that was kind of kind of appealing.

[160:04] I expose my ignorance here, but you every ad that gets approved right now has to go through a sort of custom or a one-off approval process that gets examined by city staff and analyzed for fitness? Or is that as me? Is that that? Is there something onerous here that we're trying to avoid trying to my understanding, is trying to streamline a two-step process into a one-step process. Well, no number six is that but i'm suggesting something else. I'm suggesting that in addition to it, Number Six, where we don't have a two-step process, and it's a one-step process in the world of of just so maybe i'm suggesting a number seven. That says eighty. You have a streamline process. Yeah, so it does six as written, I totally. I I think I understand it. Um, seven as a yet unwritten as yet written. I don't quite understand. So there's there's something onerous about the the current process that, having pre-approved plans,

[161:13] would make it would make it easier from the from the interaction from the point of view of interacting with the city. Is that what you're saying? Yes, yeah. And I think there's a little bit more that if you have pre- your plans, you potentially reduce your cost. Usually service costs or a natural fees, You know you still might have to work with an architect to make the building that the site But um, you kind of uh determined a lot of the parameters of the design from the better work effectively. Lisa. Question. I actually not have not built an A to you. So I've gone through the process, but i'm assuming it's the same as a single family home.

[162:03] Review period, right submittals all the different divisions. Look at it comments back and forth all that the two-step process in that Number six. Item is because the Edu has to be approved as an administrative review. First, so they go through, and that goes to multiple reviewers. As Well, people get comments back, and one of the challenges and things we've heard but the two-step review is, that It's not a full review like a building permit review would be, and so they might get their eightyu approved. And then, once they get into that full building, permit process. Uh oh, there's a building code issue that we didn't know about um. And so it's just It's challenging to have them separated like that. So that's what. But this is something where you're building them both at the same time. Right? Sorry. Say that again. This is only in the scenario where you're building them both at the same time the main house in the at the same time. Right?

[163:00] No, it it would also be if you were like getting a building permit to renovate your basement into being a basement attached unit. Or if you were building a new accessory structure, so it'd be the same building, permit review process. Yeah. So yeah, not to confuse things anymore. But we're now talking about a third concept here. So the letter is talking about. When you're building a brand new house you. You have to basically build a house, and then you can apply for an idiot, Right? That's what the letter is talking about. Changing what Terry is suggesting are pattern books basically pre-approved plans to simplify the that has lots of challenges. And we can talk about that separately. Police is talking about. We have a two-step process. One's the first. You have to go through a land use review to get approval to say, Yeah, you need the saturation requirements. You can, you know, basically, you're in the right zone.

[164:07] That's what you paid the four hundred and twenty dollars for, and it's a different group that does that than the group that reviews what you submit to get actually get built. So the building permit what? The building code basically they can't meet the compatible development standards. So people get a bit upset that you know. Basically the city tells them. Yes, you can build an av you. And then several months later, and several thousand dollars down the line. The city says, No, you need to make this change, but fundamentally so it's get super confusing. But fundamentally the question is, should somebody be able to come in with no experience in development

[165:08] to the city, and expect to get an Edu approved? Or should we we don't have that expectation for any other type of development. Right? So you want to build a commercial building. You want to think Terry wants to build a single family home. You're going to submit plans. You're going to get comments back. You're going to have to make design changes to make it fit. So it's sort of this. What expectation are we setting up in the community related to accessory twelve? And it's a much bigger question. But I I just want to flag that and schedule A, and everybody's getting tired. Yeah, we are. It's true, but it's a big issues to consider. But what I am a is saying. This is, if you want to build a house and you want to have an A to you

[166:00] from the get go. You've got sort of an extra layer to go through, and this recommendation is trying to simplify that process to a one, a one step, and they don't have the experience in developing a of his career in developing a house, either, You know that's what you have an architect for. I hope you get through that process. But we do. I think we do want to recommend something like the process. And I do understand that Terry's comment about picking from a pattern both the pre-affirmed designs. That's a separate recommendation entirely that's Basically, when we're trying to develop for Number Seven. And this is sort of a big question for lateness of this meeting. But like what haven't, we considered that we should consider there might be other. There certainly are more ideas to put on the table about eighty years, and Philip has got one. I Well, I just want to make sure we circle back, and we were clear about the owner-occupied concerns that three of our commenters had at the beginning. I think

[167:06] I think what I learned from the feedback from J is that that concern shouldn't be a problem. As far as the regulations go. It's just a matter of enforcement. Is that right, or is there something outstanding there that should be addressed? Um, What is actually related to this? Item Six. So if a builder, which is typically an Llc. Wants to build an avu, how do they owner occupy the home that they're built? So it's like a speck house. So just I mean. So It's just things like that that need to be worked out. But I think the intent is we want developer to be able to build an ad you at the same time, so it used to be. Remember, you couldn't even prior to two thousand and eighteen. You had to wait five years before you could build an edu with new construction. So we got rid of that.

[168:01] But we still have this one, I see, because it yeah, the way. I understand that process. Let's say i'm a builder. I buy a lot of tear down in house. I build a big house with an adu, and I sell my house i'm not going to occupy it. The person who occupies that home has to go for their permit to rent the a tou so isn't that your checkpoint, you're fail safe to ensure that the only occupy the owner is actually staying in the house and running the Edu as program intends. Make sure that the intent of those regulations it works out there. So I guess my question is that, like in terms of our role here, is making recommendations for adu rules, updates. Do we need to worry about that? Or is that it's sort of like implied on on the radar? It's it's going to work itself out, or it's,

[169:03] Or do we need to actually say something about it? I think it's going to get super complicated if you do, I don't know, Lisa, What do you think? Do you think we're? Can we tell them what we're going to look into it? Yeah, I mean, that's a solution. It's an issue that's come up with several different groups that we've talked to. So it's definitely on our radar to address that and clarify that issue. Yeah, it sounds like we'd be getting in to make a recommendation about code of enforcement which is not not our role, as I understand it. So we can, I think, with all respect to the people that are commented today, put that issue aside and not address it. I have one more thing that might deserve recommendation. The consideration. I wonder if if we get through, you know. Let's say all these past, and we have an updated adu policy,

[170:05] and then someone comes along, and they have a house in a backyard, and they want to put a detached A to you back there that's that's a a pre-manufactured um. Ad You know fact Factory bill, adu unit. Is there going to be some sort of Gotcha that says, Oh, you can't do that because this this or that that, that we should consider is that is that something that's allowed now? Or uh has it? Has it been done as have there been any eighty-s? That weren't just a custom one-off uh a custom construction job on site. Not that I know of, and the only issue that I think would be I gotcha if it would be is, I don't know if there's specific building code requirements related to manufactured, but that's out of the realm of my expertise. So I have to look into that.

[171:00] Yeah. So I mean, that's what we're doing and ponderous right? So the idea with the modular factory is that we're going to build all the units inside a factory, and then transport them to the site. So they still have to meet all the city requirements in terms of that land. Use review, and you know all of the the building code pieces, but it's not. It's approved by the State as opposed to the city. What the stadium will do is is permit the connection, utility, connections, and things like that. So it is a slightly different permitting process. But as long as you can be a car land use code. I'm not aware of any barriers to using a modular construction or pre- manufacturer worth noting that there are some startup companies I don't think they've gotten a whole lot of traction that are intending to manufacture like really cool-looking any use that can be craned into a site. You know not what you would think of with manufacture nothing at all, but something very sleek and modular, You know. You don't want to forego the possibility of that type of product coming to Boulder.

[172:13] I'm not quite sure that that that translates to the recommendation. But so here, and I think there's two different things we're talking about here, Michael. There's pre-manufactured housing that can be craned in that's that's not what i'm talking about, even though I think it's fine i'm talking about a streamlined approval process, which is, Oh, yeah, this is a totally I didn't. I didn't mean to confuse the I was. I was trying to bring up a separate issue. Yeah, okay, cool. We're not getting late. I mean, i'm looking at everybody here. Jay was there, the old board nine o'clock. We're just getting started. I'm looking around, and nobody here was there. Then, you know, when we were going we would get through, you know. Nine o'clock. It's just break time.

[173:04] I'm a i'm a morning person. Can you remember that? I do? But I also remember the last year you have to had a three-hour meeting in quite some time just saying, Anyway, I get into this stuff, man. I can go all night talking about housing, anyway. Sorry that's just. I know i'm gonna put up a deep fake video and go to bed. Ah, what if we are? Well, I i'm gonna recommend the path forward and i'll take the lead on it. I'd like to take this letter we got from the housing advocates. Ah, tweak it, and kind of personalize it to have based on our really good discussion tonight. I really appreciate this this ah dialogue we've had, and bring that forth as a draft recommendation

[174:01] in keeping this format because it'll give us the opportunity to pick and choose among the recommendations that we wanted for word for, and not seven. Well, we'll have the opportunity to vote on either this as a package or one by one. So how's that sound? Everybody but that? I think we can go to matters from the staff, and i'm hoping Jay will have an update on live meetings and other issues on his mind around the city's mind. Yeah, just um. Two things. If you do have some free time, I would recommend, because I think they're gonna talk partially about the transition to meeting in person

[175:00] Um! And how those meetings are going to be governed, and then that relates to my other topic which is returning it in person. So Staff needs training on how to operate the new technology that's going to be where we meet like we said, Next time we don't know if we're going to be in Council chambers or not, and there'll be hybrid meetings so that people can participate remotely. Then the final thing was just to share. You know that the council priorities are starting to go to council of this phone. You know about the Edu November the tenth, the middle income ownership piece, study, session, inclusionary housing program update as well as the down payment assistance pilot uh That's going on October twenty, seventh. Um, and then um

[176:02] other priorities are, and the calendar. But I don't have those dates off the top of my head, so Number seven at the Ten Council priorities were related thousand. So a lot of that is is moving forward. That's it. Any questions for me Anything that would be helpful for you guys at the next meeting. Anything else you want to discuss. Okay? Well, thank you. Those up to age. J: Ah, meeting debrief. It was great to meet Brad, our new flying director. I think he'll be like an ally on the housing discussion. Um! We did say farewell to Juliet, and we'll maybe send a more formal regards card or something like that. But um down to five, so it's really important for us to continue to have robust attendance to continue to have a quorum, so we can vote on things and have formal meetings.

[177:02] We had a lot of public participation for the second month in a row, which i'm very pleased, I think what we have is getting a stronger pulse on the on the community's radar, and that's a good thing for us. Um! The A do discussion was great. I I will try to summarize it in a edited memo based on the letter we received. Taking out an idea or two, perhaps throwing in one or two new ones that we started to develop tonight, and we will make that an item on the agenda for the airport action promoting, and the October meeting, which is scheduled for October. Who's got a calendar? Twenty-six? What do you think what's going on um any other comments. Before I request a motion to adjourn,

[178:01] Do I have a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn the meeting. I have a second, not Terry of his. He wants to stay. I'll keep talking. Do we have a second and second all in favor? I thank you all for a really good meeting. Appreciate your devotion to this issue and your time. Thank you so much. Thanks. Guys.