March 22, 2023 — Housing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:02] Well welcome to the the Housing Advisory Board meeting for March 2023, and Michael Jase is the chair of Housing Advisory board, and I just got back in my long trip, so i'm probably as bad as I've ever been. I will make the best of it with the help of our able Board members instead present. So start by calling a minute and a roll call for someone to call on the newest member of Have Aaron Clearman, just appointed by State Council. and she is present the other. There is another character point that I had Karen with an I. Hoskin. and she was not able to make that. But if we're really happy to have the 2 new members we have, which, because it's back up, you 7, you know. Total full board here. Hi, I'm. Good. Here. Julianne Ramsey. Okay, we, you know we have a quorum. We have a a full hold out.

[1:07] No, or very welcome to do. Have members, Will I to have your board agenda review. We'll be approving the minutes next. We'll have all the participation immediately following that item number 6 on the agenda is matters from the board. We have 3. We have an AD. You code update. This is an item for have recommendation. Lisa Hood, from finding development services. It's here first time, man in person. By the way, nice to see you. An item B is the zoning for a portable housing discussion continued. We have Carl Giler also upon the development services the second time a row. Then we'll be talking about. I can see. Oh, i'm sorry that I didn't be as an over feedback. I didn't see we'll be talking about Occupancy Carl also available to present and answer questions about that at night of our feedback.

[2:04] I think you're looking at an old agenda where you removed that, remember. Oh. okay. And it's having matter in the staff. We still have that. That's the recent development highlights. We'll be debriefing our meeting and doing a calendar check and talking about the next meeting, and then we'll see seeking to wrap up by an 9 Pm. We're gonna go over the rules for public information about what I do want to know. And today is a kind of a sad anniversary. It's the second anniversary of the I think, secrets shooting. I believe there's a city memorial going on that right now. It's conflicting within our meeting. But that's hard to make note of that. And but on our first number day. Okay. we all had a chance to interview the minutes from the February 5 s my 23 meeting. Do I have a motion to approve those minutes

[3:04] so moved. If we have any stuff a second and that is well all in paper for me in February meetings one extension, Aaron Clement, a new to the Board. Can we go over the public transportation rules before we go into that section. Please check. Yes, Give me 1 s. I forgot to sign into Zoom. Okay. I could show any pizza as well. Can you sign to thank you, Tiffany. I can to share some slides shortly. Yeah. Oh, can you enable I will, sharing

[4:26] Yeah, one of these days we're going to be fully prepared for this hybrid one day with technology. There we go. hey? And just some comments. public participation. So a lot of our participants may are very familiar with this. But the city has I created a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and that comes with some rules.

[5:01] But the idea is that this supports physical and emotional safety for not just community members, but also staff boarding commission members as well as people of all different identities and lived experiences. You want more information about it. There's a link to a website. And so, following our some rules of a decorum found in the boulder, revised code and other guidelines to support that vision, and these will be upheld during the meeting by our chair, Michael, all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business, please. No participants shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. sanity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that's just for us or otherwise otherwise, and keep the ability to conduct. The meetings are prohibited. and participants are required to sign up to speak, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to go on. And please keep in mind currently. Only audio testimony is permitted online.

[6:13] That's it. Thank you, Jay. We're going over that. Do we have any members of the public? How many? But if you seeing them on the screen, if we did. Okay, David got 3 min. Look forward to what you have to say. I'd like to thank you all for your service. I like to welcome the new members of the board and the staff. It's been my opinion, after about 8 years working with many of you.

[7:03] that this what we're up to here is a lot easier. then, we think. and the I want to leave you with 3 main ideas, as you consider this issue of number one providing a lot more middle income for sale. Appreciation moderated mostly. Car share. Housing throughout the city will improve. Every neighborhood will benefit every citizen. So we won't, get into the weeds there. But let's change the frame of your work, not to this Titanic struggle trying to cut a Gordian. Not but instead boulder's. Wealth is its people

[8:02] diverse people. We can maintain the mountain backdrop. and we can add people. We can reduce cars. we can preserve property, value or increase it. We can be a model to everyone in this world, especially in the developed world. Especially I appreciation areas by moving towards what is humans have always been good at creating livable, walkable, beautiful cities. We we we can do that. So number one can benefit everyone. I've sent you an email with a. You know our ideas about it, with the backports group bringing together a trans envy. It was a trans in the group for 2 years, and so I encourage you to look at their approach to this. Let's not reinvent the wheel, so number one. It can benefit everyone. Number 2. We're so controlled by this idea that people are against more people. What I think I think you might agree. What they're really against is more cars and more auto-related development

[9:10] and we need to be against that anyway walkable by theable. We don't need a a train for people to have a have great neighborhoods. And finally, this is a program. The idea of regulating the market to provide what we want for all housing. We're not against luxury, housing, but let's have a limit on the amount of luxury housing. How about 10 or 15%, Max, for your housing, for everything that we develop now on? So that's the idea to just develop the housing that we need. We can make it work for the market. Thank you very much. Thank you, David, and thank you for getting over in 3 months on the nose we will read your memo that you email to us and consider your thoughts much appreciate it.

[10:01] I would like to diverge from the a little bit because it. I I completely forgotten that we have a board member who's been deployed into a group that's looking at the future of the airport. I would like to hear a on that meeting. Is this an appropriate time to do that? Yeah, everybody. We have someone else to send them to, you know. Just make sure there's no one else that they're members of the public that i'm gonna be a chance to chew my food there no other. So you can close that portion of the agenda. Okay, they They come back to me. I think, J was saying. You need to close the the public hearing. Okay, that that closes the public comment section that we have the following audible and getting a report from the Board member of the group that is meeting on the future of the Boulder airport.

[11:06] Thank you. So there is a community working group that's been assembled for the purpose of communicating interest from the community about how people see the future of the airport unfolding. So this is in advance of a a master plan that's going to be reviewed and and revised later this year. And so there's 5 meetings, 4 more meetings coming up there's 1 one took place last Tuesday. 4 more meetings coming up along with some open house events to, you know, have conversations about possibilities for the airport. So the first meeting took place on Tuesday last week that was followed by an airport tour which about a dozen people from the community came.

[12:06] It's it's was it? Both events were super interesting. I I feel like I've learned a lot, and I, a couple of highlights are. you know, sort of scanning the room. I I don't know how much detail you want me to go into, but I don't think we have a pack of. you know. Well, you're just looking for me, so let me know if it sounds like i'm rambling. But the the meeting had some different breakout sessions. There was a there was an introduction. followed by a a charter of participation, that kind of outlined, some basic principles for how to participate in a community working group. I was followed by some breakout sessions. One of them was oriented towards data

[13:00] and the one of kind of the main things. So the data session, if I and I'm just working for memory that the things, the thing that I that stands out the most is. There was a graph that showed the number of air airplanes parked at the airport has decreased pretty continuously for the last 20 years. One of the questions that came up is, Why is that? How is that possible that the hangar space is all being used? And the answer to that is, it probably reflects the fact that fewer and fewer people want to park their airplanes outdoors on the tarmac strapped down with straps because they get tired of having the airplanes blown over. That that was kind of the you know. I don't know if there was actual data on that or not. But that was sort of the the answer I. There was also a a session on

[14:01] That's a survey that was done with some community members. That was kind of an initial for a and to getting feedback and trying to find out what the community is concerned about. There are a lot of you know, kind of obvious things, like noise, voice complaints, and you know that they they still use lighted fuel at the airport. And so there's concerns about lead environmental, you know, issues. There was another session that that talked about. You know what what are kind of people's, hopes, and dreams to the airport, and from that I kind of gathered there's there's kind of 3 camps, as far as I can tell, like J. Generally speaking, I don't want to to oversimplify. But there's there's people who are involved with the airport that they may. Maybe they own airplanes, their their center of life orbits around the airport, and they're They're excited about having an airport, and they'd like to see it continue.

[15:05] There's their neighbors who don't like the the noise of the airport. And one thing that is causing a lot of noise is the is touching goes from training flights that come out of Jeff go. And so there's there's concern around No, it's about the airport, and how to how to mitigate that. And then there's a small contingent of of folks who are interested in housing at the airport, because, of course, various people in city council have talked about decommissioning the airport to replace it with housing it. It did come up, and you know they run the Section 6.2, 3 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan. Yeah. Mark's colleague, Laura Kaplan, was there and asking questions about how and so. but I wouldn't say so. There was. There was someone from planning for the another member from Tab is is also participating as a as a lay on His name is Ryan Shoehard, and

[16:13] and then there were a few community members that spoke up about about housing, so I would say, those are kind of the 3 camps. The the the tour was really fascinating, as someone who sees housing everywhere. I look that I was just giddy when I saw the property at the airport. It is a beautiful parcel, and the the notion that it could someday be a a wonderful housing neighborhood is exciting to me, so it's a it's cool property. Yeah, thank you, Phil. I get a couple of very quick questions, and we can keep going. Sure. What is the timeframe for this working room? Do you feel that right to continue this kind of

[17:01] about something in the future at the airport. So I I believe it goes through September, October something like that, the the fifth meeting. And then what was so a question. Do you feel there is an appetite to continue the housing discussion as a long term version it's like the energetic some point i'm anxious. But whenever you're ready in in regard to that particular issue, yeah, I mean, I know that i'm interested in injecting that as much as the as much as I can. You know I I think you know I do. I do want to represent. Have I don't I don't mean to go outside the bounds of what we, as a group, think about this issue. I guess I haven't even collected information about it. I just know, like in general, we're we're very concerned about missing middle housing, and and so, you know, there's an opportunity there for missing Middle, and I think that's you know the conversation we ought to be having so. But yeah, i'd love to hear. So i'll just say it quickly.

[18:04] No, we haven't. I don't think it's 130 acres of potential having future is a strong interest to me, you know. First of all, we can do the discussion in that. But sorry I didn't introduce earlier. Martin, I think you're officially our new No, I I I am really current. I am the current alternate who ultimately aed on to have from planning board, and John, who who was the primary, is gone. Yeah, we had this last meeting last night. So anyway, i'm here as the alternate just a length and continuity. At our next meeting we will select the various liaison's you are in the central, but not the they. Last night at 1130 it was late, but we we delved right into this particular issue due to Laura's concern.

[19:01] which became the Planning board's. Concerns that. and i'm i'm gonna put. I I can't help but put my little bit of personal spin on here. That the question being asked is, is an incomplete. or it's an incomplete question or not. The right question, because the way the the the mission of the working group is to answer the question of what is the future possible future scenario for the airport. Those possible future scenarios include. but as it is. grow it. you know, make it more of a regional air air center. Improve it? Or the fourth question was the Commission that not decommission it with a future for housing. that that that the the way and this is the report back from Laura

[20:02] that the way staff and the consultant, primarily a consultant. But the consultant is exercising a mission that they've been given was to determined not to determine whether housing would be a possible future use, but just whether the airport would be decommissioned. So if you ask people the the the point being, if you say, hey, do you want to go through the process and all the heartache of decommissioning an airport without any possible future scenario? That housing could be a playground could be a water with no other possible future scenario. Then the likelihood of someone saying, yeah, i'm all for decommissioning the airport is is very slim. so it's a different question to ask. Do you want to decommission the airport. or do you see a vision of greater community benefit in housing or something else? So

[21:04] And so the action item from planning work last night was a planning board is rafting a letter. We have 2 members drafting the letter that we'll edit at our next meeting. and submit that to the city manager and the Council, because our concern is that the Council it not understand that that the consultant and the structure was to not discuss housing. And so we are. We are addressing that as as planning board and having planning board, have a representative in the working group. So that is that that is my input from from our meeting last night. And who is the Planning Board Representative Lauren Kaplan? Oh, great! But and and it's interesting, because.

[22:01] you know, planning board has very perspectives on many issues. But it was. We were very cohesive. not in advocating. Laura is not advocating for housing. She is advocating for having a pair of playing field and asking the broad question. and I, I am an advocate of being having been involved in many community processes, that if you don't ask if you, if if it's been predetermined by the narrow scope of a question. then the outcome gets questioned by the community as well. This was this was all just. you know. It was all airport people doing it, or it was all housing people doing it. So the the for me. The key point is, you have to ask the right question, so that the product of the working group is respected by the community.

[23:02] And so so mark my. So basically the whole notion is, the premises take on the issue of decommissioning the airport in a vacuum in and of itself, without tying it to housing, so that it's not painting. The the more complicated question of the process of decommission it's looking at just the notion of whether or not we should have an airport. Then you know, whatever that may we to 1,000 or whatever that's somewhere down the line, but but to take the big mission issue in isolation. Is that right? Yeah, that's that's that's correct. And and so that's a straight into to the planning board. That's a strange way of doing things. It's like going to a a site review and saying, Well, you know your choice is to carry down all this. All the current buildings. We're not really going to talk about a future or condition. We're just going to, you know. Do you want to tear this stuff down, and you know or not, we would like to. We would like to talk about a possible future condition

[24:01] rather than just what are we support? That's yeah, that's interesting. It's definitely challenging. Yeah, yeah, follow up Marx Thomas. Thank you for summarizing that. Bringing that to the attention of this assembly Here I I got caught, caught off guard just a little bit in my in in a trying to remember what I wanted to say, so that this is a really important point. I had a subsequent conversation with Laura as well, and we talked about the fact that you know to to have a community conversation where you put a lot of effort into the community. You have. You hire consultants. and you have a whole process where you leave out this this one thing that was like, put in the both comprehensive plan. And you, you sort of you sort of say. Oh, we're not going to talk about that. Well, then.

[25:04] at what point. Do you talk about that? And then what what was the purpose of all this other, all this other effort? So yeah, I think it would make sense for us to follow planning board for me, and also draft a letter to, you know, to to to say, basically, you know, we believe that this conversation ought to include housing, so I I think one of the things they were pushing back on specifically is that this is not like a a planning efforts. You know we're not going to sketch out what the neighborhoods are gonna be, you know, look like. But but that's different than than saying like, Here's a vision for what? What this place could be, you know, like in in in the you know, pretend like there's no there's no concept of what could be there to to motivate people in their decision, making, you know, like maybe it's a 6 flags, or you know.

[26:06] any anyways, I think it would make sense for us to to follow up on this in a similar way crazy. This is a group going to meet monthly. Oh, the next meeting is the second week of April. I don't think they've actually sent the detailed time and date. Make sure we get it at the agenda, and you can prepare. But your presentation was excellent. Thank you. I I agree with what I'm hearing if I can digest it, which is our job is to get the housing discussion on the table not to decide. You know the future of an airport, not enough to. and the need for safety maneuvers and all those things. But it it's a conversation worth having, and it really pertains directly to our missing Middle Mission, because we're also going to find 138 groups of city on land again, not to you, kind of for kind of conclusion, but just a good point of decision.

[27:03] and i'll just conclude, I I think. 6.2, 3 of the BBC. The last sentence. I just want to read it for the record at the time of the next airport and master plan. the city will work with the community to reassess the potential for developing a portion of the airport or housing and neighborhood serving uses. So what as long I'm not planning for it. The more it's like the Bible, right? And so you can interpret it different ways. But it's pretty clear that that you will. You will reassess you will recess, and and that's no one's asking. I don't think anyone is asking for anything other than housing to be part of the assessment process of the working room. That's that's really clear. Okay.

[28:00] approach. And maybe we can. I'll commit a resolution. Thanks me to saying, hey, you passing. I'm thinking any other comment on that. Can we move back into the regular? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That is probably board. We're up to the Edu code update, and we're gonna start. This is a item for potential recommendation. We'll start with the staff presentation from Lisa. Did you go signed what's happening with actual regulatory changes. All right. Thank you. Chair. Good evening. Housing Advisory Board. Nice to see you all in person. We are Last year in January, I think I was, but I was virtual. So giving you an introduction to these upcoming updates. Now we have an actual ordinance. So within that 250 page packet that you guys got. There is actual ordinance language on the accessory dwelling unit update. So my presentation is just gonna be a summary of kind of the main topics and changes in that ordinance, and then we have time for public comments specific to this

[29:06] as well. And then I can answer any questions or things like that. So, instead of the plan. the purpose tonight is for you all to make a recommendation to the City Council on this specific, so it'll be going to city Council in late April, early May, and planning board in a couple of weeks. So you guys are the first ones to see it. just starting off with the absolute basics. I know that you all are very familiar, but for anyone else who's listening, and just to be clear about accessory dwelling unit. How we use it in folder accessory dwelling unit is a small residence that's sharing a lot with the larger main house in Boulder. We have both the attached version and the detached version of a to use so an attached to you can be either like an attic apartment or a basement apartment often can also be in addition, and then the detached is always in a separate structure. So you can see those in the graphics. But it is an independent, and self-contained living space. So it's somewhere that has bathroom and kitchen facilities.

[30:05] The scope of this project is to update the regulations related to 80 use city councils set this as a work program priority for 2,022 and 23. They've narrowed the scope or specified the scope to these 4 items on the screen, and the big objective for this project is to increase the allowance of a to use in boulder. So through this project we're looking at eliminating the 80 saturation limit, modifying the size limits, and then doing some overall clarification and simplification of the regulations. and also improving the approval processes. So I know you. We we walked through this back in January, but just to go through it again. This is the engagement that's been done for this project so far. So we are relying a lot on significant public engagement. That was done the last time they do. Regulations were updated, because there's a lot of overlap with the same topics, and there was a lot of work done at that time. It was a more comprehensive overhaul of the regulations. So there's a lot of great stuff to use from there. Great input.

[31:08] In addition. We've also met with our community connectors and residents. The planning board you all back in January City Council, or a Jo Zoning adjustment. We have some virtual engagement Opportunities on be heard. Boulder, which is our engagement site. We've got about 30 comments that have been added into there. Carl and I are having office hours for any members of the public that want to ask questions or get more details about the ordinance, and later this month, and in April. and then we'll go through the public typical public hearing process for ordinance review, starting now until through planning Board and City Council. So this is a consult level of public engagement, and that's kind of in the plan throughout this project. So i'll remember that we've talked about the evaluation that was done. So we last year we focused on evaluating the changes that happened. They went into effect in 2,019, and what impact that those changes had on the eighties that were constructed in boulder between 2,022

[32:12] You know we have a new member. So i'm glad that this is new information to you, because they've seen this chart before, but I just wanted to show eighty-s have been allowed in Boulder since the early 19 eighties, and this church shows how many were approved each year. You can see it was very minimal until the last decade or so, and then the yellow lines indicate kind of major code regulation updates. So you can see that there was a significant increase after we made those last updates, and that's what we were really studying was the period between 2,019 and 2,022 and how those changes impacted what was approved. I don't go through the whole evaluation again, because you guys have seen that. But the evaluation focused on looking at what changes reduce actually reduced barriers to a to use in boulder, and what potential improvements could we make to further reduce barriers? And that really informed the scope of this project.

[33:05] Last year we also worked with our housing staff to do a survey of all of the owners of a to use in boulder. And we've actually done comparable surveys. 5 and 10 years ago. So we're able to compare those numbers to that About half of owners responded to us, which is a great response Rate some of the interesting takeaways. There's a lot more detail in your packet, and the evaluation is that compared to 2,017. There's a greater percentage of 80 us being used as space for visitors or relatives. Obviously it's been a unique couple of years situation over Covid, so we're not sure how much that impacted the use of a to use, but just an interesting note that we saw from that survey. Also, with the most recent survey, we were able to assess the impact of affordable. So with those changes that happen in 2,019, there's a new route for people to get some incentives for larger a to use or to not have a parking requirements, if they choose to do in a portable a you. And so the way that works is there's a set limit on the rent that can be charged for that 80. So they're essentially swearing to keep that rent under that rate

[34:12] in exchange essentially for slightly different requirements. So from the survey we found that 40% of the owners that chose to do the affordable 80. You did so for the incentive to reduce the parking requirement. So it's interesting. We also did comparable city research. I know I went through this last time, but we looked at 34 different cities on a bunch of different topics related to Abu regulations specific to saturation limits. None of the 34 cities that we looked at have a saturation limit. It's just boulder that has that only if you have a minimum one size most have only 1 80 you per lot compared to most cities, boulder's, maximum size of detached to us is smaller, although when you look at Colorado, Colorado tends to be on the smaller side compared to the nation, but still 800 square feet is a typical

[35:04] maximum size. Variation on parking requirements for cities some required none, some require one or 2, some have different waivers, depending on the location almost all. I'll say that 86 can't be sold separately and related to a phone or I can see about it. That helped inform this project as well, just looking at what other cities have been doing, and it's certainly a topic that a lot of cities have been addressing recently as eighties are seen as an opportunity to increase housing. So the focus for these updates before you tonight, like I said, are these 4 points saturation, limit, size, limit, clarification and approval processes. So I'm. Going to walk through each one of those, and how they are addressed in the draft ordinance. We went through this in January, but the saturation limit only applies in the Rl. One and Rl. 2 zoning districts, which are a low density. the residential districts. But essentially you take a property, draw a line 300 feet, or a radius 300 feet around that property, and only 20 of those properties are allowed to have an 80 that's a rule that's been in place since 1,983, when the 80 regulations were first adopted, and it's simplest form. You can see if there were 10 properties. Only 2 of them can have

[36:18] 80. So it really limits. If you're that third property owner, you have no option or a way to get an accessory dwelling in it due to the saturation limit. We do have a waiting list that we have 12 properties on the waiting list, hoping that one of their neighbors gets rid of an Id, and then they would be able to. We increase the saturation limit from 10 to 20 back in 2,019. So, as part of that evaluation, we looked at what impact that had. It was pretty interesting because the majority of the eighties that were approved. We had 200 approved in that time. The majority either are in a district that doesn't have a saturation limit, because saturation limit doesn't apply in all zoning districts, or they would have met that 10% anyway. But there were 41, 80 that were able to be approved because of that change that increase from 10 to 20%.

[37:13] I know you've seen this slide before, but saturation limit. The saturation limit really proves to be both a real and perceived barrier to a to use. That's what the evaluation concluded. It's very confusing for the public. They're not able to measure, or understand. If their saturation limit has been increased. These are all direct quotes from our inquiry, Boulder System, which is our like customer service portal that comes through people asking about the saturation limit. We get hundreds of questions about a to use, and the majority are about the saturation limit unique. It's a unique zoning standard, because most zoning standards don't change over time, so like if your neighbor applies for an to you, maybe in like, if you don't want to apply for an to you. But your neighbor just that got there is approved. Now you're not allowed to have an a to use, so there's not a lot of other

[38:02] similar rules that we have like that. So we we saw through the evaluation of the saturation when it continued to be a significant barrier to a to use in boulder. We also have really evolved our land use code since the saturation limit was first, but in place. so I think the original intent of the saturation limit was to try to mitigate any potential impacts of a to use. They were something that had not been legal for at least half a century before. Then they they were definitely, historically before single family zoning would have been allowed but for a long time in the eighties you hadn't seen a to use for a long time. And so it was kind of a new thing, and people weren't sure what the impacts are going to be. But we're now 40 years past, when the to use we're first allowed in boulder, and so we much better understand the impact of a to use. And we have a really robust land use code that already reviews for a number of different things. So this chart just shows all of the different regulations that impact a you design and location, so that can be height 10 setbacks. We have side yard, bulk planes. We have the cumulative length of walls, all of these compatible development standards that we have adopted into the land use code since

[39:16] the 8, since before the 8 the eighties were adopted. So and then we also have eightyu specific requirements that helped mitigate impacts. We have parking requirements. We have a maximum size. Unlike most residential properties in the city owner, occupancy is required. So the the property owner has to live on site. and then the occupancy limit is essentially the same. There's a little bit flexibility for dependence. So it's not necessarily that there's even an increase on the site. So we think that with all the cumulative, all of these different standards that we have, we're able to adequately mitigate the potential impacts of ads without having the saturation limit anymore.

[40:00] So the proposed code chain is related to saturation limits. It's to eliminate that 20% limit. So we would no longer have a saturation limit in the city of Boulder for any a. To use it doesn't change the district that where ads are allowed. But there just wouldn't be that saturation limit for those of them to see districts anymore. And if you have questions, feel free to interrupt me. So all 10 of those houses could have an AD. Now. Exactly. They'd have to meet all of the other standards. But yes, there wouldn't be that limit that 20% limit anymore. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for that. Alright. We move on to the size limits. This is the other main one. So we have a maximum size of 80 us going back to this graphics. So there's and they differ based on attached or detached. So for an attached those top 2 pictures. It has to be a third of the size of the main house, or 1,000 square feet, whichever is smaller. so that whichever is smaller does make a difference, because if you have a 1,500 square foot house you can't, Max out. You can't have a 1,000 square foot 80 you. It has to be a third of that, so you can only have a 500 square foot 80. You can meet that one-third.

[41:08] and then the detach. The limit is 550 square feet. Right now that this is for a market rate, there is a little bit more flexibility for an affordable unit. It's something that can be a bit there, varied by our phone. and we had 4 variances get approved in that evaluation time so 29 to 22. They were all very similar situations in existing basement, and they were all approved between a 1,000 1,500 square feet. We did go out and look at some of these ads that have been approved but since 2,019, so you can just kind of see the sizes of those, and how they look and kind of the different context. So these are some examples of detached to to use that are located on an alley we wanted to look at, especially because the proposal is to increase the size limits. We wanted to look at some of the larger ones that had been improved as affordable a to use.

[42:08] So just just to give a concept of what that looks like. So you can see this. These kind of range from upper 600 to 800 square feet, and those are all alley on alley sides. The picture also shows what it looks like from the street for the main house. There's also some more detached on the alley, some different styles, some of the adoption or adaptations of existing structures in the to use. This also goes from like 500 to 800, so a wide variety of sizes and styles. We also have detached avs that are not on alleys. So you can see these range from 480, which is the bottom right to over 800 square feet in the top left.

[43:00] So just a different. There's some like the bottom middle one. You can't even see it behind a lot. So yeah, stop the AD you. and then we have some the attached. Amy. You probably wouldn't know if you were driving past, or what you asked, that there are 2 units in any of these houses, and the ones that have asterisk, the ones on the left side. Those are the ones that receive experiences, so they exceeded the size. But you can see a variety of different styles of the attached to you as well. So that's just a give you an idea. Some pictures instead of just text. But the proposal for the size changes. We talked last time about the floor area measurement. I think we've talked about that both times I was here. So the I, the proposed ordinance has eliminated the unique floor area measurement that exists for a to use right now, and instead just uses the floor and measurement that we're using for every other building in the city which should hopefully simplify things.

[44:04] and then the proposal is to increase the size limits for all of the types of 80 use. So an attached unit would go from a third of the unit, or a 1,000 square feet to a half of the unit, or the principal unit, or a 1,000 square feet detached, would go from 550 square feet to 800 square feet. and then, accordingly, we wanted to increase the affordable allowance to preserve that as an incentive, so that people would still be incentivized to do an affordable unit. So the affordable attached would go from a half of the principal unit to it for a 1,000 to two-thirds, or 1,200, and then affordable detached, would go from 800 to a 1,000. Nice good question, how do you find affordable, is, it, am I? Yeah. So we said that we do a affordable rent chart every year, and it's 75 am. I Thank you. Yeah. And then we also have incentives for historic properties so designated properties, and so those would be the same as the affordable. Yeah. So

[45:07] currently measuring square footage if it's a basement that doesn't have walls both, and all that kind of stuff that doesn't count. I did a regular house for you to go to the right house is that same for you to use? So the actual 80 euphoria for area would still like this. 800 would. Still we would still count what's in the basement. I know we talked about that last time. It's something that we wanted to keep it. I mean that's how the floor area is measured for the bulk. Essentially so. It's kind of different, because it's measuring for the area. So we wanted to keep it as simple as possible and just use the definition that we're using for everything else. Yeah, but the definition for everything else right. But that's that's overall structure for the bulk. So yeah, it This was the we thought that this would be the simplest.

[46:01] You couldn't use that 800 square foot basement for the a. To you. It could be like storage or something. Yeah. Yeah. Any other questions on this set? Okay. All right. And then there were a number of code clarification items that came up through the evaluation, and through discussions that are also included in the the ordinance. I know we went through these last time as well, which is to explain what how the ordinance it. So there's an issue with the approval of a to use having an expiration period of only one year, and the proposal in the ordinance is to change the accessory, doing it from a C to an a. That's a conditional use to an allowed use in the use table. and by doing that it's no longer an administrative review or a conditional use that has that one year expiration. So you this is how we would be implementing. We talked about going from a 2 step review of a to to a one step review. So this turns it into just a one step review. People submit a building permit for their eightyu, and then that building permit is how we review and approve the a to you, instead of it being a separate, a, you conditional use application, and then people have to come back for the building permit

[47:11] which, through the evaluation, it just wasn't working well for anybody basically involved to do. The 2 Step Review. So in doing that there's not this different one year. Expiration period and 80 is going to be subject to the typical building permit expiration periods that any building permit has to abide by they. The next one is flexibility for height of existing structures. So this was one, I think we talked about that there is a Max height of 25 feet. There is some flexibility for height, but there's a Max of 25 feet, and we've had a number of recent examples, where it's either a historic building that happens to be over 25 feet, or because of how we met your grade. It's over 25 feet, and they're not able to adapt that into an 80 you because there's no flexibility in that height, but in that height measurement.

[48:01] So the way that we've done. We've amended that in the ordinance is that if it's an existing structure that there can be converting to an edu as long as they're not increasing the height or increasing the size or changing the roof pitch, they can turn it into an AD, so that give some flexibility for those existing structures to be able to convert, because there's less impact on the environment and neighbors if it's an existing structure. And then we had some complex standards in there related to roof pitch that are also a relic of the 19 eighties that we've removed as well. If if i'm doing a detached. hey? Do you and his and the hard 25 foot height limit is from our usual lowest point of the property out 25 feet to the lowest point 25 feet away, and that measures my I.

[49:00] Yeah. So if you're honesty pill, it can be difficult to meet that. and that's only for it. So only existing structures can go up to 25. The typical height limits only 20 for detached. So if you're building brand new, you'd be stuck at 20. If I have an existing home. then my height limit for my detached to you. You're proposing 25 feet, but it's hard at a hard stop, or is it 20 feet so 20 feet is that the the requirement for detached 80 use, and also garages. Any accessory structure is 20 feet right. Now the code gives some flexibility up to 25 feet, but no flexibility above 25 feet. So that's where we've gotten some that are like 26 or 27, but they can't be converted into an AV you, because that flexibility only comes up to 25. And so and that's that's what we are getting rid of that 25 cap. It's just if you're using an existing structure, and then there's no

[50:01] hard cap above that 20. But the 20 remains the the main limit. even if the the existing home. I'm going to build a new AD you and the existing home as a 30 foot height to it. and i'm. But because of the Edu location and the fact that it's new I'm still limited to one. He this start, and potentially 25, but it's 25, even if my home is actually yeah, exactly so essentially the form of the Edu to be pretty similar to what you could build as a detached garage. But the 25 feet goes away. If sitting. You have an existing alley garage with the lost above it, or whatever, and it's 27 feet you can still turn that in 1 80, you exactly. That's that's yeah. We're trying to get that flexibility to those, because we've had a couple of like, some are properties that got inex in for the city. So that structure was higher, or like I said, the slope thing

[51:02] you may not. Are you seeing a bunch of a flat, rough 86. Oh, yeah, that's an interesting one there weren't, I mean. We went out to 25 or 26. I only saw one that was flat room so we haven't been even with that 25 foot, Max. So yeah, but it's certainly. I mean there, Aren't, there's no requirements for a roof, pitch, or for like compatibility with the main structure. So we could see more flat roofs to that point I would imagine new. The patched eighty-s are going to be one level right. Is there, 5, 600 square feet. I'm not going to have a 2 story new. Yeah, I don't think many of them that's there's actually like a on the garage. They're They're usually above the garage. So. But the the garage doesn't usually have much for area to vote into the 80 other than getting up there.

[52:05] But if you had a lot like space like that, and wanted to actually do a lot for like the sleeping area of that being put in the square footage population. Yeah, if it's habitable space, we would include it. Height, limit, or there's height requirements for what we would call habitable space, and then that would count as 4 area, so could it be a rooftop deck like if it was flat like, could you? I mean like the railings, and everything would still fall into the the the calculation for. So if you could sit under that 20 fee. you can. Sounds good to have a very. all right, so that's one area. We were trying to make some give some extra flexibility.

[53:06] pluckable separation. This is also just a clarification. It's something that's deep in the code. Right now is that the definition of a dwelling, a separate dwelling unit? It has to be separated with a lock, and we run into it a lot with even the applications and then enforcement of separate units. So it's just bringing it into the regulation. So people are aware that that is kind of what defines an a to us that it's separated. Limited accessory unit is a type of a to you. So I mentioned there's, attached and detached. We actually have a third type, the limited accessory unit. We only have one of them in the whole city, and so it hasn't been well utilized and just adds a bunch of text to our eightyu standards, and there's other routes. that, either as non-conforming duplexes or with more liberalized 80 regulations, they could just be an AD so we're proposing to remove the limited accessory unit from the code

[54:00] owner occupancy. I know we talked about this in January, but we've added some clarity to the definition of owner occupancy about what you do, how you prove on our occupancy. If the property is owned by an Llc. Or Lp. That it and it's very similar to how someone proves if it's in a trust. So just proving 50% ownership of, or membership of, the Llc. And then we've added some additional language into the eightyu standards about what kind of documentation we need for people to prove that owner I can see, so that's usually membership agreements or operating agreements or things like that for Llc. So that's to help with enforcement. If there's potential issues, and just to clarify an existing practice with all these application of all the I've been to your apartment is pretty absolute. but there is an ability to like. Take a Sabbatical, and so at least for 6 months, or they have to apply for a special exemption to do that. Yeah, thanks for bringing that up. That's actually another thing that we tried to clarify in the code, so you can do that. You can go on sabbatical for less than a year, live outside of Boulder County, but you have to get a temporary rental license exemption. So you don't have to get a rental license as long as you're not gone for more than a year, but you can still rent out your house while you're done. If you continue to reiterate you

[55:20] so that housing will be used while people are gone. If you and Michael has many times said he has. An AV right. Yeah. So you live there you have, an Id you. You're ready to get out to person a. What? If you decide to move out of that house and and rent your main house. and and you're no longer on Arch. But then what happens to the AD you ability to rent it. Well, you have. You have to be owner occupied. So if he, he would have to be living on the property to be able to rent out either the 80 or the main house, and the hammer is. If you go back to your main house you lose your rental license.

[56:04] Yeah, that's my question. Yeah, they do have to. hey, Danny? I got it from above. Sorry, David, Did I interrupt you? I had that same question: how how that, how that plays out? How does it work when Mike Rent moves out of his house to another house and rents the main house. Yeah. So when they have. So when you have a long term rental license for the AD, you have to show that you are owner occupied. So our rental licensing team will check that you are still owner occupied. And then you're also You've also sworn through the eightyu approval that you will own or occupy. And so there are some cases, a few in cases of enforcement where people maybe think or might not be owner occupying. So we have also Enforcement Enforcement officers that deal with that. But it's it's relatively relatively and frequent.

[57:02] You can no longer rent. It can be used separately. It's all one. Yeah, you'd have to pick the kitchen in the bathroom out of the 80, You, too. Yeah, it's pretty correct. You cannot have the edu if you're not owner off paying like it can't exist. Yeah, cause I would think especially for like a detached, You know you have it for 5 years, and then I mean, like plans change. So I guess your options are to sell, or just take down the detached to you. Wow, or or just the a. Do you guys? Oh, I see you could, you could turn it into like storage. Okay. it's complicated. And then, finally, the public notice requirement. This is similar to the first one. So the change from a conditional use to an allowed use means that there would no longer be a public notice when there's an Id you application because there's not a separate aviation anymore. It's just a building permit. So you don't get a notice. When your neighbor puts up a garage

[58:14] you wouldn't get in a notice that it someone putting up an edu. So this is one of the one of the items that facilitates it being a one step review instead of a 2 Step Review. So there would no longer be a public notice. and we actually looked more into those 34 other cities. just to see what their approval processes were like, and it's actually the vast majority do it as a one Step review as a building permit it doesn't have a public notice. So that's definitely more common in other cities for kind of in the minority there for those comparable cities at least. so those are all the those are kind of the highlights of the ordinance. There's a lot of just codes language that struck and made more simple or made simplified and consolidated, and things like that. But those are the highlights, and

[59:05] we'd also be. If the ordinance gets adopted, we'd be making a bunch of process improvements as well facilitating that one step. Review. So that's it. It would involve a lot of changes to our application or electronic application, some middle and things like that, and it'd be doing updates to our handouts and videos, and hopefully the the simpler that our regulations are the simpler it will be for people to understand what the rules are. and then we have some other process improvements related to addressing, and the declarations of use which are a legal document that people have to record that we'd be improving as well. So just kind of 2 steps, because there's the ordinance, and then the process changes. But that's really the summary. The next steps is to continue with public engagement. As we go to the Boards and City Council, like, I said, we'll be going to planning board for a public hearing on April fourth City council in late April and early May. There will be a public hearing

[60:00] pay for it in at city council. and then, if it gets adopted, then we would use kind of the summer to do the process, improvement and preparation, and then the ordinance would go into effect in late summer. and there's a suggested motion for your recommendation. But I can stop there. and if you have any other questions, or if you want to go to public comments. absolutely Thank you before we get into the next section. All. Terry just reminded us. I am a you land board. If there's a conflict that I would group in 2,017 under the current rules. I don't know, I think, in that's propos. Ordinance would affect me in any way, but I haven't made any. I don't think we've ever had public comment in the middle of the meeting. Do we have any public commenters here? I have one from Mark fever.

[61:04] or did you to raise your hand if you'd like to testify? Yes, I did want to testify it's, please. Okay, 1 s. It's a too many to get set up. One person stop sharing. No like this doing a little technical thing with the timer and what we're right. No problem. Okay, you're on, Martin. all right. so I wasn't intending on testifying about this, but it's hard to miss up an opportunity. I guess i'm talking on 2 different levels. One is as a Martin Acres resident. and I have to say Martin Makers has a reputation for being one of the capitals of nimbism. So I would like to conflate that with that I am definitely not that, and strongly support more a to use in Mark Makers and

[62:10] all throughout. This is a a great idea. and I know there's going to be a lot of public push back. I make the mistake of going on next door and reading the comments there. and usually have to take a shower after reading all this stuff on there. But nonetheless, you know, and i'm sure there'll be other public hearings where you'll hear. Well, other bodies will hear lots of push back against that. Nonetheless. it's important to hear the people who support this, and I really do support any chance of building more affordable housing, and I realize 80 years Aren't always affordable housing. But whatever we can get, whatever we can eke out of some additional structure, I want to see that happen. and i'm sure the worst fears that are being propagated out there will not happen in Boulder.

[63:06] I want to also speak, though as a a tenant activist. and because I'm. Always more concerned about affordable rental housing. I just don't want there to be any misconceptions that this will in really, in any significant way. Effect rental housing prices. This will not bring down rents more AD so I I hope it doesn't get sold as that. That this is gonna help bring down rents in any kind of significant way. It will not. I can continually believe that the housing market is in in elastic, and no matter how much housing we build, it's not going to significantly, if at all, affect Housing prices went rental housing more specifically.

[64:03] Nonetheless, again, we need as much affordable housing as we can get, and if we can get just. you know, a 1015, 20 more affordable units. I really want to see that, and I would actually like to see a tightening of making it more affordable, more units being affordable. And with that I know I've run out of time, so i'll leave it there. Thank you, Mark, Appreciate your comments. I think if there were really an explosion of a to use, it could have some effect on the rental housing market. But you know I I appreciate your point on that. you know. There's more supply, maybe then over at least stabilize. I think we are. and we have another one. I'm sorry I Lynn. Welcome, Lynn. When we're ready for you. We'll have 3 min for public comment. I believe we're ready.

[65:07] Okay, Take it away. Lynn. Yeah. I agree with Mark about the in elasticity of the market. Therefore i'm not supporting a to use unless unless there is a population cap in Boulder. because exclusively of this in elastic issue. All we're going to do is have more and more unaffordable housing. The way projects like Stoke at 2,206. Pearl is proposing as a missing middle quote, unquote project for 80 to a 120 percent A. D. And A. A.

[66:01] A average median income. Right? Okay. Thank you for that. Yeah. It is not area immediate income except for the initial clients that will go in there, and there are 300 square foot units in this place. So people aren't going to stay there forever, and as soon as they move out. Guess what it's market rate. and guess what those 300 square foot market rate units do for the property value. Drive it straight through the ceiling. because, you know. it's very inefficient use of space. One person for one bathroom for one kitchen sync all of that stuff. They

[67:00] actually they have a bed that rises up to the ceiling to make better use of the space. And they're pushing this through, based on the fact that people are going to be mo more mobile and in the center of town, and they won't be using cars. But guess what they will be using cars. They will be using Uber to go up to their storage walker because they're living in 300 score feet. And And so what is it smaller is not less expensive, smaller actually drives up the cost of housing up up up. Because look at that developer. They're making, you know. and these are starting 1,700 to 2,600 a month. but they're going to be much more than that, because they're actually market rate. It's an illusion. See through this illusion and population. cap, then i'll support a to use, but not before that, because otherwise it's just as far as the I can see, high end condos.

[68:09] and the sky is the limit in elastic market. and there's an endless supply of people that want to live here. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. The costs need to be, you know. Thanks. Do we have any other members of the public who here to comment. No other hands? Okay, thank you. Before we move into discussion. i'll just note that really encouraging that it's set up to the addresses. We got about 6 recommendations back in October. related to saturation limits. It use size limits and and streamlizing the process of creating a you.

[69:08] It does not address a couple of other things we brought up that are recommended. They are important related to parking requirements. eliminating a minimum lot sizes which I think would be maybe not politically, but technically easy fixes. And then, when it would be more challenging, but it's an interesting it is to create 3 of her. They do plans to reduce the appreciate you. so we can perhaps discuss if we want to reinforce those recommendations, or let it go. And also be curious to hear from that. If you think council is going to be done with the use after this happens, or if they would go back and do more sure. So at the study session, I guess we probably had the study session the next day after we met with you. So we talked about having kind of a second bucket of eightyu changes, so a future change to focus on because we wanted to. They wanted us to do a targeted scope for this round.

[70:11] so really focusing on the saturation limit and size, limits and clarification items. But they were still interested, or Several of the Council members were still interested in the other recommendations related to parking and minimum wage and the pre-approved plans, so they wanted to make sure that we keep that kind of like a running list of future eightyu changes to continue. You know, we doing incremental changes and updates, and also being able to do what we've done with the evaluation which is, Go back and see how those changes had impacted the that are routed. So it's not lost from the overall updates to to use, but for the targeted changes this year we focus on those those 4 great Thank you for that reminder. you know, just kind of like vacation. I'd love to hear from board members about the free bucket areas that are addressing this. So we don't know if you feel they

[71:05] reflect what we've recommended, and or maybe don't go far enough, or if we need to. perhaps make any comments about what's being proposed here in addition to. and that now is the time. I I guess so. So my my basic thought is is paying heat to the you know, old thatage of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think this is a very good step in the right direction. I think it's taking away a lot of the unnecessary restraints to a to use. I think that there's a something to be said for the incremental approach here, too, because if you look at this as a work in progress and and a ongoing experiment. I think that as you make changes, you realize what other changes you can make. That might be better, or you know that that might further help improve things. And

[72:08] while you know, certainly we had other things in our list, it's. It's easy to, as an advisory board throughout a whole bucket of things that we think could could work. But I think that the practical challenges of getting ordinances adopted, which you know I've experienced for good. Good portion of my career is is another consideration, and so i'm very, very pleased that so quickly we're sitting here talking about making a recommendation on something that you know we're looking to get adopted within the next few months and implement it over the course of the summer. And so i'm very pleased. I think, that the changes that they made are all things that really can remove those unnecessary obstacles. It can really be helpful, and I'm very supportive of it; and I think that rather than give any sort of caddy out of the things we think ought to be done on top of that. I would, I would, you know, really like to see our board

[73:06] fully encouraged this step in the right direction, and the the expeditious Mayor, relatively speaking, of course, but the expeditious manner which these things were implemented that we vote on this. Okay. yeah, we're gonna make a recommendation. Yeah, Terry Witcher got up. I think it's obviously much better than it used to be, but maybe not as good as it could be. But you know, that seems to be how things go, and a lot of compromises are made in anything. I think my part of the biggest one is getting rid of the saturation limit. You know you can swabble over 50 feet or 100 feet, or 25 feet, or 20 feet. But you can make all that work and design. But getting rid of the Saturday saturation limit is, if you win. and for that and the other reasons to fully support the ordinance, the way it is, even though I wish there was another 3 or 4 things on it. That's another try for another day.

[74:05] Yeah. I also think that the saturation that it's probably the most important. And then, after that. I think that the approval process and the clarification of those guidelines probably like the biggest, no brainer. I I think that should be pretty easy. It kind of feels like the way that it is. The city wanted to make it hard for people to get their 80 use approved, so making that easier. It's probably the first and easy thing that can be done, and the size limits, I think, is important, but not as important as those first 2, just because it's like density, is getting creative with smaller square footage. Not necessarily, I guess. Would that allow for like family to use, but I think that that one's like a little bit load on the list, at least for me. But I definitely put the ordinance. Thank you. Yeah. So

[75:02] I'm: I'm kind of like amazed at how easy it is for us to just talk about stuff here over the course of the year it turns into an ordinance the following year. It's it's a fantastic habit that this easy i'm. I'm really excited about these changes. I the the thought that sort of pops up surfaces in my brain is, I? I do regret that we're not tackling the the minimum parking, but, on the other hand, it it. Maybe it was kind of half baked. I know there was concerns from the community, and we maybe could could hash that out a bit more. The thought the thought that i'm having that echo something, David Adamson said, and Lynn Siegel said, is perhaps, instead of a cap on population, we should have a cap on the number of cars, and I love David's idea of having affordable housing paired with car sharing and and more like we like as a city. We need more vocabulary about what it means to live without a car, and to have

[76:09] allowances for living arrangements that that require car sharing or require not owning a car. And so if some of those things sort of got to discuss more than the the parking requirement minimum wouldn't feel so threatening, you know, because I I feel like that needs to be paired with an understanding that we're gonna have more housing that that doesn't make allowances for cars the way we do now that we need to kind of. We. We need to have more conversation about what that means. So I hope that when we I hope we come back and revisit the minimum parking requirements, hoping we do that, that we add a bit more dialogue about what it means to have less cars and paired with their affordable housing. So so keep in mind. We still have the incentive, or if you you make it affordable, you don't have to provide parking. That's a that's a good provider. Thank you.

[77:10] Oh, Aaron, you could put it on the spot and everything. Then most of what everybody said that that the coordinates make significant important changes, and while it's not perfect, let's move this forward with the hope that that there's an opportunity to come back and make additional tweets and changes. So if i'm allowed to vote, I would vote. Yes. that I happen. Oh. anybody else. I I have one more comment. So you mentioned that there's gonna be some engagements with community. What what is it? I think it'd be open houses, or or what what did you call them? Yeah, we'll have office hours. So we're also available to answer questions or talk more with things. We also had a community event. I actually didn't have that on the slide. But back in February, where we talked about the 80 ordinance, and then the zoning for affordable housing, so we are able to have that conversation too.

[78:12] I don't know if there's opportunity for you know, or or need for help from us in terms of support as you get pushed back on this ordinance, but I just want to offer my own personal support. However, I can help. I'd be happy to answer questions, or you know whatever you know. Now, if we approve this tonight, you take it to planning board. Yes, they approve it. You take it to council exactly. I want to remind everybody that we are citizens as well as board members, and if you there to comment that I have a counselor or a letter to daily camera your own name, that representing have I mean people that listen to those comments. And I hear back from Council members when I

[79:01] that letter so encourage you to do that. We don't have to limit our activism to this room. Wow! Well, I think we have really good consensus around this. I'm really impressed by the streamlining list. Not enough an expert to know if it's too far. Not far enough, but it sounds like a lot of good common sense reminds me. I agree, and sometimes read about these our cake, or just like you can't have a cat on your head in public. So that's really a great, Very well considered. I think I I think we're ready to consider a recommendation support that anyone like to propose some language along those lines. Well, then, drafted language. Yeah. But we need to make our recommendation like we supported this. And by the way, Don't, forget the other stuff for that's correct.

[80:06] We use the the the everything up there on the screen. Oh, my God, we're not come from! I second that I I i'm, i'm glad to give full of credit for it, too. That's i'm sorry I do not like credit. It's like a TV. It really wonderful. But yeah, I I I love to do support it as is, and and and you know. Certainly we've. We've developed good line and communication with councils, but particularly on this issue, and with staff as well. And you know, I I think we all understand that I I feel confident, staff and council understand that this is first step. You know we don't want to put this issue to bed for the next 10 years. But it's a good first step and and let's just. you know, support it as is second. Did we create a motion? Okay, I think we have a motion and a second all in favor.

[81:07] I and we've left the unanimous 6 0 vote in support of this recommendation of time for you. So thank you all. Thank you. Lisa: yeah, I have recommendations and good. Actually. I I just want to say as that this has been one excellent work from staff. and it has I attribute so much of the speed, and I consider this wildly speeding in in my experiences with other city processes, that this has been. you know, fantastic, and I attributed a lot to this board. putting this out there and making this a a topic of discussion and an issue, and I think it's taken the stature

[82:02] from somewhat drifting and marginalized to an an actual real advisory board that has real influence. So I I get kudos to staff and this board, and no. I I get my bite at the apple a before on on my commentary on this, but in general i'm super supportive of your work staff done. And this is this is the win. It's like the super bowl when you know it's like Well, that was kind of a funny call. I wish you, hey, what? It's a win, by God! So amend you all. Thank you for those comments Mark, and again the next step for a great work, and we'll look forward to seeing where it is and more. Edu ordinance updates in the future. So let's hope, planning for just some good things with this thanks for both September January. You guys definitely had a big instance on it. So appreciate it. I believe that brings us to. Item B is only for affordable housing.

[83:00] This is an item for feedback and car. I liver is going to present on this, and then we'll have some conversation. Alright. Thank you. Thanks for having me and Karl Giler, senior policy adviser. You'll remember that we talked about this on January 20 fifth of this year, and talked about kind of the fraud array of things that we could be looking at, either from changing, zoning, or changing parking requirements to really remove zoning barriers to try to get more housing opportunities in the city, particularly of affordable housing. So i'm here tonight with more information that may confuse you. So i'll try to do my best to make it less confusing. But there's a lot there's a lot to swallow, so i'm going to go through that certainly interrupt if you have any questions system.

[84:02] So the purpose of tonight is to have a discussion with the housing advisory board on the Zoning for for affordable housing projects and basically convey the feedback that we get from how to City Council. We're actually gonna go to City Council tomorrow night and do a study session on this very topic. So we're looking forward to committing the feedback to them as far as how this presentation is going to go. I'm just going to give a little bit of background on the project, and then i'm gonna go pretty deep into residential density like how it's calculated in the city, because there are some expectations that we talked about at the last meeting that make it pretty challenging to make some of the changes that we've been hearing from this board some members of the Planning Board and some numbers of city council. So we wanted to make it really more about how density works. It's not to say that we would never do these things. It's a much more broad effort that would be necessary to make some of the changes. So we wanna run that understanding so based on the research that we've been doing and diving into the land east coast, we've developed some potential options that we wanted to float by city council to give us direction, and moving forward.

[85:16] Then I'm. Going to share some of the feedback that we've been hearing thus far talk about next steps, and then we' to deliberation. So the questions we have for how tonight is, does have any comments or questions related to how residential density is calculated, so i'll go through that section, and then we'll pull on us at at that part. and then i'll go into the potential options and a lot of the analysis, and every the discussion about density leads to those potential options. So the second question is which potential option should be the focus of any further analysis, outreach or ultimately ordinance development. Obviously, if you have other ideas, we are open to those as well, and we can that those will counsel on the community.

[86:03] So, going into the background, this is the problem statement. We set out for the project. It kind of applies to a lot of the housing related land use code changes that we're looking at right now. So obviously the cost of housing in the community creates many barriers to many people having the ability to live in, stay and boulder. So this is the same problem. State what that we're using for the occupancy project, as well as the housing for zoning for affordable housing. So we're trying to broaden housing opportunities in Boulder So city council initiated this project at the 2022 retreat what they asked us to do is basically evaluate the land use code with the intent of removing zoning barriers to more affordable units and smaller modest size units. So these are the the polls in the project that he has created for this project to help guide it through. And again, this is all in the infant memo in detail.

[87:07] and just to make it clear tonight. What do we mean by using the term of portable housing? We mean a number of different things in this particular discussion. So there's kind of 3 different tiers that we're talking about. Firstly, there's permanently affordable housing, so this is like deep, restricted housing that's it affordable and perpetuity. It's it's monitored and administered by our housing department through the inclusionary housing program that there are independent pasite public agencies that provide affordable housing in the community in conjunction with older. So that's one category. The next category is just affordable attainable housing, so any households that don't pay more than 20 to 30, 20 to 30% of their income on housing. We also mean market rate MoD size housing, like, I said. So we want to create zoning conditions that encourage more smaller units, which are just inherently more affordable, rather comp comparatively more affordable than the larger 4 point units that are zoning tends to encourage. So i'll talk about that in this presentation. Share with you some calculations that show that that's something that we need to look at.

[88:22] So the point that we're trying to get across tonight is allowing more housing by relaxing some density, Restrictions and parts of the city will encourage more modestized and modestly priced market rate units in the city. And then the more housing that you can get through a project means the more housing units that would be subject to the inclusionary housing program. So 25 of any housing that's provided is subject to to I H. So allowing more housing is going to get you more. I h housing. but it also means more. Catch and move if they don't do the

[89:00] the provision of the units onsite. And 1 one thing we wanted to make clear, and you probably already know this, but a lot of that cash, and Lou is very important, and and can be leveraged in a number of different ways to actually make the money more. They're going to grant funding with the Federal Government or the State that can get you more units that would be required on site. So that's something that we wanted to make for your through this project. You're probably aware of this, maybe even better than I am. Proposition 1 2 3, was a housing related proposition that passed last November by the State. So it's it's create a state of affordable housing fund that dedicates State income to fund housing programs in a number of different ways. I think the the information is, it's bringing in roughly 290 milliona year that can be put into grant programs and how affordable housing equity programs a number of ways to like help out local governments like we look at their zoning like we're doing now to help remove a lot of zoning barriers, and also just the number

[90:06] shifting money towards programs that help address homelessness. So this is something that our city managers office and and housing and human services are working actively with the State to figure out how to best implement it. So this is like an ongoing thing that we're going to be working with, and there's also some land Use packages that are being proposed by the State. I think it might be even wrong today from the governor about. You know some standards that are in draft form that may end up applying to the State. So we're all monitoring those those changes closely. so moving to the local level. Obviously the the thing that gives us the most guidance in the in this community is the Boulder Valley Conference of Plan. We have a a very broad array of things that we look at in the Conference of Plan, and where it gives us a vision for the community and addresses a number of things like land. Use housing, transportation, mental. Well, you know well being of the community, and it gets

[91:08] implemented a number of different ways. Obviously, the focus that I'm going to be talking about tonight is through the development standards and zoning. But basically the land use code that we work with every day is implementing the the the Comp plan. But it doesn't. We have to always be updating the land use code to be consistent with with the call plan. So that's something that we're doing in a number of different code changes. But we always have to make sure that whatever who changes we do are consistent with the Pv. Cp. So obviously housing affordability and diversity is is a major focus area of the BBC. So if you open up the plan, the some of the beginning, they just talk about. These are the major focused areas. So this is just an a narrative from that page it talks. This is like a major focus for boulder.

[92:00] And then there's a number of relevant Boulder Valley cumbersome plan policies that we look at so obviously. We're looking at the jobs, housing and balance preservation and support for residential neighborhoods. And there's a number of different housing related policies in Section 7 about trying to look at all on the 40, probably way of getting more affordable housing in the community. Alright, so now i'm gonna jump into residential density. So that's basically the number of dwelling units per acre. Again, this could be kind of complex. So certainly interrupt me. If you have any questions. Carl, Are you going to address density and intensity? Yes, good, exactly. I just don't think I figure that out one. I'm glad you asked. Yeah. So, starting at the really high level, we have land use designations in the compliance. So this is where we have different land Use categories from residential to business to industrial to mixed, use it since the broad vision for different areas of the city. So it's this color coded map. and you can see that Obviously, we're focusing a lot on the residential area. So much of the land in the city of Boulder is really set for low density or very low density residential. That's the the pale yellow and the yellow.

[93:24] You get into medium density in the orange areas, and then high density is more of that age color. You can see that the low density or central areas are a large swath of the city in terms of binary. Yes. Do you have any percentages associated with each of these colors. I'd love to see a pie chart. We do have those. I don't have it as part of this presentation, but it is pretty good for crunching, and one is land mass, and the other would be like How many? What's the percentage of people that have been the mode density. Yeah, that's actually a really good place. all right, that's all. And we also have it broken down by sub-community, too. So you can look at different parts of the community. That was part of the last compliant update. Nice.

[94:05] Yeah, we we do have those numbers. I do have to kind of look them up. Yeah, manufactured housing that like. yeah, that that was created several years ago because there was concern about losing the affordable housing that comes in manufactured mobile homes, so the in order to protect them. they created that land use category so as an overlay over a a lot of the mobile home parks that we have in the city. Okay. So these are excerpts from the BBC. That focus on the different land uses. So if you go in the plan, I think it's like page 70 something. It has the different color coded areas, and it sets out division. What? What are the characteristics of that? But particularly in the low density areas. It has a limitation. and it says very low. Density is 2 dwelling units per acre or less.

[95:02] and then low density is 2 to 6 dueling units per acre, and then, when you get to medium density, it's 6 to 14 dwelling units per acre, and then the high density is 14 dwelling units or more. So where we kind of bump up against. you know some of the the the requests for, like. Well, let's reconsider our single family neighborhoods, you know, Allow more housing types or try to allow more missing middle housing. We do. But up against these limitations. So that's the one thing that we wanted to talk about tonight. So this is. This shows you mixed density and high density. So all this translates down to the actual zoning. So if you go in and you look at those lower density areas, they're typically the Orr zones, which is rural, Residential re is residential estate. Rmx is mixed residential, and then Rl. Is low density residential. So you can see that the Rr. Zones are less than 2 dwelling units per acre and corresponding in the code. The the way that that's achieved is there's a minimum lot size in our r of 30,000 square feet per unit.

[96:14] So that's like how the how the the zoning works. Re is in the 2 to 6 dwelling in a break range, but it has a 15,004 foot minimum W. Size. and then when you get into the Rl. Zones, there's 2 are all one in Rl. 2 that's in the 2 to 6 doing units for acre range, but they they accomplish that density differently. So our all one is kind of like your Post World War Ii neighborhoods, or they had a minimum wot size of 7,000 square feet per unit. You'll see a lot of the older subdivisions kind of like Martin Acres, as well as an example of that Achieve that 2 to 6 blowing is per anchor When you get to Rl. 2. That was created in the 1970 S. When open space was really popular, they wanted to use open spaces as a as a means of regulating density. So in that zone at 6,000 square feet of open space

[97:10] per lot, so it either can be on a lot or averaged in a development. So in R all 2 areas you'll notice those neighborhoods like green Belt meadows if you know that area, or trying to think of some other examples. A lot of the fringe areas along the open space that were developed in the seventies like Devil's thumb lot of self boulder. Those are open space regulated districts, so they have the same density, even though that someone actually allows attached housing it's one of those only low density zones that allows attached, but it has a lot of open space, so it evens out with the the density of those zones. Sorry, Carl. I'm: one of them hills, which is makes sense. Lot of that. Rl: too, has a lot of okay. What is it? Is that all done, or you do or is. Yeah, most of the most of our L 2, I would say, is done under.

[98:07] Yeah, a lot of it's like averaging the open space. Like they all have to meet that minute. They have to average 6,000 square feet of open space per unit. But you might see a lot of smaller lot sizes like there's no minimum lot size and r all 2. For instance, it's incredibly challenging zone. I could talk about it for an hour. It's one of the most draining zoning constructs we have in Boulder, I have to say, based on my time here, really quickly trying to figure out what can happen in those zones if they want to make changes very, very challenging, because everyone has a slightly different ped, so it's something that we're we're tackling as well as there were some good outcomes using that example different size of having different, fortunately levels. Yeah, I mean, there there are definitely some positives in terms of the diversity of housing types that are permitted in our all to. But it is challenging when you're trying to do all the math

[99:00] for the open space and everything like that kind of interrupt. So if you guys are tracking what a planned unit development is, or yeah, I'm: sorry. I think the main point that Carl is trying to make is that the comprehensive plan is what that's the policy. and the code is what implements it and the and the code is for this minimum, for a footage, for lots or the open space requirement is just implementing that policy. can you? That's all I just. That's great. Can you remind me like, how often is the comp plan updated? And when's the next one? It's updated every 5 years, so it'd be like 2,025. This is our next update. So I think that's the point we're trying to make tonight. Is, that you know, changes in a lot of these single family neighborhoods is going to require a much larger effort to make it happen. If and I and also just, you know, a lot of community engagement, You know, I I think, through a planning process, I think the city, if this is something that the city council.

[100:04] or you know, ask City Council to make it a priority. The Council could tell us. You know this is something we want done as part of an update and start exploring changes to allowable housing types and potentially density in these areas. But it would have to come from the policy level first, you know, going through that update, and then it would have to be implemented through the zoning, whatever that public process, you know. Whatever the outcome of that is. so, it's not just this simple thing of oh, just change the minimum lot size and allow more units. It's. It would not be consistent with the current. So that's the one thing we wanted to make really clear through this process, because I know there's been a lot of requests for that. So where we're trying to steer things is where we do have opportunities to make changes, not to say we'll never do those things, since there are some opportunities now that we can do, because there are parts of the complaint that don't app density, and that that's what this slide really shows

[101:04] is that there are some. or there are some land uses and zones that don't have density caps where there are density limits in the code, but because the land use doesn't cap the density. Those are the kind of zones we can look at and go. Okay. Maybe we can make some changes to that zoning to allow more housing so interesting Only enough a lot of those zones where those opportunities is exist, are in areas where the Comp Plan Doesn't designate for more mixed use and more housing. So like the Boulder Valley regional center, and in the neighborhood centers of the city or along some corridors in the city. Those zoning districts we do have the ability to make changes to try to encourage more housing, so that this map is actually from the the Bbcp. It shows some of the different neighborhood centers. So we're really gonna focus as part of this project, because it's something that Council wanted some

[102:05] kind of fast changes that could be made to the code to remove some zoning barriers. So that's really informed a lot of the potential options that we're looking at density versus in. Sorry you Just a few minutes ago you said, this is the main thing I want to you to come away with, and i'm i'm trying to pay attention, but i'm hearing a little little bit of words, but I I kinda just want to summarize what I think I heard you say in in the last couple of minutes. So the the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. It's not just a vision, but it's a. It's a set of kind of constraints under which we think about changing city ordinances with respect to zoning. So so I think I think you said that the the that Cp. A specific things it says about density levels at at certain zoning. And so

[103:06] You're kind of steering away from city council, tackling these different zoning designations on its own, independent of whatever the Dvcp might say, just because that's kind of the precedent. And because that's it easier to be to be accomplished kind of politically and mechanically, it it is. Is that a summary of that? That's the vision. Yeah. So the vision that we're hearing from you know some of these boards and Council is different than what's in the the complaint. So we're trying to say is, the vision needs to be changed in the Comp plan through a public process before any of that of those zoning type changes can be implemented. I mean, that's kind of like. We have a pretty strong conference of plan as a community. Not a lot of communities have that a lot of communities have a general plans that are like these like lofty statements, but a lot of them. It just goes to the Michelle. They don't consult it that much in boulder we've

[104:10] it gets adopted by ordinance. So it has a like a legal backing that we implement through a lot of our product. Our Our applications like site, review and things like that. So we do have to make sure that it's consistent. So when you talk about the BBC. Okay. I I find. The BBC. Has lots of vision. but it doesn't always within the BBC. That vision doesn't always follow along with the actual land use designations that are mapped in the BBC. Is that is that I mean, I I think there's a there's a lot of. I would say competing policies in the plan, and we have to balance those on everything we do. But I think it's in that balance that I think we have some flexibility. The land use designations are not

[105:05] that flexible, though. I mean, that's that. That's why we're kind of pointing that out as as something that would have to be. We looked at, you know. Thank you. Yeah. So again, i'm glad you brought up density versus intensity. So what what I put on this slide is that the city of regulates the amount of development in the city and different zoning districts using density and intensity. So in some cases some zones just use density and some use intensity, and some use both. And and the difference really is that density is basically the number of dwelling units that are permitted on a property. So the dwelling units per acre, so it's just it's it. It Density is kind of a subset of intensity. Intensity is just overall activity like bulk. How much can be built on a lot. So like I said, there's different zones that regulate it differently. So some zones have just density limits and nothing else. Some have an intensity limits, so intensity limits are like the floor area ratio. So you you quantify the total amount of floor area

[106:14] that's bill, and you divide by the the land area, and that gives you a number. There are limits in the code like the far limits that regulate how how much far can be on a site. Some zones have. They are some don't. Then we have open space requirements. You know we have parking requirements. Height limits, setbacks. There's a number of things that kind of whittle away at how much can be built bottom property. So what this graph is showing is that, like you could see a point 5 F AR is pretty low like you. You can only build. you know, like a one story building, and if some of that land area has to be taken up by parking or landscaping, or open space that's gonna constrain how much could be built if more parking is required and you can do 2 stories. It might push that massing over into the

[107:06] the right, like you can see. Or in another area you can see a 2 point lfar if, like, we didn't have open space or parking requirements, or no setbacks, they could build 2 stories and cover the entire lot. But when there's other intensity factors that fill up a lot. It pushes the development up, and you can see, obviously like it is a big, you know, factor in the stakeholder we have a 55 foot height limit, so you can only get 4 5 stories. We wouldn't be seeing an 80 story building, but that 8 story building is equivalent in the far to those 2 stories on the left. or that middle one is kind of like what you see in, you know, Boulder Junction or downtown. That's typically a downtown building is around 2.0, maybe more, a little bit over 2.0 F. A. R. And you can get about 4 stories in there, so they are is kind of a a gauge of how much visual mass you're seeing, but it can look differently, depending on a number of factors in the design. So

[108:05] so if we talk about density and we're thinking about like micro units or a single room occupancy, is there something in the Boulder Valley plan that says you can't have either of those. No, it doesn't say that I mean it. It. It doesn't really get into the the detail of like efficiency living units a unit. We we do have something in our land use code where 2 efficiency living units are equivalent to one unit, so that because of their small it it was determined that their impact is like the same as one unit to have 2. So it's looked at differently. But I don't know that the complaint goes into that level of detail on. You know the micro units and things like that. But if there's a dwelling unit limitation that would factor in yeah

[109:00] it. What parking in practical use. So people, i'm bringing up this new micro unit project on these pearl me. 200 block of is that when being governed by density, or in on right on Pearl the 20 s and pearl that for you on it to 44 micro units. Do you remember what the zoning was? But it was it was Yeah. My guess is that area is like mixed Use zoning along, Pearl. I'm not sure if that's if it's head ground for retail. Yeah. Okay, yeah. So that's probably Mu: 3. Yeah. So any 3 is one of the zones where it doesn't have a dwelling unit per acre limit, but it has an far so like I said, there, there's a lot of zones like business zones. Some have fa or some don't. I think a lot of the dwelling is for acre Limitations are mostly in the residential zones. So again, if you want to dive deep in that there is a table.

[110:11] Yeah, I think that, for instance. So we're developing that property under I used regulations. I could theoretically do like 3 giant models, or I could do 44 micro units for just kind of an interesting example that possibly could be a fly in another single family areas. We can talk about that. Yeah, that's exactly the analysis. Right there you have that 5,000 square feet. It can be 1 min or it can be, you know. 20 years, yeah, and and all that, that, too. So I think the point i'm trying to make here is that we can make f AR whatever we want without it, like finding that it's whether or not it's consistent with the plan. It's the density part that that's that we have to kind of look at a little more creatively, you know. So

[111:05] this this table is. Let me try to describe this the best I can. So one of the things that has prompted this project was the Diagonal Plaza projects. So it's a 5.4, 5 acre site right up at Iris and and Broadway. and the zoning in that area. It's a neighborhood center, right so at ever since 28 stream, Iris and 28 did. I say, Broadway. Yeah, sorry. Thank you. So the first line represents what the zoning is. So it's BC: one. So it's community business. It doesn't have an F. A. R limit, but it has a. I would say, a fairly suburban density limit, right? So it's 1,200 square feet of open space per unit is required, which is

[112:02] kind of like that Rl: 2 example where it's challenging to know exactly what you can even build, because it's totally dependent on how you design it, but based on you know, looking at a a number of similar projects, we've made an approximation that the probably the most density you could get with that limitation is 22 dwelling units per acre, so, based on the 5.4, 5 acres of of lot area, you could probably get around a 120 units. So when the applicant was looking at the project that didn't need a yield that they were looking for. They didn't think that that number of units was really what the city wanted for that area. And just the one thing the next column is basically showing that if you have 120 units there there would be 30 units that would be either onsite affordable or subject to the cash in blue fee. So what happened as part of that project is. there was actually a special ordinance that was done to allow more units. So i'll get to that. That's the third line down the second column is something that I think you might know, Terry, because I've I've heard it a lot from the Development Community, but the Br. One zone actually has, and so does our H. 5 has this density calculation of 1,600 square feet of law area per dwelling unit, so that equates to

[113:24] 27 dwelling units for acre, so that's considered high density and and boulder in other communities. That's not it's probably more like medium density. But if you applied that to the diagonal plaza, example. So the 5.4, 5 acre site. You could get 148 units based on that density limit. And then if you apply the the Ih requirements. About 37 of those units would be either ons or cash and loo. But the thing that's that's interesting here is that the br one zone has a 2.0 F. A r limit.

[114:00] So this is where the zoning drives larger floor plate units. So if you take 2.0, and you times it by the 5.4, 5 acres you get. I think it was like I did the calculations about 474,000 square feet. A lot of times developers will try to maximize that F. They are as much as they can. So when you get that box and then you divide it by 148. The willing units. You're gonna get like 3,200 to 3,500 square feet per unit. So that's an example of where the zoning really encourages large floor light units, and it's because of that density calculation. So what they did up at diagonal plazas. They took away that density limitation that's in the PC. One zone they just applied a 15% open to this requirement. They actually didn't put an far limit. But what was yielded from that was the project that

[115:01] could grow to 282 units, which then yields 70 units that would go into I. H or cash in Loo, and what? What? When they built it out? It ended up being about a 1.7 7 as they are, so I think the point is that density limitation that's in VR. One applies in a lot of different zones, and it drives that largest one we got rid of that you can get more units, and you get more of affordable deed restricted units. So the Boulder Valley Comp plan has to get approved by the city and the county, so did the ordinance need to get proved by the city and the county as well. No, no, it was the same specific development. We're also within the city limits of Boulder. It doesn't it doesn't include the county at all. How did we do that and avoid being accused of spot zoning.

[116:00] Hmm. Don't be cared. No, i'm not in this for me. They're just okay. That's fine. I mean Again, it like the the the ordinance changed the zoning how it applied, but it didn't conflict with the call plan, but you could change it. I mean it's not legal to change, or those are building. I mean, that's if we don't wait about it. But if you, if you change them to. why, for a very specific project that benefits of a specific developer. Then you could you some a different developer, you say, hey, I want that. And if you guys, you know that spot so makes so less. It applies to me and my property, which is an equivalent. Then that's fine, Tony, with that with that is that Well, yeah, that's case, study right? And what we're talking about here, because basically there was so much

[117:13] so much political and public motivation to do something on the site that you literally got to just pick them through the jurisdiction they were. Pick a few sort of you wanted to delete, rather get rid of. And then, by the picking and using this little matrix we have here, and getting it to the point where everybody goes Well, that seems like it makes something it kind of makes it kind of makes up there. You know. I I think it's that. It's it's it's it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's it's it's it's it's, it's a it's a it's a it's it's it's it's, it's, it's, it's, a it's a it's, a it's it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, a it's, a it's a it's for that area, and the policies like, they said it's not spot so many, but this is a great example of remove this restriction. What it effect is that have remove that restriction. What is affected, I have, and and it's really the end is justifying the means right. You want to see a certain thing there.

[118:05] a certain number of you. This is your type of project, a certain type of whatever. and that's what everybody wanted there. I don't think there's anybody who said we don't want that there. But then, how do we get there? Right? How do we get there? We've got to look at all the rules and delete them, or at them as needed to get there. I think it's a unicorn right? That's a very rare situation in Boulder Colorado that just does not happen very often. but I think it's a great extra time to go through. Yeah. So what kind of phone size it's projected under this 52. D you rolling in a prayer scenario? Well, yeah, I mean, if you, if you divide if you applied a 2.0 F. A. Are like I did in the Br one with the number of units that they propose it guided down to about 1,200 per unit. So it is a pretty significant change uniform, or is it going to be like summer? I mean it? It it's it's probably gonna be a mix. But either way it's it's the then. The zoning no longer drives the larger sized units. so it's a couple of questions you said it was built in past, since a couple of times. I I assume you mean that the plans have been submitted and approved, and they're they're gonna go ahead and build it. Now, I'm. I'm actually reviewing all the tech docs and stuff. It's not built, but that we've seen the plans and everything.

[119:22] Yeah. Sorry that that's okay. I just was. I was curious what the stage the project was actually at. I guess it's it's. And then I have a question about the the chart. I I kind of assume that you see one means you can have businesses in or light, industrial or something, you know. I'm not sure what the different kinds of buildings are, and and that's not included in this or or or is that the units include, like business establishments as well? It's a mixed use zone, so it it it includes a a a large

[120:03] list of retail, you know. So it doesn't have to be dwelling you. They could be shops. And oh, yeah, yeah. So the emphasis is really on shops in that zone, I mean actually a Prior City council wanted us to really try to right the zoning in a way that encouraged neighborhood serving uses, and then try to get the the residential more above retail rather than like entire Project center. They residential. That's something that we're also looking at it in a separate code change project. That's what it'll be there in my 5 years. I just. I just want to know how to read the it. It says, 22, be you. I assume this dwelling units, but I I assume it could actually just be units. Or yeah. Well, it's all. It's. Those are all residential. It's not a factor of retail spaces, or your calculations are are pure. It's purely residential. It doesn't. There is no commercial in that. Yeah, right now, we're just we're just looking

[121:13] alright. I'm just missing data from the chart and don't forget that I didn't describe it. You see that our time will make you if you get a that's what makes it such a win. It's a grand a great deal, and it's all great. It's all great. You have to manipulate the phone income 6 weeks and Sunday to get there. Yeah. it was what I had to have. which is what which is fine. I don't think anybody's plenty about that, but that would have to happen to it. Yeah. So I I think the point of this is that this is kind of what steered us towards, you know. Maybe we just try to get rid of these density limits, so we remove the barrier so we can try to get encourage more residential and get more housing units in these zones. But what Council has asked is that maybe we look at

[122:00] Fa. R limits for these areas just to govern the scale. So we've given some examples in the packet of of what different building sizes look like and everything so doesn't the I limit do that. In fact, I mean, you can't build a man as our if they are. I mean, yeah, it's that's obviously a major factor. I I I I appreciate what they're trying to do. Yeah. So I mean, we we've already been doing some questions. Are Are there any more questions before I move forward. Sorry. No. No worries. Yeah. All right. So i'll go into the potential options. So again we're not just looking at density through this like a as council as we. They've asked us to get a number of different things. So the theme of the different different options that we're looking at tonight relate to adjustments to density, where we can do them quickly and and relatively easily. Also, looking at housing type allowance which this will touch a little bit on what we talked about at the January meeting, about allowing different housing types, and in zones that only allow single family zones.

[123:09] And then i'll talk about parking modifications. There are some changes that we've identified, that we want to flow by the board and and get feedback on so as far as density adjustments. This is relating to what we were just talking about. So we've identified a number of different zones that use the 1,600 square feet of what area per dwelling unit calculation that are generally supposed to be growth areas of the city. So that's the Br. One zone, the R. H. 5 zone, B, C. 2, i. G. And I am also. We've made some recent changes in the code to allow more housing units in the industrial zones. so that also bumps up against this 1,600 square feet of lottery for dwelling it. So that would be it. All. The industrial zones would also be an opportunity to make this more flexible. So the first proposal a one is basically to remove that limit and then add an far to to regulate the intensity.

[124:11] A 2 is very similar. It's really just to the PC. One again, which which uses that 1,200 square feet of open space for dual, you know, basically, getting rid of that and using to regulate the intensity. So we're we're recommending that that move forward as part of this project. But we we can talk about it during deliberation housing types. This is, it just gets a little trickier like I said, in the single family zones other than R. L. 2. The other zones only allow a single family dwelling unit or an accessory to line. You have not a lot. so we've been asked to make the code more flexible to allow more duplexes or attached housing like we just talked about extensively. We bump up against

[125:03] density limitations because a lot of these neighborhoods in the city are when they were subdivided originally maxed out their density. So by adding more of these types of housing types, you inherently bump up against that limit unless you change just a call plan. And she made those changes from that. We did bring forward an ordinance on this several years ago, because there were a number of lots in the rural residential areas that were very large that actually could be subdivided, and you could add units. It wasn't. It was, I would say, fairly modest. It was probably in like around a 100 or so. So. It wouldn't give you too much, but it you could like, make the code more flexible for these types of housing types. So we could change the use table to allow these housing types, but it would still have to meet those minimum W sizes per unit. So that's we do have those options up here. Our recommendation at this point is like there's not a lot of value at doing this until that broader effort is done. We could, you know, do it at least open up.

[126:14] You know the possibility. But B one and B 2, just one be one. Just basically means you could do it. you know, by right. B. 2 would be like a conditional use process which would be required to meet some standards. That's what Council asks us to do last time they wanted them to go through additional use to make sure that if they added those types of units, that it would generally appear like a single family house in a single family neighborhood, so that would have to go through a special review again. We're not recommending it at this time. We certainly could move forward with it like there's it would be better to do it as part of a bigger project down the road. You mentioned that the reason you you did bring those forward earlier right, and there is so much community opposition. The Council backed off. That's right. Thank you. I I was trying to block that out of my mind. But yeah, but no, there there was a lot of resistance to those changes, and ultimately the the Council didn't move forward with those changes

[127:16] moving on to. So B 3. Are you gonna get to be 3. Okay, that's fine. Is there any way that just on our screen we can stop the in the transcription. Unfortunately, that's the recording. That's the recording. Okay, Red Tiffany, or we'll let you look into that. Okay, I think it's pretty easy. And I think you you might be receptive to this change based on your interest in micro units, but like right now, in the in our land use code we call micro units efficiency living units. Several years ago. if you had a project that had more than 20% of the units as efficiency living units, you had to go through a use review process

[128:01] in the last use Standards project that we did in phase one. We changed that to 40. We actually for both getting rid of the Use reviewing requirement entirely, but that wasn't supported by council at that time. So this is something that we're kind of bringing back that we think this would remove a barrier to more smaller units by getting rid of that use review process so obviously efficiency, living units would still have to meet the density. Requirements would soften me. Open space and height and setbacks. F: They are things like that. But we were. We're we're putting it forward that there, that this option B 3 would be removing the user to your requirement for that to make it easier for those types of events. And then, lastly, talking about parking changes. So we've identified 3. Our I right now, if you look at it, if there's any project that has more than 60 of its units. As one bedroom units, it actually increases the parking requirement to 1.2, 5 per unit.

[129:09] We're we're proposing an a, a, an option here where that could just change to one which is similar to any one unit, because it it just would require a a lot of additional parking. That, I think may have made sense, you know, many years ago. But as as folders kind of move towards, you know. putting more units on multimodal corridors and using transit it doesn't make as much sense. We're recommending that that be changed. The second one is more broad. We've heard a lot of comments from other cities that have considered this, but basically lowering parking requirements for any permanently affordable projects. and that there's interest in doing this we're not recommending this at this point we feel that that should be handled through a more comprehensive change to our parking regulations, our concern and reason for not recommending that now is, that if we were to like eliminate parking requirements for affordable units, or reduce them significantly, that if there were any externalities, or over spill over parking from an affordable project that that would actually be detrimental

[130:19] to the public's, you know, acceptance of of trying to get more affordable units. So we do have some hesitation with that recommendation. I mean, we again, we think it should be handled more that we're we're trying to look at firmly affordable units, like equally to market rate units and not treat them so differently. So we do have some hesitation with that again, we think it should be best handled as part of a more comprehensive Look at our parking regulations, which we've been doing on it off for several years, we Haven't moved forward with it. It's certainly open to your your viewpoints on that issue. c. 3 is we do parking reductions at the city of Boulder. They're fairly common.

[131:03] But what we do have is we have an administrative process for parking reductions up to 25% of the required parking that could be done at a staff level. But if you do any parking reduction as part of a residential project, it automatically requires site review. So this could also pose a barrier to some affordable housing. So what we're recommending is is allowing residential projects up to a 25% parking reduction to be considered through an administrative process rather than site review, and that would be a a change. It might help to explain the difference between administrative use. And so an administrative review is a application that just gets reviewed by city staff. We review it against specific criteria. If the project meets the criteria, we can approve it. If if it doesn't, we deny it. It isn't like

[132:01] a land use for you, so land use for you include site, review, and use Review, which are a much larger project process. So I I used to be on the Site Review, require public notice, and then they were where all of an appeal period after any staff decision. Some automatically require Planning Board Review. So it's a much more extensive review as part of a site review and use for view. There's a lot more requirements that apply. But an administrative review is usually pretty focused to specific criteria that can be used is that someone could just come in with a building permit and do it. So. If you're trying to prevent nimbies from preventing a project, it would either be use by right or administrative rather than the use Review or the site. Review.

[133:02] Yeah, I mean with with any kind of land use, or you Obviously the the scope of the project broadens, and it does bring in. You know, the element of of people on bending on the project, or any staff decision that's made on the Land Use Review can be called up to city to a planning board. So if you implement a C 3, we would still see those administrative approvals come or planning board for possible call up. No, it would be an administrative review that they would. So there, okay, so yeah, there it would be part of that giant amount of work you guys do that we never see and never have an option to see. Okay. I can ask question about C one. So if I if I own a large apartment building with a budget, one unit.

[134:03] one bedroom units in it, and you make this change. Now I've got more parking that I'm required to have. Am I allowed to do? Eliminate some of that repurposed that space? Yeah, if we change the code. And they came back in, and said I, I I used to require 88 parking spaces, but now, with this code change I all may need you know 61, and they want to like, add landscaping. Absolutely. Yeah. Good. So just to go over some of the community engagement and up feedback we've received. So this is a relatively a new project compared to the AD project, even occupancy. So we have been kind of getting the word out on the project through our our newsletter. We've been having conversations with interested in persons and groups through the course of the project. We did hold a a public engagement event on February 20 s, where we talked about all these housing related changes to get feedback, so we're going to continue doing engagement. We really want to

[135:13] here what you have to say, so that we can convey that to council, and then Council will tell us which options to really focus on, and then we'll go out to the community with those options in in more detail. So like Lisa said, we're going to be holding open houses and office hours, coming weeks and months, probably doing some sort of fee or boulder questionnaire to gauge where people are on on these particular ideas. This is some of the feedback that we've been hearing just broadly about the housing issues. Obviously, there's there's a lot of folks in the community that you know. Agree that there's a need for more housing in the community to help with the supply and the demand, and hopefully try to get at the housing prices, just adding more opportunities for people to have places to stay, that we've heard that it's consistent with our housing and racial equity goals.

[136:07] We've also been hearing, you know, folks that are opposed to the changes, and like we heard about the on on the ads topic about the inelastic market. That increasing housing supply alone will not make a difference, and that the demand is so high to live in Boulder that it will make it impact on on housing prices that we'd actually be getting more expensive housing. That's something we've been hearing. We've been hearing suggestions that our focus shouldn't be so much on physically adding units, but really just trying to be more more robust on the in blue fees and the commercial leakage fees like increasing them. increasing or looking at rental, you know, controlling rental prices somehow, and trying to get more deep restricted affordable units in the city, and we've been hearing a lot of concern about, You know, changes that could impact single family neighborhoods in particular. There's a lot of concern about

[137:03] allowing different types of housing types in certain areas of the city. So that that's what we've been hearing so far so as far as next steps tonight, March 20 s with Have tomorrow City Council study session. Then, following that, we'll have a little bit more idea of what to focus on. So we're going to continue analysis of the options and continue with outreach. We'll be going to planning board on April eighteenth to talk about this project, and as we get the in input we're gonna start the ordinance development. But we really wanted to do a check in with Council on June fifteenth To go like. This is what we've been hearing from the communities. This is what the boards have been saying. Where, where do you really want us to go with this. and then the plan is to go to planning board with with the organs in August, and then city council in September. We certainly can spring back here. Once we flush things out a bit more.

[138:04] So that leads us to the the primary question tonight is which potential options should be the focus of any further analysis, outreach or ultimately ordinance development. So that concludes my presentation and answering questions. But happy to answer more. Are you more confused or less confused? Yeah. great thing. I'll start. I general comments by saying that I think that what you have to think potentially in that it was like a really great. I know it's toward the future. and I brought this up numerous times. It had not such an original thought. But you know the amount of surface parking in boulder that's not even used it's, you know.

[139:03] It's just a waste, and the potential to create for housing. maybe even using that model. It's more of a template to wouldn't be spot zoning anymore. It's like a that. That's an area with same family neighborhoods or not much for a factor. I'm. Not. There. It's strictly commercial now, so there's some way of replicating that for it. And then I think it's worth buying the fight. you know, to take time to diversify single family neighborhood with more housing types. And this we've. you know, through some experts in these meetings and common sense also because simply subdividing a single family log into 2 duplexes just creates

[140:02] words more expense. I don't think that it's the highest level, but still in the millions, so like, what else can we do that will introduce other housing types into single friendly neighborhoods without. Let me change my character. You the point of hammer on some. What is it under the current system of small house is being torn down and replaced much larger as it's neighborhood character as being compromised with no public benefit. Because really so if there's a way of pressing that, not to prohibit the type of housing entirely, but to allow that to create more diverse options. that I think that's that's a very general direction. But that's why I I think we should continue to look at it. Have it. It sounds like we would be shooting towards it in July timeframe for recommendation, planning board.

[141:02] and then finally again this came up the last meeting. If there's a way of helping the community visualize the kind of options if you diversify housing back top lots. the textbook no, or in this approach, but actually incorporating the housing types into the So it's a people say, oh, yeah, it's going to be a cluster of cottages. It's going to be count home so long Landscape Alley or winter, for you know, whatever it is like going, you know. Maybe it's a form. It's something that's more fine and great detail that actually allows people to visualize something other than they are, and dwelling units greater. Yeah, you know again, not an original thought, but I think an area where it's not exploring. So you from other members of the board what we heard tonight, and where you think we might be going. It's I have. I have a pile of comments.

[142:04] one of the main takeaways that I i'm a little discouraged by your on the balance. Your recommendations I would love for us to see. I know there's It's several people on City council, and and you know there's a lot a lot more discussion in the air about performing single family. So and i'm i'm discouraged that that's off the table. But so my take away feels like, okay. I need to understand the process for a Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. How that gets updated. how we need to get involved with conversations at that level to have recommendations ready. I I mean I just don't know how that works at all, but like that's like where my brain goes as I'm listening to you. It's like, okay. It seems like to to actually move the community forward on this. That's where it's at with respect to single family zone is that is that a a good takeaway for me to to have? Okay, so like, let's let's. I totally agree that we shouldn't give up on it.

[143:13] Oh, yeah, I don't want to. Yeah, yeah, yeah, right? Right? Yeah. I mean, maybe maybe we can see that it's the timing is not great because of the way the Bbcp is currently written. I I don't know. Yeah, no, there there's that, too. But so so and and and some of the things that kind of drive me crazy is the notion that the the housing market is in elastic. You know we have had decades of policy that constrained supply and increase demand. And now we're trying to like, think about ways to to increase, supply kind of in in a lot of ways kind of at the margins, you know we're we're a little bit here a little bit there.

[144:00] and we say, oh, markets don't apply here because the demand is so great, and I just I just want to push back on that anytime. Someone says that smaller is not more expensive. Smaller reduces demand. People want large houses. If we're going to continue to have zoning that encourages very large houses on large lots that that's a driver of housing prices for sure. I I think it remains to be seen whether they can squeeze the kind of money They're hoping to get out of 300 square foot units at 22 pearl. Maybe there are limits on how much you can charge for 300 square feet, so like I don't think it's a done deal that they're gonna make that kind of money surprising. I you know I could be surprised. But and I know that's kind of beside the point. the the the but the thing I really want to kind of circle back to that was

[145:02] sort of absent from this presentation is some of the community conversations that have been taking place in in particular. I'm. Thinking of the housing equity symposium that took place a couple of years ago, related to how our history of Zoning relates to racist policies and exclusionary. I, you know, kind of principles you you never once used the phrase exclusionary zoning, which this is the way i'd like to characterize it. And so we have a real crisis of housing, affordability of wealth, inequality. climate change. I mean, we need to give people options to live in and low carbon footprint neighborhoods. And so. anyways, I I Yeah.

[146:01] I appreciate that You're you're being very pragmatic, and you want to do something this summer. And and there there's an aspect of that of okay, let's let's get into a case of updating the zoning every every now and then, you know, like it seems like it's been static for a long time, and I don't know the history of of often zoning. It's changed, but you know, maybe if a to use could change this year. They were changed a few years ago. Maybe they'll get updated again. Maybe if we get into a cadence of updating zoning based on how the both of fairly comprehensive plan gets updated. That that's a good thing. So I don't. I don't want to. Just, you know, go cold water on on what you're doing. But. man, I I I want to. you know. really fundamentally, Russell, with a single family zoning in the way that's excluded people, and not the long legacy it has of of the history that the historical context that it comes out of, and it's kind of this it's really like this living legacy of

[147:05] our racist history and and this segregation that we still see in our society today. So whatever I can do, and I, wanna I want to get those conversations going which Okay, cool. Okay. I I have a I I was just going back to. I finally found your the items 1 2 3, the recommendations. The the thing that seems to be missing from the parking question is. is the requirement that requiring or this allowing parking. it would be going to a unit. You know we're requiring separation unbundling from from your residential dwelling units, and

[148:09] you know that that can go a long way towards when you have structured underground parking. And suddenly someone come for the bike and a bus pass. you know, that goes a long way towards affordability. If if that underground parking spot cost the developer 80 grand or something to to build. So, anyway, was there any discussion of of restricting the ability of developer to include parking in there, you know. or they they require them to separate it out. not specifically, as part of this project. You know. We we have been looking at updating the parking code for several years. We haven't had the number one, the capacity to do it number 2. We haven't had the guidance from Council to make it a priority. But that was something that we were considering as part of that project. We've done a pretty extensive data gathering on

[149:09] parking supply and demand, and the community as part of a parking update that we did over several years. But it, you know, with Covid and everything it's been kinda which to the side. But it it's something that we're thinking about. And so just going up of what Phillip was was saying. B one which is allowed to practice or attached housing type 5 right in R. L. Rr. And R. E. Sums in in use table with no change. The density. etc., etc., and then your your response is no, it would wouldn't be recommended. No, there would be little value in this changes. Not many units could be added. So I don't understand why not many units? Why? Why would not minute? You must be added, because the the the areas where that would be implemented have already been maxed out largely in their density with their minimum lot. Size

[150:07] is that when they subdivided the neighborhoods originally, so there we did an analysis of what properties could actually add units like. I said it, it came out for for a very large land area. It came to about 100 units north of Norwood, and and then west of 20 Sixth Street. There are a lot that seem like there are a lot of lots there that could be. and maybe this is maybe it's entirely different issue that could be subdivided could be, you know, subdivided, and then a duplex or a triplex be built. It is. Is that an Rr. Rl. Or Re. So I I think a lot of the in that area are are.

[151:01] If I recall I I can actually go back. I can try to find the memo. or we did the data analysis of how many laws we looked at all the minimum lot sizes and lots of there, and tried to find the ones that could be end up being subdivided. That's why you know it. It didn't seem to yield all that. Oh, no. I understand what you're saying, but that's the limits. And these established areas. But could that be changed in the next comp plan? Update? As for runner of future changes. Yeah, I mean that that's that's what. If that's something that the City council instructs us to do as part of the complaint update. Then there would be an outreach process with neighbors and and with the community to

[152:02] We look at those areas, and it it could result in changes to the land use designations in those areas kind of what types of housing, how how would you fit it into fit in with the neighborhood character? I think part of that discussion might be like. There might have to be some design standards that get developed to ensure that those areas. any additional housing units are going to fit in and be at a smaller scale. So it is. It is a pretty intensive effort, but it certainly could happen. Yeah, there are these prototypes. You know, gentlemen, fill in neighborhoods that you know this process, and maybe even public, would be

[153:03] accepting. I can actually, I think this is the right graph the right tables. This is what we shared with council on several years ago. where we looked at the different zoning districts, and you can see the potential additional dwelling units. and that particular option out of all those zones. It was a total of 132. To me it it it feels like this. Analysis is broken down into kind of the single family neighbor that's and then the more commercial corridor with the business is that 2 different things. It seems like your recommendations. Are we're weighted towards the the commercial quarter of our home, which I think is great. By the way. that's

[154:03] irrespective of what we? We'll be able to answer this question. What we want over to be in 30 years for 50 years? Right? Do we want to be a Portland that we want to be a but I think I know what we don't want to be. It's we don't want to have a bunch of 1960, 70, and 80 single for a strip of up and down 20 Eighth Street. you know, and Thirtieth Street and and and right and I think, in the last 25 years. If you look at the major changes. It's amazing, and the always for people to say older than change we're looking at a lot of road. Look around. You know how much it's changed. In 25 years. You take each pro wet pro north broadway thirtieth and pearl. I mean it's amazing how much has changed in how much development and growth. And it's amazing. But I think it's clear that that's the direction we want to go right. So we want to, whether we like it or not. or that's an individual opinion. But the direction is.

[155:01] you redevelop these parking lots and single story strip malls into something back right, and if that's small, you's big units retail the first. We're not something better than what's there, and I think it'll be agrees on that, and I think a lot of your whether it's 3 story or 4. That's individual opinions. But I think a lot of your recommendations and the in the business. Zoning does that? Well, i'll do that right it by eliminating 1,500 for via open space per unit, or whatever the restrictions are. I think that's great. But I think that simplifying those zoning room, sir. i'm restricting them, if you will. They've got to help. and 2830, and 30 Street and a Rappaho, and and all those places that we all know when we drive by. We're like that. That's a really old lovely building. It should be something better there. You really, you know. But I do agree with everybody else. I I fully support all that.

[156:00] I do agree with everybody else that we can't just forget about the single family zoning They routes. I I just I've done it, and I've seen it. You have this big whole lot. You build this Google House and get it. Google, you already like It's watering this grass, you know. It's like something else could be there, and it's just so much better than this big old yard with the old grass, because my F. Is restricted, or I can only put one unit here or or or right. That's My! And I think we we can't sleep on. We can't forget about single family neighborhoods. There's so much opportunity there, and I don't know, although 130 unit calculation came up. But I see there's thousands of single family lots in this in this town that you need. What do you call it? Gentle what I think it's a great phrase, by the way. gently in films that makes sense. but in a in a nutshell I can support this whole process. I think it's great. There are these like this, and every one of these zoning is like columns of the restrictor. Right?

[157:03] You can actually meet the F. They are the meet to then said, oh, no, there's an open space requirement, or although there's a partner, requirement, I mean, why in the world should we have a 1.2, 5 parking space requirement for 400. It's no sense. I don't, especially if it's sitting on a corridor, a trip taking forward. I'm. In the parking reduction to a minimum we give them, and that's good. But why even have that that doesn't make any sense, any you know the smaller the units will be more parking, I guess. Certainly different meetings, and sometimes it's oh, well, it's a 400 for you. But really, there's gonna be 2 people living there, and they're both. That's the argument, right? I've heard that argument for decades and and then they get built. and it's not a problem. People are parking in the neighborhoods because they don't have 2 cars. You know what I mean. So, anyway. But that's the kind of stuff that you get to think of, and then I think your suggestions are great. Can I ask a follow up on Terry's point? How did you get from 1.2, 5 to one in in that recommendation.

[158:03] What was the what was the thinking? There? I'll just send the the code already, for, like efficiency. Living units is one per unit. So it just didn't make sense to have 1.2, 5. So just make it one per unit. Okay, so it's not like it's it's just It's just sort of like you, the eyeball that you said. This makes more sense. It's not like there was some analysis that that, like you did the regression, and it came out to 1 point. No, it was just the better answer. Yeah. And then, and it's it's been kind of a part of the code that we've been looking at for quite a while as as being antiquated and as an opportunity for clean up. And how do you have 1.2, 5 cars for you. We have one thing on parking right, and this is something we run into all the time in the real world. You you have the city. it says. Oh, we want less parking, less parking, less parking right, and we'll ran into these parking reductions. And actually we don't want a lot of parking.

[159:03] Then you have the market right? You have the people that actually read or buy your units, saying, I really want to place to park my car. So you have to balance that, and it's very hard to do because you have the marketplace, the consumer saying, No, I want parking, or one space, or do whatever it is. And then you have the the city and the zoning, saying, we don't want. Parking is so you you have to weigh those things. It's time. Well, my view on that one is the first step is you on bundle parking from the unit. whether it's a rental or an ownership. You know you UN bundle it that way. The the the unit that has 2 young people that want 2 cars. They pay for 2 parking spaces. What is the UN bundle means that when I least my, if I, Lisa unit to fill up and he comes without a car oh, he he runs. He's running a an apartment he's not running a parking space right? So you want to bundle it, and so that same, if if you have 44 units. You have 44 parking spaces, and not all right, wants to space, but the people that want to

[160:10] they they. They they bare the true cost of coming with 2 cars versus Bill. Up comes with a bike, and he's subsidizing by not using his space. Yeah, so he's. So he's up with the second thing that's that's really critical. We ran into it in the 44 micro units they wanted the really big parking reduction in the neighborhood. It's like this is gonna be awful, because you know, you're talking about having 26 parking spaces for 44 units Well. that that's fine. If they're unbundled. But the problem is, we're telling the developer. You gotta charge those parking spaces. You gotta unbund the one. And then in the same breath. This city has a whole bunch of free parking in the city right of way next door. So the neighbors, then papers are like, Well, where are they going to Park? They're gonna Park on the street because it's free, even though we're telling the

[161:04] the developer to charge a market rate for for a parking space. And so the city, you know we we really are a little bit schizophrenic on on how we deal with with parking in the right of way versus what we're telling developers Our vision for a car like future. I I totally agree, and unbundling works very well in in those When you have a time in parking lot, right where you have 40 units or 20 units of a bar, or whatever the case may be, in a parking lot with it. you get the different, if you actually want it for a single family or teams like everybody wants to park and walk into their units. That's a different thing. But I totally agree. and that goes exactly what i'm saying. You get the neighbors staying. One thing you get the market, saying one thing, it's city saying another thing, and you're in the middle kind of bounce all the stuff, you know. So I my suggestion, since the conversation is gone to parking Well, that's an important issue here. If we've had some really helpful guest presentations from it's not serious issues, like single family company. And I would love to zoom in

[162:08] a parking, create a parking person to talk about things like on my language. It also country factor in like scared parking. Yeah, I mean commercials and resident. We get a sales overlap, and they've all, and can't get session down and make it as efficient as possible. But you know it'd be great to get somebody like we had in December. Come in and say, this is how they do it in Portland and Denver, and you know, but maybe a college town like with some of the creative ideas out there are, and how they might be working. So hope you folks 30 of that. We'd be happy to and then it's like, Who's the Advisory Board for the Department of Community Community vitality which actually controls parking it in in the in the paid parking sense. No, I was. It was a it was a it's one of my

[163:10] long time problems is that we is that we have a transportation advisor Board of Transportation Department planning department. and and and we have the department of community vitality that involves party. You think overall. I've done a pretty good job managing parking, though. I mean, if you look at all of our sub communities. You look at all the areas I mean. There's a few spot for it. It's bad, but you don't know it's not that it is hopefully under priced. Oh, my neighborhood parking $120 a year, you know, for a Mapleton Hill Resident. They have a have a they. They get the benefit of living close to downtown, but they they have a guaranteed parking spot in front of their house for 120 bucks a year. Oh, yeah, yeah, About about 200 square.

[164:03] the feed of the most valuable, you know. Some of those valuable real estate on earth you take pass through, and the the city doesn't really have a parking problem. I mean, what else? But when I say parking problem, where where we're not achieving our goals because we are under pricing, working that and same thing with downtown merchants, we should any point, I I guess, private property. But anyway, the department of community vitality is under under values parking. How does everyone feel about having a I'm talking about a parking with a guest expert, one of our future meetings. But I yeah, I'm keeping an eye on the time. I just wanted to go back to the cryogenic storage shortly after 90'clock. So yes, so you need to the the vote on anything or just. No, no! All this feedback is really helpful. I i'm i'm. You know this is a big part of our work.

[165:01] You know the single pamphlets on the issue. We're going to keep working, as I think we have to now have a timeline. you know, digesting thoughts and coming up with some ideas for recommendation to the planning board. And do I? So you know it's. Continue to be a major agenda in the press. Thank you for all this. I'm sorry. I think it's August. I'm saying we have to get a recommendation to you right early. Right? That's playing for them a new chair that will that will be determined on it. Yes, there there will be a new chair, and that will be April or April Fourth, maybe country. So I would to ask if you guys have any feedback for Carl like how in terms of the presentation, because he's gonna have to get this tomorrow. There's anything that was helpful, or we'll be confusing or well. It was all helpful, and it was yeah, absolutely confusing lot of good clarification there. and I I think.

[166:05] as a board, we would like you to work towards strong recommendations on the single panel. Part of it is that a good summary of our comments. Folks. Yeah, I found it very helpful. And and you know, for me, revisiting intensity versus density that was really helpful, You know, I think I think, helping people just remember how to calculate it, and they are. And what that actually means is is really helpful. So you know, I Anyway, I think I think those those basics, and making sure you've got people coming along with those basics. Super helpful certainly is for me. We should make to the comments about the presentation. It's keeping it tomorrow night to be improved. I think it's a fine.

[167:10] You You take something that's real, and you can see it. And you say, Well, if we stuck with just the zoning, then we'd only have that if we stuck with just this zoning we'd only have the other. But by picking and choosing we got such a better project. That's very helpful. It's practical. It's now it's real, and you can see it and 4 different examples. That's good feedback. I was really nervous about that. Okay, I think we can move on to our next agenda. I don't know if it's good for that, and that would be so. I have one main thing that I wanted to share with this group. So the city. this offering. racial equity, training.

[168:01] So to all the working commissions. Did you guys hear about this? Sorry we have not? You will. So these are some options that are that Staff is throwing out there in terms of how to train different boards. So we we don't have to decide tonight, but I just wanted to to this out there get some initial thoughts, and i'd like to get feedback to them fairly soon by Friday. That's right, Thank you, Tiffany. We really and I don't know it. Has anyone done any of the racially pretty drain? Okay. And so a lot of city staff have it's really helpful, you know. It's still talk about you. We spent a lot of time and effort putting together housing equity. Some of zoom. you know, that talked about the history of it's really it's housing. But this is really the thinking about how your decisions are. The impact is behind

[169:03] your your basically what you've learned in history class. So I would strongly encourage it. It's not a requirement. So you can go One route we we could have. They They're what happy to come to a future have meeting. We could all do it together, or we could to make it more voluntary, and people could go to trainings as they're offered. so I would say that that's really the 2 2 options for you guys. So the city is offering the 3 options that you have in front of you. So I just need to give them feedback on what the board it's kind of leaning towards, whether you're thinking you'd like to have one session. I need to add a board meeting. If you'd like to, individually join. I think the first option is like the last Thursday of every

[170:04] already, and you can just join one of the the sessions. so I just need to give them some feedback on what the Board kind of thinks that they know what to schedule to make sure they've got enough people available for scheduling purposes. Well, I've done racial equity training through this board, through my former employer, and for another volunteer thing, it is very worthwhile okay for the volunteer option got into our our busy work plan to dedicate an entire meeting to doing this group. But I I do concur. It's extremely viable. Yeah, it seems to me, once a month, and it's always pretty packed. Probably the volunteer option would be better. That's my preference. Yeah, I' to.

[171:03] I mean. Yeah, like, I said, we've got a full work plan, and i'm happy to spend a a Thursday or some other time. That's that's scheduled per option. See anyone else change the I'd be happy to go through the meeting with Yeah. And I just wanted to look at work. Plan real quick. Okay. So, Carl, you're gonna come back again next month. You want to talk about that. Yes.

[172:01] we'll start finding our retreat in April as well at our April meeting. Probably schedule that for you. maybe June. and then we'll talk about listening sessions again. That's what I have on my list. So I did get a confirmation from the city clerk's office that basically we get to choose joining in person or not with the public. You could do it for specific meetings. You could do for all meetings. It's really at the discretion of each board and commission. We are limited to this space, however, so it won't be going back to Council Chambers. So just keep that in mind for special consideration. I really couldn't have more than about 5. Yeah, especially for the duration of the meeting. If they stay well, so keep in mind to the the listening session. We could arrange for a special space right, but the our regular meetings Yes, we would have to. I don't think 5 or 6 is a problem, because how many we get 2 or 3.

[173:11] Hmm. So would that not change? Do you think the engagement with the public always. or increase if we invite them back in person. All the history. There's any guy who wrote on right away or no, it's just something for you to think about, which I want to say is that. But if anything history is a good, I mean free pandemic. We didn't have a lot of people testifying or public public participation. I think it was pretty consistent. We actually probably had more during the pandemic

[174:02] in my experience that both on tab and planning board. you know, not having to being able to book dinner, put the kids to bed, and then, when your topic that you're interested in as a citizen comes up. You haven't been sitting in Council Chambers. You know it. It's I. I have found it both as a citizen and as a board member to be far greater ability to participate in these meetings. And so i'm sort of in the hybrid where we have resident, gets in the room and others put zoom in. Yeah, sorry. It should have been more clear. So the hybrid is here to stay, so that's not an option to get rid of it, because I think the city has found that it has been effective. Okay, that's great.

[175:03] Any other matters from there. No. But if there's other agenda items. Just let me know. I I would love to have the I've paid on the airport discussion. If you go back to the some of the last month, and I have more discussion around that. Yeah. So I would recommend that we we get together with Philip and figure out which meetings make the most sense. unless you want to just do it at every single meeting between now and the end. You may want to think it because and just be clear, and everyone's expectations you are representing have not yourself. So we just need to be about so. When you provide feedback. making sure that you're checking in with the crew.

[176:02] No great anyone else have agenda items in a suitcase. It's still time after this meeting, but moving top of mind. Okay, if anything comes up. Let me know how to reach me. Quick, main debrief. We had some public comment tonight. We approved our minutes. We have some recommendation on the AV you Code, update It's supporting the the comfort of the planning board. The Council's direction on this in a great discussion with tremendous but from Carl something for affordable housing, and just so we keep that pretty high on our agenda and our work plan. We talked about it racial like in can. and then future meetings with all right members present in person. and when is our next meeting it? Performance is

[177:04] April 26. Are you in the comments, or do I have a motion to adjourn. I moved all in favor. Thank you. Oh, we you similar with the.