April 26, 2023 — Housing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:06] You live, we're live welcome. Those Are you dialing in to the April meeting of the Boulder Housing Advisory Board? I'm. Michael Jasey, the chair of have probably a meeting of order, and we'll have roll call if we have a form. But we'll start here. Karen Clareman. Danny Taylor Penny is going to be a little late, and he'll be styling in. But we do have a form already. A Julianne Ramsey. and let's see. we promised. We'll probably like that. We do have a forum, and we will receive at the meeting first, second order. Business rather is welcoming our newest.

[1:09] and they were delighted to have car on the board reviewing the rest of the agenda. We'll be approving the minutes. We'll have a for public participation. Open common period, or it just a few minutes we have a matter from the board. We have a really meaty agenda. We'll we'll be getting an in pay an update from Carl Tyler planning development services, and it's super reform policy. We'll be going to that in some detail. We'll be appointing a have represented about the Avon for the Boulder junction multi-board working group which has been meeting for about 2 months. We will be seeking support for a planning board letter regarding the airport and having the future options related to the potential for housing at the airport. If it were to be closed and not be an airport anymore, we'll doing, be doing some planning for a

[2:12] mid June retreat just to have. and the tentative date is June thirteenth. We'll be proposing moving the May meeting from May 20, fourth to may 30 first. and it like we will be. Either we're choosing a new chair and vice chair, and that will be based on nominations on the board. Next item it would actually item, 7 management staff will be getting an update on the middle income down payment pilot and information about an advancing racial equity role of government seminar that is training up there, the city of holders for it, missions and committees all by a meeting, a debrief and calendar check, and we'll be seeking to adjourn by 9 Pm. So with that let's see, and I get a motion to approve. The minutes of March 20, s, 2023.

[3:16] So moved. You have a second second. All in favor of that has to straight up in the concurrent. Haskins, who is not I've had me with not a member of have. Yet, as it's okay, we're ready for some opening comments. We have any members of the public who would like to have 3 min to discuss a having issue before we do that. I'm: sorry we should go to the rules of how many people do we have? Tiffany 2. Okay. So Good evening. Good evening, everyone. I will do a quick overview of the rules of engagement.

[4:03] Can you share my screen alright. So public participation in city meetings has a a few roles, and the city developed this new policy engagement through with the community members. The idea is to have a vision that supports physical and emotional safety for everyone involved. I'm gonna go through this fairly quickly, because you can also read for more information about how this vision was developed or the engagement process. There's a website. and following examples of rules of our rolls of decorum found in the Boulder Device code. So we requested all people that provide comment that your remarks, the and testimony be limited to matters of city business.

[5:05] Please do not make any threats, or you any other forms of intimidation. any sort of obscenities or other speech. That behavior that strokes or otherwise impedes the meeting are prohibited. and participants are required to sign up to speak, using a name that they they are commonly known by. and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak on. My I mean currently, only audio is allowed. Okay. and then that's it. Thank you, Jay. Before I move on I need to make another instruction. We have a new lease on our planning board. Lauren happened so. Well, we we're really delighted to have you here in in that role. Okay, we have members of the public who would like to take 3 min to discuss a housing issue or on the board.

[6:05] There's no hands. and what no one has raised their hand. Take that back only one. It's going twice. boy. You gotta be fast here. I I heard you say there were 2 people, you know. I was not rushing around. I was doing something else. And I don't listen to this disclaimer that happens ahead of time, because I've heard it 50 times, and you should have it as a disclaimer that you sign off on. So you don't have to waste your time, because your time is more important than my time and my time. I resent having used this way also, and also there's no excuse about security for not having a video window it When I go to the State House down at the capital. They ask me to turn on my video window. They want me to. So Boulder has got a problem.

[7:00] And you've got a problem because i'm complaining to you because i'm not going to go up the echelons to complain. I'm going to say I can't see you. You can't. You know you can. You can't see me this doesn't make a relationship between us, and also I can't see who is at this meeting. and why shouldn't? I know who's at this meeting when I come to a live meeting. Should I come with the bag over my head, would you let me come into the room with a bag over my head. Because that's what this is like. Why? Just because i'm remote. Do I have a blackout? I'm asking you practical question. Now, as far as housing goes the substance of my discussion. which I can't do, because I have to talk about the engagement process each time there is some meeting like this too bad I have to waste my time and your time again. Substance is what's important.

[8:00] and instead, i'm having to deal with the engagement process. so tell your superiors tell the people that run this place like Sarah Huntley, who doesn't know how to do her job, obviously that she needs to change things and make it more amenable to public process. That's not asking too much. I spend my precious time here, and I expect the same to from you of respect for my time last night at planning board was entertained basically a skyscraper on a little quadrant like a little triangle of land on the on ramp to you 36, I 36 for see you students. And this was basically probably going to be supported. This is city land It should not be zoned that way. You need to tell the planning department not to zone land outside of C perimeter.

[9:04] Okay. what is it? Let you get about 30 more seconds. Yeah, there is no timer on my screen. We're giving you a little extra time for that. Yeah. So so a skyscraper on an on ramp, you know, and the city should not have zoning in that way. And you You are part of this because this is called jobs and housing imbalance. The more jobs you have, the more housing you need, the more housing you need, the more jobs, the more jobs, the more housing, the more jobs, the more housing, the more jobs the cycle of despair. When are you going to figure out? This is a cycle of despair. and it doesn't matter how much housing you get, because you're always going to need more housing because you have more jobs, and those jobs require more housing, etc., etc. So what are you going to do about it.

[10:01] I say this every time, and I hear nothing from you. Dead Silence! Dig a hole, hey? You've all got jobs. You should be happy. you know. like you're doing a job. You're digging holes and make it. It works. So do something about it. Stop already, stop the jobs. because that causes the more housing, and then you just have an endless housing demand endless. And why tech isn't going to do anything about it? Because lie tech is not free. It's. It's Federal funds that drive up the population that drive growth, and that's what the whole world lives on is growing. not sustainable. Don't, do it? Stop. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Looks like Danny Tay. Dora is doing this by via Zoom, our vice chair, so we'll have him available for you, for

[11:03] I don't have to, and then it will be a part of that. Does anyone else from the public I didn't available or interested, raised to hand, to speak. If not, we'll move on where the matters from the Board Section I'm. Going to turn it over to Karl gonna discuss potential policy changes regarding occupants you perform. And, Carl. Thank you. Good evening Board members tonight. I'm gonna talk about the Occupancy Reform Project. This is an information item for the Housing Advisory Board, so that we can make the Board aware of what we're working on. This is a City Council initiated project to change our land use code relative to occupancy. So we wanted to get some feedback from have before we move forward.

[12:00] So there's a lot of information to cover. But I just wanted to kind of outline how we're going to go about the discussion tonight. So i'm going to give it a little bit of background on occupancy what it is, and how the city actually legislates occupancy. I'll touch on the State legislation. The draft, or propose the legislation that's going on right now, which is of interest. I'll also talk about the schedule on next steps up first off, because we are in the the community engagement part of the project for predominantly to get feedback on this project and the zoning for affordable housing, so i'll touch on that. Then we'll work up to the options that we presented to City council. What city council narrowed those options down to the feedback we got from planning board as well, and then we wanted to hear this for that. So These are the questions we're going to pose to the board tonight. The first 2 is, we're all pause after I give a little bit of background. So the first is just. Does Housing Advisory Board have any questions on the city's occupancy regulations that we currently have on the books?

[13:11] The next question is, Does the board Have any questions just related to the the project in general, so help out with that part of it, and then we'll move on to some of the materials on the options, and then we'll conclude on what feedback does the board have regarding? So I want to start off for the benefit of the board, and also the viewing public what is occupancy? I I think a lot of people might be familiar with walking into commercial buildings in particular in cities and see maximum occupancy signs. So there are occupancy regulations that are in our but our building and fire codes that are done for safety purposes. So it's a maximum amount of people you can have in the building, so that if there is an emergency or something that people can safely get out. So we're not talking about that. That's not changing. That's in the International Building Code. That's pretty uniform for a lot of cities across the country. What we're talking about is occupancy regulations that are actually in our zoning standards or within our land use code. So some communities, particularly those

[14:17] that have universities, have additional more restrictive limitations on how many people can live within a housing unit, a home or an apartment in order to basically try to mitigate for some impacts that might come from having additional people on a unit such as parking or noise. So that's something that's in our Zoning code or our land use code, and that's what Council has asked us to re look at. So just kind of backing up a little bit, i'm sure a lot of folks are familiar with the bedrooms for people ballot measure that was voted on in 2,021. It was a proposal as a referendum basically that would change our land use code if it had passed

[15:02] that it would be the number of bedrooms within a unit plus one, and it also proposed a new definition for bedroom. So that is not what's on the table for this particular project. If you look at the vote that happened for that, it was about 48%, Yes, and 52 No. But because there has been I'm. Community interested because the vote was closely been asked by city Council to look at maybe some other solutions that maybe, might garner some more rep support in the community. So the project really started at the retreat in 2,022. The purpose of the project was to perform a a comparative analysis from other communities. develop a model occupancy and solicit input on any ordinance revisions to that. So we've been moving forward with a lot of that analysis. so as far as the schedule we've been doing a number of of different things to get the word out on the project. We've been sending out newsletters through planning and development services. The city wide Newsletter. We held up the February 20 s outreach event.

[16:13] with some key stakeholders on just the housing related code changes. We've been reaching out to different stakeholder groups and and any interested persons I want to make it really clear that we we just posted a questionnaire today on be her boulder. So I really encourage anyone who's watching this meeting or board members anyone to pass it around that for people to go to be her boulder.org it'll take you right to a link to the occupancy reform, and so only for portable housing questionnaire. It's really quick. It should be like about 5 min to answer some of the questions. We also have a QR. Code up on the screen. So if anybody is watching, just use your phone to to click on that, i'll bring the QR. Code up at periodic parts in the presentation, so people can click on that as well. But we're hoping to get a lot of feedback on these projects moving forward so that we can report

[17:05] the findings of that feedback to council at a check in. So the next check in with council is going to be on June fifteenth. It's a matters item, but but we're basically in a report back on our analysis of the options and the feedback that we're getting as far as the overall project. The goal is to really start developing an ordinance after getting feedback from from Council in June that we would bring through housing Advisory Board and planning board in July for recommendation to the city council, and then City council would act on an ordinance in August of this year. So we want to touch on what's going on at the State. Some of you might know more about the city, but I opposition 1 2 3 passed last year, which is basically creating a state affordable housing fund that has a number of different sources of income, that fund housing programs for local governments. This is something that was stated as a a major initiative by the Governor at a state of the State this year, and then in the recent weeks.

[18:12] we've seen a new proposed Colorado Senate Bill 23 2 1 3, that would actually put some bold measures forward if past, that would relate to adding more middle housing in communities, increasing density on key corridors. allowing a to use wherever you allow single family uses, and also addressing occupancy. There, there's actually a provision that talk proposes to basically make the way the city regulates occupancy today not allowed, and this is something that was done in some other places like California, Oregon and Washington. Minneapolis elected to eliminate occupancy proposed to to allow more housing types in single family neighborhoods.

[19:01] So the latest on this bill we've been kind of following this for weeks now, and it's been a bit of a roller coaster every day we learn something new. The latest is, we've heard. Most of these provisions that are on the slide have been taken out of the legislation by the appropriate Appropriations Committee. It's possible that some of those provisions could go back in when it goes to a House or Senate Vote we don't know yet we'll probably know more next Monday. So it's something that we're monitoring the the legislative session ends on May eighth. So by, then we'll know if this passes on, how that could affect us. And the thing that we want to make clear is that if the state were to pass some of the legislation that said, You have to have duplexes and triplexes and the same family areas or up zone areas along key corridors, or allow a to use everywhere like prohibit occupancy. If it's a state mandate, we would have to move forward with that, and we would make changes to our codes to apply. But we're still monitoring that to see what happens

[20:03] Now, i'm gonna jump into just the history of occupancy and boulder. So you know, zoning codes arrived in the United States around the late twenties. I think. Same for for Boulder, I think the first zoning ordinance was the late twenties. It applied to the hill area where it was actually residential. Your Third Thirteenth Street that started evolving into commercial into what's now a mercantile main street? That's where the first zoning ordinance actually got applied in boulder, but in before the 1950 S. It just basically said, you have one family per unit was what was in the the zoning code. and then in the 19 fifties that was changed to a family or 5 unrelated person so again we're talking about zoning occupancy limits, in 1962, that was changed to the family, or 3 unrelated persons in 1,971. The occupancy regulation was changed to allow within a single family residence, or or you housing unit, a family plus 2 rumors.

[21:11] which is the language that's actually in the code today. In the 19 seventies. There are also a number of re-zoning that created non-conforming occupancy, so particularly around the downtown, like Whittier Gospel, the hill they had higher zoning in the past that allowed more units, and then it was changed to to a lot less number of units. All of a sudden there was a lot more higher occupancy. So those are all now non conforming. So the city has been taken different approaches to this. Over time. In the 19 eighties we kept records we still do. We had zoning inspectors that want each unit to find out what the occupancies were before the zoning changed, and then an ordinance basically locked in grandfathered those occupancies. So we still consult those records Today, whenever you know a building permit comes in in 1993, a more restrictive approach. I was applied by the council the time to get rid of all of that non conforming occupancy and basically apply

[22:16] the occupancy that was in the code as as of 1993 as you can imagine. A lot of landlords didn't agree with that. They They lost a lot of income. There were a lot of UN rented you know bedrooms because of it. So there was a a a push back that ultimately led to a reversal of that legislation in 1,998. So it basically brings us up to the current day of how we go about it. Some of the the latest changes which i'll talk more about what the actual occupancy limits are on on the next part upcoming slide. But some of the latest changes are we added new occupancy regulations for co-ops or cooperative housing. That was 2,017. So that's like it's like 12 to 15 occupants per unit again we limit. How many co-ops there can be per year. There can be 10 licenses per year sound like a group home. Or is that something different? A group home is more of a an institutional use that where there

[23:14] there's actually services provided for special populations in need, a a co-OP is where people elect to live together and share a kitchen, and they have to get a special license for that. trying to tell you all about it. Yeah, I can't tell you more about it. And then in a 2,018. We just made a an update to the accessory dueling unit regulations that basically occupancy, as it were, applies to a to you is that it's the same occupancy that gets applied to a single family home where it talks about those 2 rumors. Basically but it's a little bit more flexible for an a to you, because it allows dependence. So that that was a added in the Edu update in that 2,018.

[24:01] So just a a broad overview of of how we limit occupancy today. This is very similar to many other cities. We use the definition of family, and you know, for a court ruling in the 1970 S. There's no limit on the number of family members within a unit, so we have a pretty broad definition of family council has asked that. You know we talk to the community about that definition of family, but basically it says a family or or it's a certain number of unrelated that can be within a unit. So like I said, Number One is members of a family, plus 2 additional rumors. I mentioned that for. And then there's like basically 2 categories that are are more broad. So in the single family zones of the city, which is our Re. And Rl. Also agricultural public. It's a limit of 3 unrelated persons per unit. And then all other zooms are basically for unrelated persons per unit. So I have a map on the next slide. That'll show you kind of that breakdown. We also have the 2 persons and their children, which is kind of similar to what I was talking about with the a. To use

[25:11] with group living situations. you know, like a group home. Typically, we have special regulations within our code that allow higher occupancies for group homes. So it's usually like 6 to 8 persons within a group home, or some of those institutional uses that's very consistent with what we've seen in the research of looking at other communities throughout the country. So this is the map that shows you. You can see that it geographically the largest areas, like mostly single family related zones, and that allows a maximum of 3 unrelated persons in those zones and the orange. And then the green areas are where it allows for. So again, those are more like the commercial phones mixed use. So it's higher density phones. I ask a question. So by geography. It's mostly the low density zones, but by number of units. How do they come? Share? I think it's. It's about half and half. I think I Don't have the exact calculation, but I think it's about 50 50

[26:16] in terms of the number of units that are in the higher occupancy zones versus the lower. Thank you. But I would. I would imagine that a lot of those units. the the occupancy limits just are moved, because, you know, if it's a single bedroom apartment. Then you know by compared between that in the single family. Yeah, did you have? Did you have a phone? What are the little pockets of white. Those are enclaves. Those are areas that are not annexed to the city. They're actually part of the county. Technically. Yeah, we we prioritize, You know, annexing those, cause they're like weird pockets within the city.

[27:04] Okay, so are there. Are there limits to the like group co-ops, like one per acre or one for neighborhood or can't be too far like there's licenses per year. 1010 a year. I'm not an expert on co-ops. I don't know if there is an actual saturation limit. But I know there's 10 per year. But were you asking about the group? Some more institutional be? Yeah, yeah. The room phones do have a saturation. There's a certain maximum in a certain area like 300 foot distance from each other. But the co-ops were 10 new per year. Thank you. alright, Danny? I his hand up and thank you for for pointing that out. Sorry alright, just Karl, if you could. So when when you have the definition up there, and you had that, I think a big thing, because I think it's tremendous, this whole conversation, but maybe just kind of

[28:01] to elaborate on a little bit. You have that provision in there regarding the one-third of the total floor area of the dwelling unit should be the quarters that rumors use, and I think that that's an important aspect of this. I I want to make sure that i'm that I have it right as well. But just that we're all on the same page there, because I think that's as much of a restriction as anything right, because that's that whole thing that that relates to what a bedroom is, or isn't, or can be. So if you could just elaborate on that, that would just be awesome. Yeah, I mean, basically, you know, if, if if there's not an accessory dwelling unit within a single family unit up there, there could be a family, and then they can have 2 unrelated persons that they might run out to. So that provision basically does want it's it's aiming at keeping that as accessory for area within the unit. So it's a maximum of of one-third. That's something we've not really heard many comments on, but I I think it's something we could look at, if that's necessary.

[29:05] So that only goes towards those rumors towards those add on, so not the family structure. They you you're talking particularly about those 2 add ons, and how much space those 2 add ons have within the overall dwelling unit. Cool. That's what I thought. It's an interesting point, because, you know, we have different floor area allowances for an a to use once it becomes a separate a to you all of a sudden, you know there's a you know, more flexibility, so it's something something certainly to look at. So, as part of this project, we did look at other communities as city council have requested, and it was very interesting. We. We ended up looking at 60 different communities throughout the country, largely university type towns, but up varying sizes. We we. We have some that we call your communities, others that you know a little larger cities, just to see what they do, you know to to look for best practices, or you know things like that. So we looked at all their family definitions. We looked at the occupancy limits that were in single

[30:18] family zones and the occupancy when it's outside single family zones, we saw a variety of ways of regulating occupancy. I mean overall it's fairly uniform it's. It's usually family and unrelated. But we did see variation of co-ops, you know, throughout the country where they might call them functional families, or how single housekeeping units things like that we? We looked at the West coast. Obviously those States have prohibited occupancy, so that that's a relatively new thing in some of those States. I think a lot of the jurisdictions are taking that out of their codes, Minneapolis elected to remove it from their code. We've seen some communities that have that have more reduced occupancy in the zones around their universities, for instance, so you often hear about Austin, Texas.

[31:11] and then college stations, another one that have, like an overlay that's surrounded. It's a university with more restrictive occupancy limits. Some have increased occupancy limits around their university. So Charlottesville, Virginia, and Tuscaloosa, Alabama, the last example is interesting because we we were looking at that because they actually allowed city wide. It was like 3 unrelated, except if you were a single family zone. It was 2, and if you wanted to go to 3 like the rest of the city. It had to be an owner occupied unit. So we thought that was interesting. We reached out to Madison, and then we found out that they had a lot of complications with that a particular approach, and they were actually in the process of removing that from their code. So they've actually since changed their code to be 5 unrelated citywide, similar to what Denver has recently done.

[32:10] I have a question, Did any. That's the other communities you look at. Have a similar like trajectory of the cost of housing as boulder. Was that a parameter or filter that you. Madison, or on similar. I was think I would think the last time would be a pretty good comp, because it's a college now and then, if they have a Austin as well. and and you know most of the the entire State of California for maybe Bakersfield. Yeah, I would. I would encourage you all like if you haven't gone in like in the memo there's links to the City Council, Memo. And then attached to the City council. Memo. Is this

[33:05] long like 30 page document of all the 60 communities. So you want to go in there and, like compare it. It's in there, so it's pretty interesting. So I think we've kind of started down this right? So again I've put the keyword code up again. If anyone who's watching wants to take the questionnaire but Does Housing Advisory Board have any questions just about our occupancy regulations as they stand today? Well, my big question, maybe it should come later, is the new policy being proposed. How is it different from what the voters wait a time? That's a long. I mean. Our approach is to not replicate what was on the ballot measure. We're not. We've in in our consultation with other communities. We've heard a a lot of complication coming from bedrooms. It's difficult to define exactly what a bedroom is. So they, because of that complication we've tried. We tried to steer away from

[34:10] putting it as bedrooms as a solution. and it also it creates a concern about. If someone's trying to get. you know, increase their occupancy, they start compartmentalizing their units with these, with maybe people, small bedrooms and cramming them in. So it we wanted to kind of move away from that. It's not part of the formula. It's just a number. It's not the approach we're looking at right now, but going back to that concept of like the voters voted, and I understand it was narrow margin. But this kind of feels like we're going against what was voted. So I don't understand how we're looking at this and modifying it without sort of going against what the voters said. I mean, I I think that perspective is shared by some on planning board and City council. There's some concern about moving forward with the project Following that vote. I I think the perspective

[35:12] from some on council. It's just that because the boat was close, and that there's been a lot of community sentiments that are still in support of of some sort of solution to occupancy that maybe we should look at some other ways of going about occupancy other than the bedrooms are for people's solution, and make a comment on this. I interviewed one of the city kind of Council candidates last time selection period, and he was very much against that, for people very much for occupancy. Perform, he said. Let's go this step, and we get in the City council. But let's perform it with a better proposal. So I don't know how widespread position was, but that was true of at least one city council person who didn't get elected. So you. Bond Gates specifically said in public session Last time it was brought before city Council that he was not in favor of it, and certain people voted against it.

[36:10] But he was in favor of the documents in different mechanism a different way. I think, perhaps, because of some of the specific concerns around the bedrooms approach. That, Carl is saying is problematic. But you know I I I certainly heard that a lot during the bedroom circle people campaign that one of the major concerns was investors. We're going to buy a single family homes, and then are about 7 8 9 bedrooms from the dining room into a bedroom. Let's reform this closet into a bedroom. add a window. It's a bedroom. and that was one of the concerns that a lot of people express that, and then voted it down, and i'm sure that wasn't the only concern of people who voted No. But you know, with the vote being close, I think that that was part of, you know. Maybe maybe it did swing the vote 4 because of that concern. Who knows? So I think the idea was to try a different approach. So then would the process be

[37:04] bringing something to the If the next election, or just implementing something that is different than bedrooms implementing something that's different. That bedrooms we we've been asked to prepare an ordinance and then move forward. Oh, yeah. I think about the election results. Is that a large number, but a fair number of the city counts people who were voted for. I don't know it. City council ran on a platform of occupancy reform. and so that that's another way of thinking about like. What did the voters look for what they voted for? You know 6 City Council people that said they wanted to reform off. I don't have a problem with cancelled working. This. I do have a problem with valve issues because they kind of want to insurance, and they never. They can't be. and you know which we to reply the nuance.

[38:04] So I think it's fine that Council is doing it doesn't mean. We still need to hear more details about it, but I think it's a good thing that you're doing. You know. We've all heard the numbers about the number, empty bedrooms and boulder, and you know there was a housing shortage. So I said that maybe Michael Danny, how does it? 25 years practicing and and local government lot, and and you know different levels of government as well. It's very, very common for referendum to be something that brings an issue to the 4 of the community. And if even if that referendum isn't passed. it does catalyze the conversation regarding what's the best way to handle this, and and so a lot of times. It's very fortunate that referendums don't pass because they're drafted as they're drafted, and then that's what you have to either accept. Or deny. But I think it's absolutely within the purview. And a good thing, for you know, given the the results of that vote.

[39:05] and i'll speak more to it later when we're talking about whatever reforms are doing. But it's a good thing for Council to take he to the fact that this did have quite a quite a bit of a life to it when it went to the public, and that was on something that you know there are certain parts of it that were, you know, kind of fully drafted or or ill fated, etc. So I I think it's a great idea for them to do this and take this up, and it's still a public process, and there's still an opportunity to address these things. But it makes a whole lot of sense, and it's actually very common when you have a failed referendum for it to be followed by something saying. Let's go back and regroup and figure out what to do about this now. So I I think it's great. So a question what kind of card rails to make sure there are't have uses from. For example, developers on this.

[40:01] You just want to pack them in and maximize their profits for the expensive neighbors. and there's no like no guard rails at the moment, I mean, I I think the approach and this comes out in some of the the feedback that i'm going to talk about, but just that the emphasis is more on, instead of indirectly trying to address impacts through occupancy limits. It's just addressing those impacts directly through enforcement. So the perspective that you know a family theoretically might have more impacts than 4 or 5 unrelated or equal impacts things like that. So just when we've talked to other communities that with the Board that actually loosened their regulations. That was kind of their perspective was, let's not just have this arbitrary number let's. That's actually just. If there is impacts, we have enforcement staff and police to to deal with those impacts is that

[41:02] mentioned in the language and all like we don't have any perilous language right now. We're just kind of soliciting feedback on the options that you know. Council wanted us so to get feedback on. I have a question about the regulation that I I I I've run into this several times in little thought exercises where I realized, I don't understand how it applies to different situations, like 2 adults with their kids or 3 adults with their kids? Or can you just kind of spell out how the 3 unrelated? What what a a person is Always one person, or is it, I mean because there was a thing up there a better go like a family with 2 adults? If one of those they'll have a child with that deal. Or yeah, I mean, right now, the way it is in the code is it's pretty strictly 3 or 4 unrelated. It doesn't actually say dependence. It's only the eightyu language that references dependence. It's little tricky because we don't really define.

[42:12] Yep. pendants in the code. We we really rely on the Irs when when somebody declares that they have a dependent, whether it's a child or a an adult who who needs assistance? That's that's what we we hang our head on, but it's right now. It's pretty strictly 3 unrelated. So 2 adults with 2 kids each. Would that that that would be. It would fall into that other category. I could the 2 persons and any of their children by blood marriage guardianship. including foster children and adoption. but by 3 persons. No way. Yeah. as you start adding kids to that 3 persons. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions.

[43:05] Sorry. One more. If you had 3 persons. 2 of them were married. and and then, like the other person, had a child. Is is that like a configuration? That would be okay. It'd be a family that's 2 plus 20, yes, if the if the third person had 2 children, then you know I know it's it's it's a brain teaser. We don't have to get knocked down. I just I just yeah that when it comes to some of these family situations I get confused quickly. I think you just need to move into a co-OP, you'll be fine. Yeah. So the proposal is not to count bedrooms. But to increase the unit

[44:01] from 4 to 5. You're ready to move forward. Or, yeah, Absolutely. I think so. Everybody group on you. So before we jump into those options, it's just gonna talk a little bit about the community engagement. We've heard, as far, so the viewpoints in favor of increasing the occupancy limits. Obviously, you know, increasing the number of folks that can live in a in a apartment or a home would increase the number of housing opportunities in the city which hopefully would be able to impact. Add to the supply and address costs. Allowing more folks to live in units would be system of city housing and racial equity. Goals like I talked about before the potential impacts from increased occupancy may not be more always more than that of a large family. That's something we've heard over and over again that should be handled through Enforcement.

[45:05] but it would help students that would need to live together, due to the high rental costs that more students could kind of balance out the the monthly rent. Reduced violations would add more housing security. Obviously there are some folks that are living illegally, and you know. if there is an Enforcement case, they might lose their housing, so it would increase housing security for those folks. and I talked about the last point. as far as those that are opposed to, or cautious to increasing the occupancy limits. There's a perspective that just adding housing fly alone will not make a difference, largely because of the demand of living in Boulder that because people pay so much for housing that landlords are just gonna end up charging, just making more money if more people can, and people are willing to pay that money. So there's a concern that it's really not going to get us what we're we're working towards, rather. But what we've heard is

[46:07] to make more of an impact to that boulder should just significantly increase Cash and loop fees, commercial linkage fees, and look at other ways to get deed restricted units. We've heard that not every neighborhood should be treated the same. Obviously, there is a number of University adjacent neighborhoods that are already more impacted by increased occupancy around the university, and that. allowing more could increase those impacts related to noise, trash, and parking. So you've probably seen a lot of the communications that have gone to council on this topic. So these are I won't spend too much time on these. But these are the options that we presented to city council, based on our research of the other communities, so that, increasing the maximum number of occupants in all zones by one, so that's like all the threes would become 4, and all the floors would become 5.

[47:03] B is increasing. Just have a city wide on on related limit of 4 or 5 only allow increased occupancy in single family areas with owner-occupied units we talked about the madison example which hasn't been successful. So we weren't really recommending that only increasing occupancy and non single family neighborhoods. or looking at overlays or maps to not increase the occupancy. And those most impacted neighborhoods, like I said, college station and Austin, or some examples where they have the more restrictive occupancy limits around the University. and then on option. G is no change. So I highlighted because that's basically what councils asked us to solicit feedback on whether it should be for whether it should be 5, whether there's some other things that we should be talking about. So, just to summarize the City Council Discussion on this, which happened on March ninth.

[48:03] 8 council members supported moving forward with Option B, which is 4 or 5, but really try to get more engagement on where the community might be. On those those limitations. One City council member was not in support of increasing the occupancy against the will of the voters. and preferred that there be a well vetted option that would then go out to the voters again for a vote. There was 3 Council members that had an interest in option, F, which is to look at some sort of overlay or mapping for those most impacted neighborhoods. But it didn't really get traction, since it was only 3 Council members. All the Council members agreed that we should expand the level of community engagement again. All what might plug out there for the be heard. Boulder. The QR. Code will come up soon again if you wanted to to see it. But again pass that along to everyone, because we do want to hear feedback on this.

[49:04] And then there were a couple of council members that raised concern about the family definition, and whether we should not be looking at realizing that, or getting rid of it. So we'd be told. If if the State legislation passes as it is, we may have to, because the way it's written right now is it says we're not supposed to regulate occupancy based on whether people are related or not. So we're still waiting to see what the state does with that. So you would that imply that if you are a family of 6 or 7, you are in violation. No, there's no there's no limitation on as a number of family members. Yeah. So we went to planning board on April eighteenth, the way I would represent this, and you can certainly chime in Laura if I misrepresent. But you know I would say that the the board was largely mixed on the issue of increasing occupancy. There were 3 board members that were firmly for increasing occupancy limits citing it as a way of gentle infill kind of like a to use increasing housing options, addressing that Housing security issue

[50:13] that there's a lot of benefits of increasing occupancy. There were 2 that I would say we're firmly against increasing occupancy concern about protecting neighborhood character. The concern about landlords making more money came up and then just increasing occupancy. Isn't, going to necessarily guarantee more affordability, was some of the perspectives. Again, there we heard the concerns about overriding that bedroom, so for people ballot measure. I would say 2 of the members were in the middle on the issue. They they felt that there should be some guardrails before we increase occupancy that would avoid impacts on neighborhoods. 3 found that there should be more data presented on increasing occupancy to affirm the benefits, but it also try to avoid some impact. So

[51:09] since that meeting we're gonna start looking more at the with the West Coast cities, a lot of the changes that they made are relatively recent. So it's not like you change the occupancy limits. And then, all of a sudden the units go to like 12 people, or a unit like overnight. That's not the case. But we're we're gonna start digging a little bit more into like what kind of impacts might come from that 2 members said that if occupancy were increased, their preferences, that we take more of a conservative approach and do, for instead of 5, and there was one board member that wanted a better understanding of what this might do to a city infrastructure. And that's concludes my presentation, so that brings us to getting hearing, housing, Advisory Board Feedback. Any other questions

[52:04] one is, there should have been any modeling the have a policy, new policy. It might be effective for one of the things that occurs to me is that if you go into the single family neighborhoods there might be 2 people living in a big house. but they don't. They don't want to. You know a lot of wealthy people in boulder that are like. Why should I have a hassle of becoming a you know, rooming house plant, board. and I I just wonder, like, is there some way of testing the waters on that? It's it's difficult to to to model, because it is some people's preference and the interesting thing. And I think I might have mentioned this to the Board before. But, like you, looked at some of the research that Denver had done. you know, and I think Vancouver has one of the most like liberal occupancy limits, or they've eliminated occupancy. I forget what the case is. but they found that even though Vancouver has has a a very high occupancy limit

[53:11] or no limit, their average number of people per unit was actually pretty similar to Denver. And, in fact, Denver, I think, might be even had a little bit of a higher average per unit than even Vancouver, Despite the density up there, but I I think it's something that you know. If I If those are liberalized, it would have to take a long, long time to see. You know how that changes. You know Some people don't later and see what what's going on. This you don't have to apply for a rental license when you you can borders you, and I know I did that in the past. I don't think we did. Well, we we had borders before we did our video. But getting any permits to do that. Yeah. yeah, I'm not sure. And then i'm thinking about the hill. And you know I go through it through. See you, and deal with landlords up there, which is not plenty of experience. And I wonder if it's it's kind of going to legalize what they're already doing.

[54:06] which is yeah. and it may. I mean, I I think it's. We expect that if it does, it makes the whole leasing process a little bit more straightforward and maybe less I into abuses. But you know, I don't know if it will increase. how housing or said. and we also don't really have good data on how many illegal. you know, units we have. We don't know how many it's gonna end up legalizing If it changes. Oh, it's it's difficult to forecast. Yeah, I'm, you know. But i'm not other comments from board members. Oh, yeah, I i'm, Danny. So one of one of the things that your your finance first for me is I. I've often thought about occupancy, reform

[55:02] kind of flipped on its head as what we what we really need is vacancy reform, because we have so many houses that are nearly vacant. You know one or 2 people living in a large house. I I and I I see it. I don't, you know. Obviously I don't. I don't want, you know, like some sort of regulation Benjamin. Everyone has to share housing, but there there is an aspect of like a car Share it. It's difficult to get people to think outside of the notion of i'm gonna own my own car. I'm gonna drive it everywhere, for everywhere I go. and sharing housing is very similar in that respect. It's like we we haven't. We we've normalized one way of living where we we buy our house. We live in it by ourselves, but so I I think it's great to perform. Occupancy. I i'm all in support, and I want that there to be a legal framework for people to share housing. But I also think that you know kind of on the other side of that.

[56:04] the notion of promoting the sharing of into into the housing. You know there's there's there's so much you know what we we worried about a climate crisis. There's so much housing in boulder that is empty that's climate controlled. you know. So there's there's it's heated and cool and it's close to places of work, and I don't know. Like to me it seems like that we could have a campaign or some public awareness around around this issue. So that's that's one thing I wanted to say. One thing that I think would be super useful for kind of promoting a vision of more shared housing. It is a better data of how many m 2 bedrooms there are. And I keep asking people how many empty bedrooms do you think there are in Boulder? It turns out, Emily Hamilton, who came to one of our meetings, gave me an answer for the the policy version of policy, Virginia. She gave me an answer, but it was.

[57:04] It was at a a a less granular level than the city of Boulder. But she said, for our I can have troubles. Remembering the census word that she used vocabulary. It was like a puma or something like that. There's there's a there's a census category that includes folder that's about 240,000 people. And she said, from that data you could you could estimate there's about 75,000 empty bedrooms which it's just a staggering number. When you think about that, that's like a rounding error on the number of homeless people there are in in in Boulder County. Sorry the number of homeless people in Baler County is like a rounding error on the number of empty bedrooms that we have. So we have. We have a lot of housing that sort of like untapped attention. And yeah, I think that I think that's all I want to say. 1 one resource that's relevant to the notion of sharing housing.

[58:03] It's a organization called sharing housing, and they are very good at helping people think through the process of finding roommates, and what considerations to make. And so I just started doing that. And could I just add to that phone? I mean what I hear a lot to. This is sort of the sports that go along with that right? So you're not just sharing housing. You're supporting each other. Your older adult ability to share some of their space at a lower cost to someone else in in exchange for providing some services for companionship. So just we're trying to fraud their concept to look and see. Danny, please. how are you okay? Can you hear me? Okay. So, Carl, thank you for all this, and and and you know, like I said.

[59:01] I, I don't think it's going against the will of the voters to explore this issue, and to keep working on it, actually applaud staff and and city council for for doing so. I guess. Couple of thoughts that I have a absolutely. I could see. We're, you know, given Given the the number of homes that that are being scooped up by, you know, corporate interests and stuff like that, and we had that conversation a month or 2 ago, and it and it's pretty real from from everything that I understand. But I think best way to curtail any abuses as far as that goes, would be through the the rental regulations rather than say, let's throw this out, because, you know, corporations are going to try to abuse it, which of course they would. I From that reason, though, too. I also applaud the whole notion of not trying to mess with the definition of bedrooms, because then you you know that that relates to building codes and everything, too, and it it just gets very messy. I think the point that Michael made is is really salient, and it really speaks to this whole notion of

[60:08] whether or not we try to distinguish between the university areas and other areas. First of all, you know. most people that are that are gonna violate this or that are in violation, or violating it already. Let's just be realistic right, and and if you all you have to do is just what one of my one of my bike routes. I go through the hill, and you you can't even tell who lives where half the time right? That's just part of the reality of it. That's that's and and Enforcement would be really daunting there anyhow. And so I think, having some sort of more restrictive distinction there. Isn't going to do anything except probably exacerbate the problem and and memorialize the illegality like, Somehow, it's it's not okay. I do applaud increase in the number, and I support increasing the number. Because then I think this is part of what you mentioned, which that is as important to me is that you know

[61:01] the the presumption that there is so much less impact because someone's a because there's a family as opposed to people living together, and and some other sort of collective unit, I think, is is really tenuous the best. And you know I have several teenagers in my house, and they're highly impactful, right? And they don't. I'd like to be able to victim if I could. So just let me know if we can come up with that. But you know I I think you know the reality is. It's a reflection of the fact that this is today's day and age, and there's a lot of different circumstances. J: you just brought up, it could be, you know, helping helping you, providing services for elder people who you Co-occupy, with whatever it may be, there's a lot of circumstances where we don't need to go on that old notion of just a family that said I also wouldn't take her with family. I had a meeting yesterday with the client with 11 kids.

[62:00] So you know, I mean, we don't want to tinker with family, and then have some. It ill fated consequences, either. So that's just another caution thing. There, all that said to me. This is what I would hope this reform could do, and this is what I think it may do so. I I I spent many, many years litigating code enforcement stuff for county government, including this whole definition of a family thing, and we had it too, and the and the reality is. and no matter how robust you try to make your your enforcement division, and any local government, you know you can only do so much. It usually ends up, being reactionary and not proactive. Right? So from that from that aspect addressing the impacts is is a good approach. That said, I think, relying on code enforcement. To resolve things is always really challenging, because you're always going to run into that issue. And and so you have to look at where the audiences and stuff. And so for me. The really important thing, as far as I can see with this reform is that there's probably a lot of people I just. I keep getting the vision of my head of like because I because my my friend's daughter was one she teaches, and she teaches, and

[63:17] a school in the city of Boulder, and she was living in the city of Boulder. She's living a whole bunch of people, and they ended up moving out to Broomfield or Westminster, or something now, and she's one of the many, many that commute in every day and stuff right? And and people who are who are sitting there who want to try to comply or want to try to figure out how to comply. We're trying to do everything above level. If if this makes it a little easier for them to figure out a way to make it affordable for them to live and work in boulder, then it's a worthwhile venture, even if it doesn't it. It's not. It's not nothing that we do. Frankly, is the panacea that's going to resolve everything right. And so, you know, I I know there are some suggestions from the Plan Commission, you know. Just go back and really look at more stuff of inclusionary zoning, whatever you you have to there, there's no tool that you shouldn't be exploring as a as a potential variable in a very complex equation. And so from that perspective, if changing the occupancy, says the people who are trying to look to

[64:21] comply with the law, or people who are trying to look to bring in roommates because they have a house, and and they're trying to make it more affordable, or whatever else it may be that it makes it more flexible for him. And frankly, the other part with landlords is that a lot of landlords right now will rely on and say, oh, it's the city's fault, you know. You can't have any more people in here. It's the city's fault. so that we can have something a little bit more flexible, so that we, what you're going to get are more adult co- that figure out a way to live together because they rather live and work in boulder than live in Westminster and drive in a boulder for work, and then driving the boulder for recreation, and then driving the boulder a third time to go out for dinner or whatever it is. So from that perspective it has a lot of merit, and and I think the vote

[65:10] and some of the discussion we had regarding the the newest position that a lot of candidates for council were taken underscores. The fact that this has a lot of merit and and the approach that you're taking, I believe, is the right trajectory at this point in time. Don't Mess, with all those other things. Just fix the number right? Just a number provide a little, a little relief valve, so that if we can have something that's a little more practical or viable, we can. So that's why I thought I like it. You know it's it's gonna be challenging, but I I think it's a worthwhile venture. Thank you, Danny. So if the goal is to create more units and create more affordability. I don't know how much this is a needle over. and and I don't really feel strongly about whether it's

[66:03] 4 or 5 like in my mind. This really isn't a priority on what we should focus on right like. If we want more affordability, I think, need restriction is very effective if we think there's too many empty bedrooms. I i'm totally guilty of it right like I live in a house. I raise 2 kids. Those bedrooms are now empty, and I would love to downsize. But I don't feel like there's enough smaller alternatives of like 1,800 or 1,200 square foot house. So like again, if the goal is to make more bedrooms usable, the way to make senior, or, you know. middle aged people downsize would be if there were more alternatives. And if, in fact, what we're looking for is to create more collaborative housing, then I think maybe providing more than 10

[67:00] co-ops per year or more group homes might be another way of using some of those bedrooms. So I I don't disagree with what Danny says like. you know, maybe this is the right thing to do to just change the number by one. But i'd like to see us focus on something else like I just don't feel like this is a needle over. Well, you know, at some point we'll make it a recommendation. You know we're not developing this policy the way we do it it is that I certainly appreciate your comments. Anybody else. I have another comment that I want to let others go first. Okay. Nope. He made a great point, and we talked about it again again that we got to use it all the and this is one of them. So if it's, if it's a good tool, we should. instead of making recommendation at it in a future meeting. But the other thing that occurred to me that could be a of that account is central for young professionals to aggregate in a single family home. share our kitchen, have their own bedrooms, and have a place to live in Boulder, and you know I lived in DC. Long ago, and didn't make much money, and

[68:14] all of our friends live in the big old rambling houses with 5 or 6 bedrooms, should be filled up with non professionals. and nobody cared because we weren't in college. We all had jobs here they got in the morning we did governing. There's a house like that in my neighborhood, but for people under 30 are living in who would not be living in. They weren't sharing that. And right now the potential downside there is people could be, you know, taking or a single family for still. But the idea that you could be providing more home for the young professionals who are now, or that commuter crowd and really want to be in boulder is is kind of appealing, and what we are doing that is increasing so. or or any kind of worker, I and any kind of work that I can give me beacements. They could be tech people.

[69:02] I don't care what they are like. They should be 60 years. Do we have anything else on this. Are we ready to move on? Are you looking for anything else for us? Carl is a great presentation. Thank you. That's great. hey? I I I just want to kind of say one small thing. I mean, I believe that this is true, that the the the rate limiting thing about a lot is not the number of permits that they issue each year. I don't think we've come anywhere close to Maxing out the number of pictures permits issued every year that I think it would be amazing if we we got to where we were issuing 10 per year. But but to address your your the notion of co-ops that you brought up. There are. There are people in town, I I know, one in particular who had a co-OP. It was just 4 or 5 people

[70:01] and the the the regulate, the the regulatory burden of the sunset payments, and the application made it very difficult, and that and that all that, I believe. And so. if if it was just possible to have 4 or 5 people in a house, you know it, it's it's like like the the inertia and the difficulty of getting a 5% co-OP going under the current ordinance is just kind of a non-starter and so the ability to just circumvent that with by by, like 5 people make that a lot easier for for that kind of arrangement. So would that suggest that maybe another solution is to make it easier to have a go up. Oh, I' i'm out for that one other point that I wanted to make, too. just in in terms of of what the impacts of this may be. If we increase occupancy and stuff, we gotta remember that there's

[71:05] 2 other governors, so to speak, in place that that also help curtail abuses. One's going to be association covenants, particularly in multi-family but even in single family, you know there's there's enough h always out there where they're going to have their own restrictions, and they're, you know, usually more heartily enforced. And then the second part of that is the leases themselves. And so there are a lot of things that are in place. So I think, having a little more flexibility from the city, can really help with that. And I just say that you know the whole notion of I don't think this is to create more units is to make rentals viable for other people like I was saying, who, you know, want to go according to whatever whatever the laws or restrictions are, which is probably not a bunch of 19 year olds on the hill. But but what but also, you know, want to try to figure out a way to make things most affordable, and that's why it's a missing link. It's certainly not to replace whatever we do with units and and deep restricted units, and everything like that, and smaller units. So I absolutely agree with you there, but it's it's just another

[72:13] aspect that I think can be helpful. Thanks, Danny. Again. This is not a policy for have to research, and you know the work that work has been done unless we feel like it needs to be amended somehow, and I found this very persuasive night. But when we get to the point of voting the recommendation, I would certainly give that i'm serious. But that' be in the future meeting, and thank you for all the great information. Oh, Carl. Okay, move on the item B under the M. 6. It's the Junction Multi Board working group. This is a voting item. I will you that 2 focus for the team that's very good. They invite.

[73:07] and I would be happy to do this if someone else wants to nominate somebody else. So we need to more explanation of what this is before we get get to that point. Well, i'm. I'm happy to go into more detail if anyone wants to know, but it sounds like Michael's already volunteered. Well, I think they should have cracked out it. It it sounds like a good thing to do, but I don't know everyone knows what it is. You guys want to learn. You're more about older Junction phase 2. So you're familiar with the the transit village area plan, so that area 30 per about a month. Railroad tracks phase one. It's mostly complete, almost entirely complete. And so City Council identified a council priority for phase 2, which is the other side of the road tracks all the way to

[74:07] what else? So there is a planning effort under way to basically reevaluate the area plan. I want to consider minor changes. I don't think they're going to be huge changes. I think it's more. What's the right mix between industrial and housing. Are there any changes we want to make to the future transportation network? So things like that there' been several of the events. So that's the project Onset of this multi board working group is that the city has received feedback from the different various boards up to 30. Now they don't always feel like they're connected with the city is doing as well as connected into city council and their decision making process.

[75:02] So this is kind of an experiment. So the idea is there will be one representative from select boards to serve on this group that will basically track the promises as it goes along. and be able to advise staff, and then eventually potentially city council. And then it helps to. So like that representative will be able to speak with with more authority and history as those projects come to the various boards as well. It's a pretty good description. It's good to me. so is that sort of the equivalent of what you're doing with the airport. the liaison to the airport, and you need our liaison to. I think this: I think this multi board working group is going to consist entirely of board members. Correct? That's the only different. It's the same concept. But this is a purely just the different city advisory ports.

[76:00] because there are other advisory groups as well. Michael's not another advisory group. All the Oh, it's great. I'm. Okay with you volunteering. Are we supposed to nominate you or you. I've never done it before. I wouldn't do it. There he is doing it. I know I know i'm, i'm not any, Michael. No, i'm not. On second do we have a second by claim. Thank you all in favor. I I've stained passenger for nothing. and I will be happy to do this. Thank you. I didn't see. This is kind of a big one.

[77:01] I'm gonna preface some comments before turning over to Phillip and also what we. Fortunately we have Laura here. They're both on the community working group as Li a lines for the for I have been talking to a lot of people about the future of the airport. especially in the last month, and I'm getting wildly different opinions from people I really respect. And you knowledgeable about. you know. Do we really need to weigh on this or not? There's one lack of thought is that the having option the Airport master Plan is going to get full consideration to be explored. and you need to worry about it. The other is No, but that's not happening. The aviation people are kind of having their way with the process. and having advocates need to push. So I I think we should make some kind of a recommendation. I will get that. I would love to turn it over to both, and our could chime in to get an update of what's going on in

[78:09] your take on this process. Yeah. So thank you. The so i'm participating in this community working group, which is mostly members of the community who have applied, and they they have a huge. a huge pool of applicants that came in. I think over a 100 people, and I think there's maybe 30 people in the Cwg. Something like that. So Cwg's Community working group. We've had 2 official meetings. There's been a couple of There was a lunch at the airport. There was a tour at the airport. I got to go on the on the tour. That was very interesting. There has been an open house. There was an open house in North

[79:01] Northeast boulder a couple of weeks ago earlier this month, and that they had stations with lots of poster boards and data and places where you could, you know, write down on a posted note, and. you know, put ideas up. Make your voice heard, and the one of the conversations I had was with 3 students who are training to become pilots to high school kids and a graduate student, and they met each other there and at the at the training school, and had lots of positive things to say about about their experience learning how to fly. And of course there's lots of people showing up that are related somehow to the airport, you know, pilots and yeah, the land owners. And

[80:01] one of the big differences between the first meeting and the second meeting is that they started sort of trying to created some scaffolding for how to create scenarios for what to do about the airport. So the the the kind of the big picture things are, Leave the airport kind of as it is, make the best possible small airport for bowler that we possibly can have some kind of hybrid solution that has a housing solution as a as a, as a, as a fourth option. And what's interesting is that this whole community working group process priest? Is is it meant to precede an update to the airport master Plan this fall so or later this year, sometime. and so from the airports perspective. This is a big moment to, you know, Update the plan and submit it to the Faa. And

[81:08] one of the things that Laura Kaplan in particular has been, you know, Raising attention to is that in the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan there's a section in there that says we will evaluate the airport ahead of the next ahead of the next. We're master Plan. Yeah, I think that's correct. I I probably can't go. It. It says at the at the time of the next airport master plan, update it doesn't, say, before or after. It says At the time in the next airport, master plan, the city will work with the community to reassess the potential for housing and neighborhood serving uses at a portion of the airport. That's what it says in the Molder Valley. Comprehensive plan. The fine portion. It does not define portion. And so yeah, so so some housing policy advocates are ha pro, you know, kind of pro housing

[82:07] folks in that have been concerned about the lack of discussion about housing at the At the as part of this community working through process. So planning board, wrote a letter and moved it to city council. That, said, please. you know, be more explicit about considering a housing option as part of the the discernment process. The communication feedback process from the community. So yeah, so there's there's lots of ways of thinking about this. You know. A. As a as a as housing advisory board. One of the things that we've committed to focusing on is missing. And so the notion that the Eric or could be dec commissioned and repurposed for a housing neighborhood is.

[83:05] It's exciting to a lot of people that are interested in and addressing how to do that? One of the things that well that we've, Laura and I have discussed has to do with the the this process it does not seem to be steering towards. Let's give the community some kind of vision of what that housing might look like. And at the last community working group there was actually people who said things like oh, well, maybe it'll get sold to the highest bidder, and they'll They'll go mansions up there. And and in the next spread someone else said, oh, it'll it'll be just all affordable housing and the study show that that's not a good idea, you know. Create schedules. It's one kind or another. and so and it's You can say whatever you want to about what kind of housing might show up there, if if that's what it was used for, because there's no

[84:05] it's, it's a it's a blank slate at this point. So one of the one of the things that I would like from have is is just well. So there's there's kind of 2 things. One is earlier in the month we talked about just a you know, showing support for planning for it's letter that they had that they had given to city council. We could just sort of pile on and say, hey, we also support that. The the A letter that I had proposed to do they could send around by the way. but I no, I I said you were going to send it to him. That's a good. I don't think I saw a letter from Philip. Okay, the playing board letter. Do you have it?

[85:04] And I could talk about it if you want. I can bring up the the the kind of augmented letter I I I sent as a proposed. I just realized I didn't remember seeing it in the in the packet. but the thing that I would like to add in addition to support, for the the planning board is is to just encourage this process. The people in charge of this process to identify housing policy. People that would be willing to, you know, in some Broadway represent it. It's it's hard. It's hard to PIN this down, but you know you have at least one vision of what housing could look like at the airport myself. Personally, I I wouldn't mind if it look like something like a holiday neighborhood, where, you know there's compact kind of thing I would like to see. I kind of take it to the next level, where there's not.

[86:01] It's not choked with cars that way. I perceive. Holidays seems to be very par centric, and I like to see cars have move to the the periphery and have more multiple There it is. But that's just, you know. That's just me talking so, anyways. Those are kind of the 2 things one is to is to lend support to, to planning for it to to, as a way of of saying. You know we support consideration of how to think of your part during this process, and then kind of adding on to that. have have some kind of effort that that says, If we're going to do housing, let's let's. but at least have some rough outline of of a vision of what it would be rather than people just saying, oh, it's going to be mansions, or it's going to be just all rows of apartment buildings or skyscrapers, or whatever people want to pretend like it might be. So.

[87:03] Thank you, Phil. How are you? What would you add to that? Oh, gosh! I guess I would wanna ask if folks have any questions about the airport and the housing connection, and what planning Boards discussions were about that. I think one thing that you might have mentioned, Philip, that I don't know if was discussed. I think one of the reasons why there's so much focus on this piece of property. People ask, Why are you picking on the airport? Why do you want to be commissioned. The airport is valuable, and they have great points that there are things that happen at the airport. There's some emergency uses. There's some scientific uses. There's pilot training. It is a small airport. It is only private planes. There's no commercial uses, but there are, of course it has value to the community. So why would we want to decommission it? And I think the reason why people are so excited about this idea, or at least some people are, is that it is proper. It's 179 acres at the city owns. Now there are complications with the faa and Grant assurances. Grant money that has been taken and might have to be repaid. There is land that was purchased with faa money and getting out of that entanglement with the Faa would be quite a process. It would not be easy. So why would the city want to do that?

[88:13] So this 179 acres the opportunity that it represents is, and you might have heard Mark Wallet talk about this because the city owns it. It. It provides a way to give, get land to developers that can develop that kind of middle income affordable housing that is so hard to develop in boulder, because the land is so expensive, right? And so this would act as a bit of a subsidy to the developer will sell you the land for super cheap. But you have to, you know. Sign on the dotted line that you're gonna give us permanently affordable deed, restricted middle income, those kind of downsizable units that you were talking about, Karn for various populations that currently are moving out of boulder. We have this, like Barbell shaped curve, as you know, where you do pretty well with this subsidize low income housing because we get the lie tech funds. Some people don't like that, but it does provide a way to

[89:03] amplify and magnify the city's affordable housing, funding right? So we do pretty well, providing the low income affordable housing through our inclusionary housing program. We do great at housing for the wealthy. There's plenty of that, and we don't have to worry about that. But the middle is following out, and people are leaving. Boulder families are leaving Boulder School enrollment all the things that you folks know about why it's so important that we support the missing middle housing types, the duplexes, the triplex is the town homes and the permanent affordable housing. And so this is one of the major opportunities in bolt or the other large chunk of land that the city owns is in the planning reserve which has its own set of complications. I don't know. If you folks know about the planning reserve. correct me if i'm wrong. But, as I understand the basic outlines, is it's like 500 acres, but most of that is privately on, and if the city annexes it, of course there are things we can do with zoning to try to encourage the kinds of housing we want.

[90:03] We don't own most of the planning reserve. There is a chunk of about 190 acres. I believe that we own that is, was purchased with Park Bond funding, and so for a long time there was an expectation that it would become a city park. There might be some negotiation possible there with maybe some of it could be housing. Some of it could be Parkland. but it's not a sure thing. It's down the road. We're doing an infrastructure study to see. Please stop me and interject it through. So we're doing an infrastructure study now to kind of pave the way for annexing rezoning, talking about the Plan Reserve, but it's not a sure thing. And as Phillip described with the airport we're kind of at an inflection point where either this new Airport master plan they want to do it's gonna result in rebuilding the airport Millions of dollars in investment. The airport is currently pretty. Run down. The runways need repaving, and maybe not even just like filling the cracks, but like completely regrading and repaving it a lot of the pavement there needs that. Buildings need to be rebuilt buildings that are 40, 50 years old. There's no tower at this airport, not there's no air traffic control tower. Some people want to add a tower, so there's a lot of investment that could happen and result in a very shiny New airport.

[91:15] and maybe that's what we want, right? That's the conversation we need to have. We want to go down the path of doing the Airport master plan with massive potential investment in the airport rebuilding it. or we want to go in the direction of doing a housing plan and thinking about trying to decommission the airport either way, you know. There's going to be probably some changes at the airport. It could be no change. There's some people who would like to see it just kinda so the way it is, and be sort of a small, very local, No commercial air flight. Some people would like to see a taxi service to Denver right like. There's a lot of things that could happen at the airport. We are kind of this crossroads of. We want to rebuild it. or we want to think about decommissioning it; and if we do rebuild it, that's going to kick the can for probably a couple of generations before we could think about decommissioning it again. So that's why I think it's important to take it up now.

[92:03] and very grateful that the city has initiated this public conversation so that people can think about the options and weigh in. And so there will be additional public inputs sought through this process. Once the staff and consultant team has developed that set of scenarios. And so I think the crux point that planning board weighed in on was that it was not clear whether there would actually be a housing scenario developed. even though there it says in the BBC. That the city would work with the community to evaluate that staff reviewing that is, out of scope, and they had good reasons for that, and I don't want to go into all the reasons. I think it's largely had to do with the fact that city council at their last retreat did not prioritize looking at housing at the airport. and so Staff are really trying to keep the scope small. and and I was one of the people who really kicked back on that and said, Listen, we have to do this now we we can't kick this, can, because we're not just kicking it. 6 months or a year. It's the next council. We're potentially kicking it for a couple of generations so very grateful that Staff seem to have responded to that

[93:09] input from planning board and from others. It's not just planning board, certainly. and staff have said. the field is open, nothing is off the table. And at that last community working group meeting they did show a. So we're gonna a mock up, or a framework for what a scenario could look like it wasn't they weren't promising anything but on that mock up they did show airport uses, and residential. which seems fairly promising kind of a hybrid scenario. but it wasn't a promise. So if had wanted to weigh in and say, Yes, we think it's a good idea that housing and scenarios should be considered in this process. I think that certainly would not be inappropriate. If you feel like you don't need to weigh in, because Staff have clarified enough that that is possible. That's also your prerogative.

[94:00] I'm sorry i'm talking a long time. Fantastic information. I have a quick question, and then open for comments, and we'll discuss some if it were to be a shared use. Did they do how that pie might be split like. I have no idea what Staffs thought is about that I know they were just showing like just trying to help the community working or visualize. What would a scenario look like, and what level of detail would it be? They weren't promising anything and saying, this will be one of the scenarios, or if it is split here's what it looks like. I think that will come in June is when we will get a peek at what they're thinking in terms of what the scenarios will actually be rather than just kind of a skeleton of a scenario. That's, I think that's I think that's the timeline is we'll get a look at it, and we'll have. We'll get to help finance any right.

[95:00] Not Not only did you not talk to too much at all. I think you did such a good job that you actually persuaded me. So i'm just standing now the full scope of things. I I had some reticence to kind of muck with that whole thing. But I but I think the the the thing that you just brought up that that's really huge. Here is the fact that first of all this is, you know the the windows here. It's not like the windows here, and that, you know. Let's let's hit it in a couple of years. That's that's a a crucial consideration. I think the other consideration is the fact that how can you not have that as part of the discussion when you're talking about the need to do upgrades if we don't do anything right and and if you're going to talk about having having to get thing from the Faa in terms of early payback on loans, whatever else it may be, loss of certain certain subsidies. Well, then. I I think the the notion of what the alternatives are. What could what could you know happen over there? Certainly help feed the conversation on that decision, and whether or not. They want to take on that that liability. And if there's liability one way or another, that's something for them, Consider so i'm. I'm

[96:13] very, very comfortable with just the up weighing in and and saying, You know we understand. There's a lot of detail, and there's a lot of complexity here, but we think it's a great idea to consider. You know what the housing options are at this property, because that's a unique opportunity while you're making that decision. So great. Job. Thank you. I understand it a lot more now than I did 7 min ago, and and I feel comfortable weighing in ever so typically so. Thank you, Laura and Philip like that. Your summaries were great, and I, too, have learned a lot in the last 7 min or so. I definitely think we should provide an opinion. cause this does feel like it's a needle over opportunity. I do have a couple of questions get to me just some questions, so so the planning reserve is that the same as like area one where it's really like the city and the county making a decision? Or am I getting my parcels mixed up

[97:16] a little bit. So area one is what's in the city now in the city limits Area 2 is the area that's eligible for annexation area 3 has different components, but the main one is the planning, and and that's a county city county. Okay, so it's in the county. It's not yeah in the city, and it's not eligible for annexation, because it doesn't have infrastructure. But it's been designated by the county and the city as Okay. if the city and the planning were decide to explore this opportunity. Then are they going to be looking at things like I read the making calls

[98:07] letter that talks about like a 125 people are using this airport, and there's an airport in Longmont and one in Westminster. Right? So are there other alternatives, and so there will be a whole bunch of analysis, not just about what housing may or may not be there. Correct. I am very. I have been encouraging, and i'm very hopeful that this process will explore fully the pros and cons like Phillips, that no change alternative. The what's the best airport we could build. If we were going to build an airport, what would that look like if we did decommission it completely and build housing? What's the potential there? And if we did a hybrid, what would that look like? And i'm hopeful that it will explore things like like you were talking about there of, you know if there's no airport here. Then where would the emergency services go? And there there are 6 other airports that are within, I think, 40 miles of boulder. We're one of the most airport rich

[99:05] areas in the country. But that said, you still have to think about like the scientific research uses that are done at the airport. Where would they go Like a lot of it is done by me on the National Ecological Observatory network, and they have 80 sites around the country, but I don't know how many of those sites have planes or plane capacity. so i'm hopeful that we would get to that level of detail. I don't know that might be out of scope, but we can at least have a robust discussion of what is there? What's good about it? What would we lose if we don't have an airport? What is the housing opportunity? What's the opportunity cost if we don't do that like Danny was talking about? What is the Faa entanglement? What is it cost to decommission? We should at least have a rough idea of that. And I know that our last meeting at the community working group. We did talk about. What are some of the criteria by which you could judge these different scenarios. and one of them was like economic impact, you know, like these, who is using the airport, what businesses are there, and what funding comes in from that. And if we had housing in neighborhood serving uses. How many businesses per acre, and what kind of taxes would we get from that? And how many people would be employed for Susan boy. Now

[100:08] there's a lot of different criteria that they could look at, and I think it's up to staff right now to kind of s through those, and try to find the ones that are going to be the big distinguishers and help us to kind of think about that decision. Does that make sense? Yeah, absolutely. The question is, Can all that analysis be done by the deadline of When was it this fall? It Won't. All be done, and certainly there will everybody will be able to nit, pick it and say, Well, you shouldn't look at this, you shouldn't ask that question. But hopefully, we'll at least have enough information that the community can have a good conversation and give some information to city council, so they can sort of say, which direction do we want to go if we want to go into the airport, master Plan, or we want to hold off on that and look further into this housing option. So I don't think it's meant to be the end. It'll be all. Certainly it's not gonna like staff have been very, very clear. This is not going to result in a housing plan where we have streets laid out, an infrastructure, and traffic surveys, and all of that. It's not going to not going to be done to that level. But it should at least be enough of an indicator, so that city council can make a good informed judgment of which path to pursue.

[101:08] That's my hope. That's what I'm trying to help support. How are you feeling about the purchase? This is being. It is an embedded by Consultant Kimberly Horn. How do you feel about their work? Primarily? No, it is transportation planners and engineers. I I feel like i'm talking too much, and so I think we're weighing on, that is, I couldn't talk about it because he's the same. I've got a little distracted by some. I don't feel like the consultant is doing a good job on this. So you feel like they're more weighted, or one scenario when it goes to the other. Given that they're primarily, I think a. Tr. Well, it's an interesting industry that's going on between city staff and 2 sets of consulting companies. That and I don't. I don't quite. I I sometimes forget who's in which, you know, and I think I think trying to.

[102:10] Well, I was. I was talking with one of the consultants who was saying that at a previous job that they were doing they had a very specific proposal that had maps and visuals, and, like, you know, they were trying to get community engagement on a on like something very concrete. And this is not like that. This is trying to get a community to start talking about the airport, and in, you know, so like, get a community conversation. So they they kind of like They're kind of like trying to come in, you know, soft, I think, in in and try to like, you know, lead this conversation. But have it come up sort of organically from the participants? It it's it's been kind of this weird, balancing act, I think, for them.

[103:01] and it feels, I think, at the end of the day there's a lot of people that are showing up, feeling a little confused about like what what's going on here, you know, like, what is this really all about? And I think everyone like. And there's been some people who have spoken up that are explicit like this is all just a ruse to like decommissioned the airport and build housing here, you know, and or vice versa. Yeah, yeah. And and to be clear, there's a there's a kind of a third party that's like bigger than those 2 concerns which is the neighbors around the airport, who are sick to death of all the noise. So that's that's a big contingent that's also showing up, and whether they're for housing, or whether they're for a better airport. It's kind of unclear. I think they're all they're all for less noise, and the touching goes from the from the training schools, you know. And so it's complicated. Mil, you of of different folks showing up. And yeah I the consultants knocking it out of the park. I I don't think so. But, on the other hand, I think what they're face they're facing is kind of an an interesting problem. Definition. You know that that they've been touched with.

[104:17] If they wants to be the neighbors, they show up to the farmers market every Saturday is. Tell you all about it. The neighbors of the other comments. I have a few that they're pretty good. can I? Can I bring up the thing i'm distracted about? Well, I realized that we don't we haven't all seen the letter from Planning Board, or my that augmentation of it should. Should we try to send that around and and examine it tonight. so that we could, but on it, because it feels like, if we wait until in the May, it's kind of late, so I think we should. And there's also a possibility. We could draft something simpler, not multi paragraph, and just a

[105:01] hey? Keep working on the table. So my yeah, My, My Our post letter was one paragraph so, and the I remember how long the planning Gordon. I think it's a couple of pages. Yeah, and because it's very detailed, and we gave some options for city council. We we basically because at that time what I was hearing from multiple folks was that housing would not be directly considered in the scenarios, and, if the scenario said would end at decommissioned the airport with no description of what would come after, and that that would be another process. That would be an add on. And I do think that staff have have changed. They have since said housing can be included in the scenario set. So the letter that planning board since happened before that change. So if it if we have moved several steps down the road. so I would I I would think it would be the probably overkill to just resend the planning Board's letter with Hub had so sampled approval as you kind of move past that.

[106:05] if you want to in another way way in or or draft something of your own. we could. We all get Phillips letter in front of us, because it's a lot more directed stuff, and the the Plan Board letter is is much more meaty, and I I wouldn't want to just kind of put our our name on their letter. So I think just something up there, because I didn't. I just wanted to have their advisory board because I didn't bring my just long ago. Yeah. So if it's possible. Yeah, I I know it's really short. J: If you could put it up on the screen or something. Yeah, let me do that that way. Oh, I just got. I just the email just came in from Philip to have we done this before, when we edit in. Is that is there precedent for this, and there's no reason we can't do it. So I think we can take 5 min thinking about it. I have some other thoughts.

[107:02] I I did send around planning for it's letter to that just about 5 min ago, but it is very long. So it looks like Philip, you kind of incorporated by reference. So I've been doing a little bit of behind the scenes we can contacting some of our elected officials and saying what you think should have way into this. And the answer I got was, Yes, that would be useful. But nothing's gonna happen because Staff has no capacity to initiated a housing plan, and I don't have time to manage a consulting. That's something that would be the vision. The housing what it looks like with every. and I think something we need to push on because it has lower pointed out than others. This is our our our mission in have, and we've decided that this can be housing.

[108:01] This is the place to do it. And when you look at what it's a different scale when you're looking at what Denver do with Stapleton just, you know, called Central part. They created missing middle housing for like 30 or 40,000 people. We're able to get Some Keep the people in the city. It's in the suburbs. It's a healthy school district with all the things that we're driving to. Do you know it's a perfect project, but it's really a series of neighborhoods, and I see the potential at scale. you know, whatever you want to call it. It's 7 holidays. It's. you know, 12 Alpine balsams. It could be. It's significant that it's assuming the whole site, which is that's a good reception at this moment. and I don't predispose the hosting at the airport, because there may be persuasive, since you know we need to hear those.

[109:01] too, because it seems like this is a good time to say. We strongly support examining housing options at the airport, and we don't want that to be overlooked. So now we got the letter. So just to preface this, this was this was written 3 weeks ago or so, and I I feel really done that I didn't get this circulated at this kind of me fumbling on this, but it kind of it like it's. Laura said. You know there's this: the the time has moved forward, and we're not quite in the same situation that we were 3 4 weeks ago, but a few minutes. which you have to add enough to be drafting something. and we're up to date as we speak.

[110:27] Yeah. it's sort of noticeably missing a reference to holiday, for example. right what you call it an upstate at the airport match to play. Philip actually really liked your suggestion. Using holiday is the example. Yeah, I think you're right there and stuff doesn't have the capacity to come up with the housing, plans it out to the airport. But if you could take an example and superimposed it, and that would give you a basic.

[111:11] and that could give people a framework and a visual. So it's not They're not thinking it's like mentions, or it's a greeny green. I just. I I want to promote whenever I can, because I it's it's it's a real place that exists, and it's not. It's not hey. A historical accident of having been developed before cars burn things. It it's a new separate that was still 20 years ago, and it's it's a really special place that a lot of people out of out of visit and walk through and imagine their families living there, you know. So

[112:00] one of the things that's kind of most distinctive about it is that the parking is in one or 2 parking garages for the whole whole place. So you, you, you walk and like through there, I mean there's some access for delivery and emergency services. But but the advantage of holiday is that everybody knows what holiday looks like. and that's what I I absolutely agree, and I like holiday, and I have what I you know, but kind of say I do it for myself. I'd be little this fine if we just built the same thing over there, you know, without kind of a bit more consideration. right it and mixed use in particular. But I think that's what you're trying to make, too, is we're not. But i'm just going to recreate something else that it has to be unique to this area. Yeah, see I like. I I like that point, Philip. I I appreciate the the the the notion of of aspiring is something better and and and

[113:04] absolutely support that notion, but I to to me, if it's more tangible. So it's something that people can realize we're trying to point directly to the kind of concept we're talking about, and then just really emphasize the whole notion of an integrated and multi-use neighborhood etc., because I think that's important. But what I don't want to be lost in translation. That I feel is really important from the planning Board's letter. and that, you know, Laura was talking about here at a Michael, you were just kind of tapping on. This, too, is the notion that look that heard that that recommendation number one doesn't just say, come up with the least one housing option, it says, come up with one housing option, and come up with one hybrid option, and it may be that the hybrid option particularly given. You know we don't know what the Faa implications are, but maybe there's some way where we can thread that needle where we could have some housing there, and not have faa implications as long as we still have some sort of airport. I don't know, but the whole notion of saying really what we want to say, Here is

[114:06] start talking about housing and start talking about hybrid and start talking about a model of a mixed use neighborhood that really meets the vision of what we're all we all have been, you know, talking about here, and aspiring to, and having a more concrete example that that I feel very comfortable with I I I think it. I think it has a lot more effect of saying this is what we're what we're you know, pointing towards. Well, it's not like I RAM on and on a thoughtful box, and we could mention both. That's my good standard. I my sense about it. I'm. So V. A. You

[115:03] the a. U. E. A. N. Oh, okay, All right. I started looking at the transcript. Okay. So this is on the fly, but I can send this around to. I have a I have. The Advisory Board appreciates flexibility space by the airport Community working group. Cvg: this is examines an update of the Boulder Airport Master Plan. I had strongly recommended housing options to be fully examined with other scenarios for the future of the Airport Central to create much needed missing little housing on up to 180 acres owned by the city that could literally present a once in a generation opportunity. The 3 purposes I could could fit 8 to literally fit. I used to worry twice right could literally fit 8 holiday neighborhoods, you know. One we're going project widely acknowledged. We're providing the integrated multi-use

[116:08] community, including all kinds of housing especially for sale middle income. How is it? And hybrid option that would allow continued airport uses represents another potentially positive outcome. I've strongly recommend having options, and both of report be blah blah blah I got. I mean it's it kind of on the right. Correct. I like it. We should. We just replace it with what's out there, and it interacted with vice versa. Use this. Yeah, You put. Put that up. I want to take like a 5 min break and get more food or not for some of it. Hey! 5 min! Break him. You'll get more food. It's really good food. Thank you, Brid. So, Laura, what's your next problem?

[117:03] What's my like? Are you an architect? By no, I am a i'm a facilitated. So my master's degree is in conflict, analysis, and resolution. since the early 2,008. And so it's really interesting for me to be a stakeholder in a process like this, because I'm usually one of the facilitation team. and and I very much appreciate the challenge for staff of doing this like this, you know, like it is complicated. You know that that whole metaphor of building the airplane flying it. You know they're trying to interpret direction from city council and from what the airport needs, and then the pressures that they're getting related to this housing question. That's in the Bbcp. And they're trying to juggle, and then, you know, the neighbors at the airport it's Philip mentioned, have their own desire to work on the noise issues, and all that issues and the safety issues. And some of the pilots also are like, yeah, let's talk about that, because that lets us, you know, keep the airport and make people happy. So there's a lot of pressures on the people who are designing this and running it, and I really

[118:10] feel that very keenly. So I don't know. I'm assuming that making calls data was accurate. But I haven't seen his letter. I've probably seen it, but I've seen a bunch of us that you remind me he did. Well, he basically said, that there's like a 125 users of the airport I don't know, like the the cost benefit of like. But is it a 180 acres that's used by a 125 people? Versus what this could be come from? Was? It's much greater community benefit. So I don't know that that 125 people is anything more than just like an informal statement by airport staff of who are the regular users. It absolutely has more uses beyond just 125 people, but in terms of like how the recreational pilots are that are flying in and out

[119:04] on a regular basis, but it's not just our local people that use it. People from other airports can use it as well, with no landing piece. Right? So, for example, there are pilots that will come and pilot trainers. It'll come from other airports and use our airport as place to practice for their students. So there definitely are more than 125 people using this, but in terms of people who own planes and regularly use it and keep their and then I had no idea about all the alternative uses the like. Let you know. studies or yeah, there's there definitely are scientific research that is airport. They're definitely like during the 2,013 flood. The airport was the major, like I don't know if Command Center is the right term. But it was the place where the evacuation happened. Out of there were like 1,200 people that were evacuated to our airport. Now what they have used absolutely. I'm sure those people would have gotten evacuated one way or the other. Maybe you didn't exist, but it certainly was a a place that was used for that purpose, and to good purpose, you know, to could use so the closest airports. Would that be like Longmont and Jefferson county. There's commercial flights to like. You can buy a ticket

[120:27] from from field to cancun, I think. Yeah, a friend of mine is going to. She's like I was going to go to Denver, but now I'm going to fly to Mexico from her Costa Rica. Yeah, it's good for. Have you done it? If you know. I know some people in from the Vegas. Oh, yeah, it's really easy. I guess it like a United American, or like little little airlines. I've never heard of it. I mean, I don't know it's kind of what spirit started as I can remember it's called it's That sounds good.

[121:01] But yeah, it's very small reach on, and I can't remember what the name of it was, she told me. But yeah. certainly would save like an hour in the survey. Yeah, yeah, yeah. In a second we should have breaks mode. And this is nice. Normally, we just right through. Where is the food from? It's good. It's a flower traffic. Oh, yeah, yeah. Are you in charge like Who gets to decide? I know Terry last time. Oh, do we do, pizza every time. That's that's by where i'm at that, and with enough options for our dietary that I need, I've always been suggestions. If you have restaurants that you

[122:02] you guys are making me jealous. I haven't even well, for that. Really good. Thank you so much. Hey? Here it comes. It's to you, and you can you get enough on the screen, but it will. Okay. Some commissions that you are so like this and vendor Boulder and the airport. Yeah. So the airport thing is is part of my role I have. So we had a little election like we had from Michael just a bit ago about 2 months ago. and I volunteered, and people like go for it for something else. You can just send it to me.

[123:01] That's not it. Okay, just that. Have you seen it yet?

[124:04] See it. I'm still coming. I just sent it to Okay. That makes sense. Oh. it's a slow. I just do. Hey? We reconvene and take a look at this up on the screen. That's good morning. It to yourselves. Want to make suggestions for changes. We can incorporate those, and then someone wants to make a motion for a vote on this. We can do that. Can I just offer one factual thing.

[125:01] or you? Wanna You want to extract your exact you and half the country. So the first paragraph, the Community working group is not examining the the master plan. The Community working group is a precursor to the update of the airport master plan that has not been initiated yet. So I think you could just say flexibility. Is, it considers the future of the airport or something. Okay. it's good. We need to mention the master plan. You You could just say as it considers the future of the airport as a precursor to the up date of the Golden airport. Master. I like that. I like that a lot. and then I will step back because this is have letter, and have's recommendation if we got our shot. So I just have a question to ask you what that was really helpful. I like that. We scroll down from Germany. I'm stuck at Germany.

[126:00] You read too fast, or even before I I it's what I do for a living. It's 6 holidays. I feel like I should know that. But it's not holiday. 30 acres. What's that up to? We're about housing that mass? It sounds better with it. Oh, I love it A, and and so I I like that. I like how it's how it's wrapped in there. you know, after talking about holiday. But then how how valbant Ben is wrap wrapped in there as well, too. So if that aspire to yeah. I can see the the paragraph Okay. things with missing little housing.

[127:00] So 27 acres for all it 178, divided by 27 is probably not quite 706 is more like 6. Yeah. there's also net versus we could put as many as 7, approximately 6. You can take out literally, too. That's we. Don't need to be sure of the literally, Michael. but you're just trying to be young and hip. So I I have one main. It's about the way that it's written right? Yeah, that is the the purpose of the thing I wrote was to suggest that somebody somewhere provide a fiction. somebody in this process. and we're not actually making that request here.

[128:01] Maybe the that's Why, maybe that's intention. Can we make that line? And you mean to the mute to the greater community to be able to? Yeah. So this this is the the request in my letter said, how would like to see housing advocates present a high level and visionary overview of what is possible for housing it. Airport property. That's I. I think if we could incorporate that sentence into the letter that would be great I the one by one comment to that, Philip would be. I don't know if the advocates is the right word. Yeah, I I that that's a good point, maybe have should do it. I don't know what we could do. Would that go in that section? Paragraph like this following sentence.

[129:00] How about the second sentence of paragraph? 2: so just currently one sentence I like that. How's that for the phone? It's different. Well, we just said we would like to see this process yield a high level and visionary overview of. We don't need to be making assignments. So yeah. can I? Can I make this a comment just to that is that there are quite a few people on the working group, not quite a few. But there are a few other people on the working group who have thoughts about vision for housing, and it might be very powerful to get together various people in the city that have different visions for housing, to have a conversation, and then either present, that as part of the process, or present that to staff, to chew on when they're doing the scenarios, or in some way bring together the various people who care about housing and have some kind of thought about it like Lisa Moorezel, Jill Grano, Joe Brown represents the See you, Bari initiative. The

[130:16] what does that stand for folder area research housing research. Well, those are affordable housing research initiative. So they're just They're various people who have given this some thought that maybe we'd want to try to bring all those voices together. So then there aren't competing to build consensus. and and I think that's a great point. I agree. I think that's something I really like to defer, you know, primarily staff on that to figure out how to go about that. The reason why I think just taking out advocates is because we also don't want to create a a scenario where you know it's going to be misconstrued that we're, you know, expecting to see a free for all of everybody, you know, kinda competing for what their vision of this is, and stuff like that. You know we we've had that in certain scenarios, so I think that's a great

[131:03] next step, as we're moving forward on this would be that I would love to see the people that are on the working group, you know, really kinda Yup. direct staff and a, and that for that direction to have a a bunch of different people that are really involved in this kind of work together on their own kind of stakeholders group. But I don't want to put it here as advocates, because it's, then it's going to be. You know it. It it can get very unruly very quickly. Right? Well, if we have recommended the next step, would it become the third sentence in that second paragraph. and that for me. if if the statement about that that's not too prescriptive. good start would be blah blah blah it might be.

[132:02] No. But can we finish that sentence? That's in the different font, I hope. Is that saying quite what you want it to? I feel like we're still missing. This. it was supposed to say, Have it like to see this process yield a high level of visionary overview. And for me the next sentence is absent. This I mean, Don't. Write this. It's it's it's in contrast to what he just was saying. I I accent this, considering decommissioning the airport is kind of a futile conversation, or it's it's kind of like a it's not a progress. Conversation with that I mean just just having decommissioning the airport and saying it'd be for housing. It's kind of like half of a scenario, because we we without kind of some something to fill in that

[133:07] it's not a meeting for them. Come, it's not a me. But you know i'm a decommissioned the airport in the vacuum. Exactly. It's a great point. But do. We need to say it because it's any place, you know that's good. I don't know. I mean, I could. I could write 5 page excuse yeah more food. What was the next? Send it to the post or the the theme of the next? Well, there's a question as to whether we want to be going into the weeds to. you know. Actually, say okay. it. It would be best if to consider positive future scenario if if the airport would be the commission, or something like that.

[134:17] I'm kind of happy with it. I think it's short and sweet, and really makes the point, you know very cogently, without diverting too much. I feel really comfortable right now. Can you scroll down a little bit to the next? Okay. maybe take that one sentence. It's by itself and bring it up into that paragraph above or the paragraph below for the paragraph above of the hybrid. Yeah. yeah. that's coffee.

[135:01] Yeah. So that I go to scroll back up okay, potentially create much needed. No reason why you have a hyphen there. That's no reason why I think they can give you editorial. and then you can change the fonts. It was you getting happy with this? Let me scroll back down again. This is this this audience.

[136:03] Who's the audience? Who's reading the City Council? I understand Danny not wanting to have that one sentence hanging there. But I don't know if it really it's with the Germany paragraph. We can look at that again. That'd be great. Yeah, I kind of agree. Scroll up, maybe. Put it that that that could be collapsed into the one above it, and then it's just, you know. But I don't here scroll, scroll up, that is the other one. the paragraph above miss the middle that so see that we're we're the the paragraph that ends where we just have the add on sentence that says, housing on the airport property. It probably fits well there as the third sentence on that paragraph.

[137:09] Yeah. Instead. i'll get in. Let's see. Oh, yeah. we make the phone even smaller for this. That was even bigger. That's set up there. Yeah. One more reason i'm gonna look for motion.

[138:28] The second paragraph next to last line. I got neighbors in that sentence twice change that to make use of community leave next mixed uses that you can or both I use. That's fine. Yeah.

[139:03] A little bit too descriptive for it. But same. But I was serious about giving Michael some editorial Be way here. So we're not we're submitting as a group. Oh, okay, yeah, I could do that i'll take it home. Oh, I so long as the intent is. I'm the one that's he's not going to. I didn't. I didn't quite understand what you were saying. Thanks. So yeah, I appreciate it. One question on content. Just ask you a question. When you say missing middle. Are you talking about missing middle housing types like townhouses, duplexes, or are you talking about permanently affordable middle income? No, it's it. Nope, Michael. No, sorry. I don't know there' No, there's no been working on you guys on this concept for a while. Yeah, the first one. So it's it'll type the missing, you know, basically and everything between the single family. Yeah.

[140:14] Identity residential. So that's what the term means. But but is that what you want? Is market rate missing middle, or do you want the permanently affordable deed restricted, missing. Now, which is what Mark Wall is really a question i'm just asking if you wanted to. It's that could be a recommendation down the road. I mean, I think especially. I mean, you got in close. It's a term of art, and it really yeah, about what? What if it just included an affordable housing, missing middle, and affordable housing. I like that because actually, when you, when you I I, when I see missing, I think types because that's been conditioned with me.

[141:04] You hold that up as a shining example. So the the the operative word here, too, is for sale. as you have in there, Michael. Yeah, let's put 4 to it all missing middle for so little housing and affordable housing there Won't be any rentals in vision. Do you really want to? Yeah, that i'm not going to strike for? So. But oh, it says it's integrated multi-use. Community like all kinds of housing, including for sale missing and and affordable having. I don't think that pre includes Reynolds. It is okay. Yeah. it it emphasizes for sale of our rental, which I don't know I I don't. I don't feel we should emphasize for sale over mental. I like both, but

[142:04] I don't feel strongly about it either. I I like like we're getting into the weeds a little bit, too. So do I want to make a motion that we're gonna that. Michael's gonna tweet this a little bit, and then it's gonna get submitted to City Council. I don't think we use tweaks in our phone. but I understand you're going to send them. I think we just someone could potentially make a motion to vote on this with the understanding between after New Today i'm gonna change the word template and be a of the changes, and and on the Council I can also send it back around everybody. Can I say one last look before I send the Council. Sure, but I think we're there. I I I don't want to. Yeah, we can over analyze it. I mean, I think I think I don't. I don't think we really want to pigeon the whole for sale versus rental. This is middle versus affordable, etc., so that broad language that you use is great. So that's the one tweak.

[143:08] If we can't use the word tweak if you don't get it. But I think. using this tablet with some minor modifications to to reflect the the direction of the Board. I'm. I'm. I'd move to adopt the letter under that office. But this is the template with some minor modifications subject to review. But you we don't want to keep editing it, and then, you know, potentially change the the I don't think i'm going to change it a lot more. Okay, all in favor of approving this recommendation. AI: This is unanimously. and we can go into item. Thank you. Thank you. All that was really good. Item D is

[144:03] retreat planning. We have not a retreat since 2,021. I think our last retreat I actually checked my notice. What is my notice? It's right. There's a. So we have proposed a. and there was also to get it, and that we focus on our working dynamic as a group and not make this a policy session. I think that it's certainly worth considering. We We have a good consensus of what policy issues we want to do with. I could take a quite a few of our next few meetings. but we're open discussion about. The first thing is to firefight. See if the date works for one, and we did, this would be our June meeting. We moved it up because i'm planning on being possibly out of the country the June early July, so

[145:06] it might have to happen. but to check their calendars and way in, that would be great. and I I think the only thing we talked about is that it'd be bifurcated. So we'd have right. We'd have a meeting like like at at the facility, and then we'd for beers right back from the record, please. Good Buffy. That date doesn't work great for me, and any chance we can. Yeah, I think that it was 4 to 6, 3, and 6 to 7 for social. absolutely at 6. Welcome. Yeah. If you're inviting me. i'll check my calendar. Let me do 3 to get 6. This that to be that we do it an hour earlier

[146:01] I could do that about me. Retired today. It's it's the 3 3 to 3 to 5 instead of 46, June thirteenth, and i'm sorry day the week is that it would replace a regular you in the meeting. We'd be moving up our gym day to that day. So a planning board meets on Tuesday, but usually not second Tuesday that one's usually safe, so I I could probably make it. But you shouldn't plan around me. It's likely safe from planning one. This is the decision item. So I think we need to that. We can. There are calendars, and

[147:01] we make a counter proposal, or not 3 to 6 works for me. all in favor of Tuesday, June thirteenth, from 3 to 5, followed by a happy hour they all. and just to clarify that in place of the regular June meeting right? And we would have that here. Yes, we will. We'll have the first part here. and then you guys have to figure out where you want to go after. I suppose if anything goes around with this, we can modify it the next happy, which is the next agenda. Item. We talk a little bit more about the retreat, just so that for the new folks, so they're different thoughts and approaches to retreat. So typically the reason why we, the city is really strongly encouraged retreats. It's just to help board members

[148:01] get to know each other a little bit better outside of the formal setting, so like there's no public comment. It's really a chance for you guys to figure out. What do you want to talk about as a group? And I've I've kind of discouraged over time talking about specific business of that, You know. Specific policy like one year, I think we spent the entire 3 h talking about homelessness, and so it didn't really deal with any other issues. But it's more just this function quite well. So with that, I think that's why we haven't had a retreat. But I would just if you have thoughts or suggestions of how to structure the time that you think would be most up to you. Just please. But let the chairs. or if you have any any thoughts now, too. and you have a professional facilitator here as well.

[149:05] Can we set the retreat agenda in our next meeting? If I can draft something here that'd be great. He and J. And we'll What was an agenda at that time? Perfect? Great, hey? That's done moving the May I be who may have meeting? We're looking at the for a couple of reasons. We want to have our screens too. Oh, Jay. present! Then he can be available more available on May 30 first fine with me, I of a calendar check. So this is this isn't moving every meeting. We haven't moved a meeting in a while. I'm okay with cancelling the 24,

[150:04] and rescheduling it for the thirty-first that works for me. Look good anyone want to make a motion so moved we'll move to move the main meeting from May 24 to May, 30, first. second, same time. Second, all in favor. This is unanimously. Wow. Item, that chair, and vice chair selection. We want to talk about this, or do you have any ideas of people you might want to nominate to fill these important rules? Who's the current vice chair. Okay. that's Michael. Are you interested in continuing? Thank you for asking. I would. I would consider that Danny, are you interested in continuing

[151:07] anybody else interested? It's fine for their names, and you do. We have a motion on nominate a vice chair for the a year. I'd like to nominate Danny. My second. Thank you. Hi. Good job. Now I can do. We have a a all in favor. Okay, both motions and passengerously. And Danny and I will please continue as chair vice chair for the coming year. Thank you for your service. We're gonna go to the 10,007 matters from staff. We are technically a little bit out of schedule, so I hope we can have that time. And I think we're going to J for the middle income down payment pilot update.

[152:11] Yeah. So that's 3 things for you. The middle income pilot, the advancing racial equity training, and then the Philippines for for update on Alpine balson. So the middle income down payment assistance. Tyler went to Council List Thursday, Poly Hendrick. Soon we right. And were you here for Holly's presentation. Now, okay, that was before. So the rest of have is seeing the presentation. I can. We can talk about it more later. We go into more detail. So Council of had a long discussion about it on Thursday night, and we're overall supportive. They have a lot of the same concerns that have expressed. But we're supportive of trying something new, and being innovative. the one wrinkle they kind of through, and at the last minute was.

[153:06] we have proposed, and not income; and as that qualified future buyers of those middle income homes. For a variety of reasons. Council just was concerned that wealthy people would still try to purchase these phones, despite all the restrictions associated with them. So we said that we would look into that and try to figure out, maybe to do that. We're trying to figure that out. Now. Haven't figured it out. But hopefully, we'll have something in the next. and then we'll just basically kind of go what it is. We might inform council. And then, theoretically, we could be able to launch the program 4 or 6 weeks after that. So another tool in the tool box. So that's very exciting. But still some wrinkles to work out any questions about.

[154:00] they just for for what it's worth. If it could be any help, I know that that that whole issue of like income verification, and everything was a really really big issue, and a lot of them out in communities, particularly in some of the county. and and they've put a ton of work into it, and I can try to get you whatever, if if that's helpful to just kind of you know, give some some sort of you know possible approaches there for you. So just let me know, and I can try to get all that info for you. Yeah, let's let's talk about that a little bit later I'll, i'll call you because I'm: interested. because that's the challenge that the ami basically of these homes is going to change on an annual basis. So how do you determine what is? And then the other big thing is assets versus income, right? Because a lot of really wealthy people don't make money because they don't work because they have a lot of assets. And that was the big challenge that we ran into a lot of people were like.

[155:00] This is great. I can have him out in the home and not work, and it doesn't cost me a lot of money, and so they've done a lot of things to try to, you know. Close that close that loophole so anything else. So I wonder if our newer board members need more background. This, maybe it was covered in our previous a package that could be distributed to yeah, we're gonna do a loop orientation, too. So oh, okay, I'll be happy to remember that Alpine boss. So up in Boston there is some pretty significant progress has been made. Obviously. if you Haven't seen it that much loud. So that's very exciting. The so up in Boston again, about a year and a half ago, city Council designated both the housing partners as the co-master developer along with the the city.

[156:03] And so we had city facilities team basically working on the pavilion. And it's relationship to the parking structure, this building, and then all the housing partners has their own design team working on the affordable housing buildings, but also the other parcels that might be sold at market rate. so no firm decisions have been made in terms of design, but making there has been quite a bit of progress in terms of the the the Greenway design and making because that's an essential step. So after the demolition. we need to be able to submit to the Federal agencies like basically showing that the the flood has been addressed. So we can pull those buildings current building footprints out of the the high hazard. But plan. So that's an essential step before construction. Also a lot of the the engineering.

[157:01] a 4 based code engineering review for all of the infrastructure as to have been a sort of a first step, like a lot of this material submitted in the next couple of months. On May 20 fifth there is a an update to council. Specifically i'm out by Awesome. And but that's gonna really focus more on funding and finance for the overall process, and our our help on ball. Some relates to all the other city buildings. So remember, the idea is, we're consolidating city built city city city buildings that are scattered all over the city into one centralized campus. So things are moving slower than I think a lot of people would like to see. But you know these processes are fairly complex. They take time. And i'm still optimistic that they'll be able to at least begin. You'll see construction beginning and sort of late 2024. So late next year. And what did you say happens to this building

[158:05] this building large, I mean, not a lot. City invested quite a bit of money in this building when we after we purchased it. But it may get re-purposed. So one idea that's getting explored is moving age one west from a to this building. and the advantage of this building over the rest of the up. My boss site is that it has surface parking for older adults that want to visit, or they need to visit my car. Thank you. So no site plan except I'm working on a green way. Hasn't been done yet. So keep in mind. So it's form based code, right? So there's a form based code review that will happen. But yeah, so basically once the buildings are designed, it'll go through. It's a separate entitlement process, and then it'll you'll see

[159:05] what it's gonna look like, right. But the site plan is kind of is basically the form base code in the country, but not the architecture. There's a well they're on board. They're working on it. They have some concepts in terms of massing different roof designs, but not much so for for the housing partners it is a covering, and then for facilities it's a Cgf. And the consolidation is that all happened in the Pavilion Building, or is it gonna be March, for? It's just one building. Everybody else. Is that what you're looking for? Yeah, thank you. Every now and then I call on the website. It says implementation phase. I just want to like where we are in the photos. You know what I want to start walking through this place there's no.

[160:03] And then the third item is this: it was also attached to the packet, so advancing racial equity, we talked about it last time. So it's a training. So it's just kind of fancy or gloss here it for that. So it is strongly encouraged to participate and attend those. I think you're also going to get a special invitation from Council as well, encouraging you to attend because it. I think they're they weren't really impressed upon all the ports and commissions that it's a hard i'm sorry, live or zoom. There was multiple options in the fire that was attached to your packet, and we're doing individually, not as a work right. It was the direction that. So it's like you in theory. I could do it anytime I wanted, not. I don't have to do it at the same time as everybody else.

[161:05] That yeah, they have specific trainings, available specific dates that are virtual. You can sign up for this. but it is interactive. So they want you to interact with somebody that that's part of it. Any other training I successfully signed up. Let me say good. Okay, that brings us to item 8, the briefing and the calendar check. Certainly we have productive. Good evening. Welcome to. We have member, and our newly is on planning board. So welcome again. It's great to have you on board. We approved a minute. We had one person in the public participation session we gave input to our Dialer planning development services occupancy performing a great discussion on that.

[162:05] we appointed someone who the Roller Junction multi, we're we're We correct it on the spot. Then it approved a a letter on the airport, urging that, having options be fully considered as the master plan it's considered, and it eventually evolved. We have a confession about our retreat. or Tuesday, June thirteenth, from 3 to 6 we move the main meeting on May 24 to the 30 first, and we need to re-elected our chair and vice chair. Thank you all for your support, and being part of this device. Report. We had the update on real income down payment, pilot and Alpine. All some progress in planning and implementation and information about the forthcoming, advancing equity, racial equity. workshop the role of government.

[163:06] Our next meeting again would be on Wednesday, May 30 first. and I take your postcards in your calendar. I hope so. And then again we'll be doing our retreat. June thirteenth. So any questions before I ask for a motion to adjourn for the May agenda. You you lined up, Chad. Yes, so one thing we've had had discussion about, we would have a lot of good information to go on is how much parking do you need and and housing? What is the cost of providing that parking for the current standards. And what are some alternative? I know we're an architect, and in Denver who's simply designed to affordable happening, and actually did our research report. I'm parking affordable housing. Now it's generally over built, and it does take away from the amount of

[164:00] purple housing that could be provided. So his name is Chad Haltinger. He's gonna, I, I think, zoom into our meeting and give us an overview. We get a copy of the But these are very engaging Guys design tons of what we need housing project, since mostly lower income. and he's supernatural about this. I think you'll enjoy that hearing them. We need suggestions for other agenda. I'm. Sure that we can work at our various meetings. We're always open to agenda items. The only other thing that we have is the to review the draft or treat again there. But anything else I just want to hear about Michael. I just want to ask, and and the guest is able to, even with the calendar change May 30 first works for him now that we voted on it, and then he said he would be, and he's going to bring his associate to Lord Rosberg. I actually did a lot of research and people.

[165:01] The will, the Spring legislative select session be done by then. like a lot of the original bill has been watered down. But if the pass is, it would be nice to have an overview of someone who's an expert to to give an overview of what happened, what it might be. Monday I went to a better overview. I much at least. Oh, and she probably a good candidate and a former accounting commissioner. with any suggestions on that. But something they did so good idea to drill down and understand what they came up with. So this morning on Npr. I heard a segment that talked about how in New Jersey every municipality, and I don't know how they define. Municipality has to have a certain amount of affordable housing.

[166:00] and I thought that was really intriguing, because it seems to me that in Colorado there are certain places that, like folder that's targeting what you say, 15%. And there's other communities where I don't get a sense that there's any affordable housing requirement, and so I think that was sort of one of the goals of pull. This was to strongly encourage or force Venus to do the right thing and create more affordable housing. But it would be interesting to learn a little bit more about New Jersey figure out if that would be something that that's beyond our scope. But I just thought it was interesting. I'm not sure. I can do that for you, but if you can identify someone else you can try to reach out to them. No one thing I did this week is like contact with a bunch of affordable housing developers. How about this bill, and what are you doing to support it?

[167:00] And I heard from one from Denver. and he said: and this need to do some research back this up. But in the alternative universe of Florida the census just the time live local legislation that goes way beyond the initial breadth of 2, 13 by a long shot, and as annual funding of 700 millionin affordable housing. all Republicans got in line with the dem for tepid kind of the opposite of. So yeah. Well, there are a number of people you get to all these things, Possibly. But again I heard at least talking about the end, and it was quite good. and I would actually recommend reading the bill itself. It's really well written, and a lot of the arguments just yeah.

[168:01] that that. Sorry I miss that. Oh, I said it didn't go over so well in the mountain communities now. No. I believe. But you know I I mean, I think I think what we're gonna see a lot of this. As far as you know, Things go with this bill, too, and and some of the things that are coming off as mandates, or whether or not you know, this is something where the State has supremacy, or or whether it's kind of tripsing on. You know. especially home rural municipalities and their their, you know, ability to self govern. And I think that's from what I've got, and there's a lot of real concern regarding that whole concept and and the State stepping on the toes, particularly of a lot of communities like polar that have done, you know, a a good job and made significant effort on it, you know. And and you know, instead of treating it, one size fits all currently. You know what you just brought up in New Jersey. I mean, I think that's really the big thrust of this is it's absolutely true that there's a lot of communities that have put a ton into this, and then there are other places that have done literally

[169:15] 0, including places that are right on our doorstep and boulder and stuff. And so it'll be really interesting to see how the whole thing shakes out. and I think everyone's aware that our Council passed a resolution supporting it in concept, the intent. the bill, which is something we might be able to use in the future. anybody else anything to bring up. maybe 4 or 5 solution to adjourn. Second a second.

[170:02] You have a good night, thank you. Hey, Danny. Tomorrow i'll send out a pretty likely in the version of what we hold or not again. But it's the airport.