July 26, 2023 — Housing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:04] Good evening, everyone. This is Wednesday, July 26. The monthly meeting of the older Housing Advisory Board Mike and the chair of the Housing Advisory Board at 6 pm. And we will begin the meeting with a help. You scroll down with a roll call. so car and Austin, do you. Karen clearman. Philip, over in. hey? At this point we have 4 members present, but it's a to take part, and we will have an official be tonight. The item number 2 on the agenda is to review the agenda. We'll be approving the May minutes next. We did not have an official June meeting that' be followed by a public participation very soon. that's item 4. I think 5 of this matters from the board.

[1:04] we'll be talking about accuracy reform. We'll have a staff presentation from the staff report board questions, work, public comments. a board discussion, and then we have potential to vote on a recommendation on that. we'll be following up on our training session if you had it in. Move a meeting it in June. we'll be looking for updates on the airport. It's a master planning, study and board. We back in phase 2, that's all under item matters from staff will be on 26 I have 7 debrief in the Vegan calendar check, and we'll try to return by 9 pm. So. We got our last official meeting on May 20, first 30 to thirty-first of this year. I think you both had a chance to see the meetings. Do I have a motion to approve?

[2:03] So 30 I most of those motion. So do you have a second. all in a second, all in favor. We're permitting a minutes. I'm sorry. Good! That passes for nothing. A participation may have open comment periods limited to 3 min before we have any members of the public who would like to your comments right? There's no one in attendance. Okay, we won't bother to go over the rules of the of the explanation that we have no We're already up to. Item 5 Adam from the board and we'll be make a recommendation on this based on yeah, it's your forum public hearing, and it's that presentation from Carl Giler and reviewing the staff report, etc. So If that brings us up to Karl unless there's in trouble before Carl. Take it away. Carl.

[3:02] Alright. Thank you. Chair. Good evening, board members. So I'm gonna I'm gonna pull up the Powerpoint. You can all see this correct. Yes. Good evening. Carl Giler, senior policy adviser with planning and development services before the board tonight is, or is ordinance 85, 85 relating to changes to the land use code occupancy regulations. so the purpose of tonight is to have a recommendation from Housing Advisory Board on the Ordinance to City Council the last we spoke about. Occupancy was actually on April 20 sixth of this year about 3 months ago. So just a refresher. some of this is information that I've presented to the Board already. before. But The problem statement related to to the the housing prices that Boulder is experiencing along with many communities in the nation. it's especially felt in boulder in recent years. so we've undertaken a number of different code change projects to loosen up zoning restrictions to open up more housing opportunities for people in the in the community to to be able to live in boulder

[4:26] the more housing that can be added will hopefully impact the the pricing of housing in the community. so I'll talk more about that. So what Council has asked us to do at their 2,000. To retreat was to perform a comparative analysis from other communities, develop a model occupancy approach and solicit community input for ordinance revisions. So obviously looking for a different solution than was proposed in the bedrooms or for people ballot initiative. And then having that come back before the council.

[5:03] So the goals and objectives of the project, or to review city occupancy standards of other peer communities based on best practices from those communities, prepare options for changes that are appropriate to boulder. really focusing on simple land use amendments that relate to occupancy that provide greater housing opportunities in the community while preserving neighborhood character and establish neighborhoods and vet those changes in the community. So this is the title of the ordinance. again, the purpose of tonight is to have the board hold a public hearing on on the ordinance, discuss the ordinance and then make a recommendation to city council. The questions that we pos to the board are similar to what we'll be asking council and what we actually asked planning board last night. So does the Housing Advisory Board find that the proposed ordinance implements, the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Conference of Plan

[6:01] and then, secondly, does Housing Advisory Board recommend any modifications to the draft ordinance. So I think the Board is is familiar with the Senate bill. that we were reviewing a a number of weeks ago. it was a land use spill proposed in the Colorado Senate that related to basically mandating middle housing, 80 use in communities throughout Colorado. And it actually had a provision that would have eliminated basically eliminated occupancy or or prohibited the ability to have occupancy regulations that regulate the relation between people and units. That Senate Bill did not pass so we are still moving forward with local legislation. like we have with the Edu regulations and the zoning for affordable housing, which will be coming back to have in coming weeks as part of the packet we did provide a link in the packet to have that we had sent to city council. That included some additional studies, commentaries, and articles that related to the housing crisis. obviously there's there are.

[7:16] it's it's been difficult to find specific studies that say discernibly that relaxing occupancy regs or adding housing will lower cost of housing. but what they do say is that zoning restrictions do greatly limit housing availability. And then it it's because of of a lot of zoning, zoning restrictions, that housing supply is restricted and that naturally drives up housing prices among other factors. So there's a lot of endeavors throughout the nation to try to relax zoning restrictions to increase housing in communities to to lower cost.

[8:01] So obviously, boulder, it's it's much more challenging. It's much like. we see in the Bay area where there's a restricted land and a high demand to live in the area so that drives up the the cost even more. So what the studies mostly say is that not one option can solve the problem that that really has there has to be a multi pronged approach at trying to address the Housing crisis. So Western States have been trying to address this head on particularly Washington and Oregon. we've been in contact with a number of different Washington and Oregon communities that are responding to state legislation that basically made occupancy a legal and what we've heard from them is we trying to get some analogs on potential impacts is that most communities are in the process of making the changes and the changes are relatively new. so these communities haven't really seen what the outcomes look like as of yet.

[9:00] We did hear from one community, Redmond that said that they have seen rental prices drop after the legislation I haven't seen. I don't. the the the city of Redmond, which is north of Seattle. They said that they, you know, anecdotally noticed that rental prices had dropped after they enacted by eliminating occupancy regulations. Okay, thank you. All there other stuff that could be because of market for it. Something else it could be. It could be. Yeah. I mean, they. They didn't really have a you know, it was just an observation. It was the only community that we had heard from that said that so just to be really clear. everyone's familiar with the occupancy signs that you see in different buildings that's really relating to the building code, which talks about more about safety, you know, not having an over concentration of people and units.

[10:02] if there's ever has has to be an emergency exit from the building that it can safely be done. So zoning regulations and communities, particularly those that have universities in the past. Starting in the 1960, s. Particularly started having additional occupancy limits in their zoning codes to address impacts that might come from an over concentration of people. but we also noticed, you know, that there are some motivations that are rooted in discrimination against people of color and lifestyles. That's something that's illustrated in our racial equity plan. so a number of communities have been changing their occupancy limits or eliminating them in response to that. I won't spend too much time going over the current limits since we've talked about this before. But basically the city of older regulates occupancy the same as many communities where the an unlimited number of family members can live in a unit.

[11:02] or it's unrelated that are limited. So if there are unrelated folks that live in a unit. it's up to 3 on related persons in lower density, zones in boulder and then in outside of lower density zones, it's for unrelated. So is there a question? Okay? And then it's also or 2 persons and any of their children by blood, marriage, guardianship, including foster children or adoption. We also have special occupancy regulations for a to use Co. Ops in group living uses that are in the section. We're not proposing any changes to those. This is the definition of family. it's pretty broad. It does include domestic partnerships and same sex marriage. So it's very broad. So we're not proposing any changes to this definition of Family city Council asks that we, you know, be clear about what is in our current definition with the public, so that they're aware. if anyone thought that we needed to We look at this definition.

[12:11] This is a map that just shows the 3 person limit versus the 4 person limit areas. You can see. most of the city is in the orange, which is the lower density zones that are limited to 3 unrelated, and you can see the green is for unrelated. So we talked to council at a study session in March, and proposed a number of different options that we derived from looking at other communities. we the last I presented to have we? We talked to that that we had looked at 60 different communities throughout the Us. And how they regulated occupancy. So where city Council landed was just looking at Option B, which is to increase to 4 or 5 unrelated citywide. So we've been moving in that direction. They also asked that we do a lot of public outreach on this topic.

[13:03] So as far as impacts, we do acknowledge that occupancy does raise a lot of concerns particularly in certain areas of of of the city around the university. where there can be impacts of a lot of students living on site so obviously on street parking, availability increased activity, trash and weeds, you know, property, maintenance, house, party and noise. these are Eric, these are things that we often hear in university towns. it's really a policy question about whether these types of impact should be specifically tied to occupancy or handle more directly other communities that have relaxed their occupancy Regs or eliminated them, have taken a policy decision to basically or address those issues directly rather than linking them to how many people are living in the in the units? there are some challenges with that kind of enforcement for occupancy. It's very difficult to really determine who is related to one another or not, or how many people are actually living with a within a unit. So it's something that our enforcement officers deal with commonly.

[14:15] So, as far as these impacts wanted to just touch on enforcement. So police does handle noise and parking complaints in the right of way planning and development services handles any occupancy or illegal dwelling units or property maintenance issues. we have not been moving forward on active enforcement in occupancy. It's really been pause, due to the pandemic and also due to the staff constraints that we have within the department. but we do address complaints on occupancy. So if there are instances of over occupancy that they they basically have to be remedied by the next leasing cycle to avoid kicking people out mid leasing term. However, if there are any instances of life, safety issues, or something like a dangerous living condition. It does have to be handled immediately.

[15:12] So I'm gonna start talking about the engagement that we've undertaken over the last few months we've talked to a lot of different folks. And obviously there's a variety of perspectives on this topic. we've continued engagement with neighborhood groups like University Hill Martin acres. We attended a. An a. A block party in Aurora east which is a kind of a a mixed student and property on our neighborhood. we've met with plan boulder we've met with the Hill Revitalization Working group a number of times we've met with the Dean's leadership and Values Committee, which is basically the student government the community connectors and residents, other community leaders. We've held office hours virtually and in person And then we've we've heard input on the topics at the Housing Advisory Board and planning board meetings. we also did a be heard boulder questionnaire. So there's a lot of detailed feedback that's difficult to go over everything. So we did include attachment B and C of the pad to go into a lot of detail on the outreach. I'll touch on some of it.

[16:21] So we use be heard boulder for a number of different projects citywide. It's a questionnaire. We we acknowledge I'm sorry. No, nothing. it's a questionnaire. So it's not intended to be a statistically valid survey of the community, but it is a helpful tool that we use among other tools to understand community sentiments. and we've promoted it across a wide variety of of ways to stakeholders. It was open from April 20 seventh to May 20, sixth. we actually received a pretty historic number of responses on these issues. we got over 2,000 responses and over a thousand written comments. on occupancy as well as zoning for affordable housing.

[17:11] we do acknowledge that roughly 300 submissions were made from the same devices. So either that's, you know, a family that's using the same computer. Or it might be people that are choosing to resubmit a a number of times. We do acknowledge that, but we do think that it is helpful to get a read on what the the community thinks on these topics. So attachment C goes into more detail on the the be heard boulder, questionnaire. as far as like what we've heard specifically so. University adjacent neighborhoods. What we've heard is that changing occupancy limitations will drive out families, and it'll largely benefit landlords. and they they feel that are a lot of folks in those areas feel that. they'll be disproportionately impacted by the change. that'll.

[18:01] you know, hurt their neighborhood, but not even address the issue of affordability. So that's a big concern in those areas. When we talk to the folks in Aurora East, it was more mixed. the students were were very supportive of more housing options. the homeowners were not necessarily against more people in that neighborhood, but they are experiencing parking impacts in that area because of students that choose to park their cars in that neighborhood adjacent to Williams village, and also some park in that neighborhood to ride, transit when we talk to the the the Hill Revitalization group. there were some students that certainly felt that things should be made easier for students, and that students really are struggling to find housing in Boulder And then others were saying that occupancy should not be increased without a guarantee of affordability. when we talk to the Dean's leadership and values Committee. this is obviously a more student based opinions. there was a lot of concern about the the cost of housing, and that a lot of students had to work multiple jobs, you know, to afford housing

[19:11] and that there's a number. A lot of students know other students that live in situations where they're over occupied and have low housing security. So if you know, there is a complaint about a a residence they could potentially be, you know, booted out of their living situation which is is isn't great for a lot of the students when we talk to the community connectors and residents. there wasn't a lot of discussion on occupancy limits per se, but there was support broadly for removing occupancy limits. There were some citing that, you know. It does come from discriminatory routes, and and therefore it should be removed. when we talk to some of the community leaders. There was a firsthand account of eviction that we heard We heard from a a representative of landlords that there was support for 5 unrelated. And then there were There was opinions from university adjacent neighborhoods that they should be accepted out of of any increase in occupancy.

[20:16] I'm gonna just go over the be her boulder responses on occupancy in general. So again, taking, you know, into the into account that it's a questionnaire. But what we found was that there was more support shown for 4 unrelated citywide rather than 5 unrelated citywide. When we looked at the responses for 5 unrelated. It was more even. There was a majority for the 4. When we looked at the 5 there was a lot more folks that. Had submitted definitely do not support A majority of the respondents did not support removing occupancy requirements entirely Most of the respondents indicated that they were homeowners, and about a third indicated that they were renters. We saw more support for changes among renters and younger participants. but more than half of the respondents felt that the regulations should not be left as they are.

[21:15] So we went back to council with a lot of this information on June fifteenth, to get more direction we presented all the data studies and analogs to counsel the the peer community information the the public feedback and and the feedback we got from boards. what Council basically instructed us to do is to proceed with preparing an ordinance that would increase the number of unrelated occupants to 5 city wide. There was a concern raised about how such an increase per unit would impact areas that have a lot of non conforming dwelling units, so particularly on the hill where there's a lot of units on sites that are well over. What can be built under the current code, and what that impact would be if it went from 3 to 5, or 4 to 5

[22:05] So Council asked us to prepare 2 code language options that would address that that issue. so I'll talk about that. As part of this presentation. We actually went to planning board with the ordinance last night. There was an extensive discussion about requiring affordability with any increase of occupancy. there were concerns related to increasing occupancy and efficiency. Living units and the board also discuss whether the increase should be 4 or 5 there was actually, I think it was 4 failed motions last night, but ultimately they landed on a recommendation of approval on on a 4 to 3 vote to approve the ordinance but they did add some conditions that they wanted passed along to council. The the 4 that voted for it felt that the non conforming language should be removed.

[23:02] There was a statement that there should be increased efforts to address a nuisance behavior in the city and then there was agreement that the city should explore mechanisms for guaranteed affordability through deed restrictions or some sort of rental. caps for any kind of increase in occupancy up to 5 through the city's rental licensing program. So just diving into the the ordinance code changes. That's in attachment. A What's reflected in the ordinance is it would increase from 3 to 4 to 5 unrelated persons city wide. at the request of Council, we've also changed the 2 persons in any of their children up to 3 persons and any of their children. And we also felt that based on the the building code which allows 3 occupants and efficiency living units that we could go from the 2 occupant maximum to 3 occupants, and elus.

[24:05] The Nonconforming occupancy section, which is 9 8 5 c. Is largely the same. this is just a section that recognizes that there's prior changes to the code where there might have been dwelling units that have more occupants than are allowed by current code, so they would be. They would all be allowed to continue that occupancy. even after these changes, there's probably some quite a few units that will actually be made conforming when the code changes to go to 5, 95 d. Relates to non conforming uses. So this is focusing more on again that situation where there's more dwelling units on a lot than are currently permitted. So that's where Council was interested in us, capping the amount of occupancy increase in those units. So basically, if you had a non conforming triplex on a site that only allows a single family home and each of those units in the triplex are at 3 which meets our current occupancy standards.

[25:13] The passage of the ordinance to 5 would not permit those units on the non conforming use site to increase to 5 in each unit. So that isn't in a way to minimize impact on on those neighborhoods. So that's also included in the ordinance before you tonight. This is what the language basically looks like it. It really just kind of focuses. It basically applies the current regulations that we have in the code to any uses that are non conforming to density or or a housing type that's not permitted in a zone. and it basically says that no requests for additional occupancy can be requested. So Council had requested 2 different options. so we have 2 options. One would just apply this provision to non-conforming uses citywide

[26:09] and then option B would just be applying it to the zones that exist around the university. So it applies to the zone. So there might be areas away from the university that are under the same zoning that would also be under that same restriction if they have non conforming uses on their site. So I realize this is complex, and I'm happy to answer questions on that. So we've provided an analysis within the memo that states that we believe that we have accomplished the purpose and and the goals and objectives of the project. Looking at a simple solution. that's different from the bedrooms or for commut for people initiative. we find that the ordinance would be consistent with Boulder Valley comforts of plan policy. So we're recommending approval.

[27:00] and if have agreed we've provided a recommended motion for approval for the board. and we can come back to this as far as next steps. We'll be going to City council on first reading on August third again. No public hearing at that meeting, and then the public hearing on the ordinance is set for August seventeenth. That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions. are you? I'm sure our board members have some questions about the way we've been by our our vice chair. Danny Scan, you will pay the door and our any I call on you instead of I use attorney, and get your opinion if you have one. how do you think this sort of proposed related to the goals of the

[28:05] So hi! Everybody! Sorry. Sorry I was not there in person. I I'd say. it seems to work. It seems to allow more flexibility. you know, Carl, one of the questions that I had for you. So some of those jurisdictions that that, just, you know, like in Washington and Oregon, they just got rid of occupancy limits all together. What means do they use, you know? Because obviously, you know, it's a there's, there's always 2 sides that are coined. So what means that they use to control over occupancy problems, you know, nuisance regulations, or how do they? How do they deal with circumstances where there is Too much accuracy? And it's an issue. Because you you you may reference to that. But yeah, I mean, we we talked to a number of different communities. there was actually one. I think it might have been bend that never had occupancy regulations. so they've just kind of focused more directly on enforcement. most of the other ones did have

[29:08] occupancy regulations. or in the process of getting rid of them to meet the State mandate. I think a lot of them have have just decided to make a policy shift that the focus is not going to be necessarily on how many people are living in a in a dwelling unit, but rather like what are the impacts, if it's, you know, related to parking or noise that they would focus more on that through, you know, policing and enforcement. I think what we heard from most of the communities is, is parking tends to be the biggest concern. right? And any any other external impacts you can just address as they come along without, you know, looking inside of the 4 wall, so to speak. You know that we were just not gonna be worrying about how many people are in the unit. We're just gonna like this is a problem. This needs to be addressed.

[30:05] And is that something so for the city internally. Is that something where they said, you know, as we open up these, I can see your strength from where they are. That's something that we always have available to us, you know, in our. And it's it's obviously something that has to come from council and council, I think, is well aware of it. We talked about it at the June meeting that, you know. If if we move in this direction there probably has to be some more you know, efforts put into to enforcement, maybe bolstering enforcement locally. Okay? Well, to to me. I I I think it's a good thing. I mean, I I've I've seen many jurisdictions, and and everybody's got some sort of occupancy limit, and they're all kind of archaic. And so I think this is well within the purview of the city's comprehensive plan, and I and I think it's a a good step in the right direction. I think I would have some concerns, you know. That's why I was bringing it up with. Just get rid of, I can to restrictions all and all, because, you know, you need to have whatever hours and you quiver. You you can have when when you run into problems which certainly are are

[31:14] you know, always potentially out there. But I think you know the the subtle step forward in this direction. With the understanding that you know. we'll have to utilize alternative means if and when we run into problems, and deal with those actual external impacts. I I I think this is a good approach. And and I'm I'm happy to see it, because I've always felt that the I could see restrictions as the way they've been set up. You know the family versus not family, etc. It's been a little bit a little, a little bit harsh and a little bit arbitrary, and that's in every jurisdiction, and a lot of jurisdictions are trying to wrestle with this now, and I think it's a a good thing in a lot of ways.

[32:00] Are you standing? Well, there's a comment to our question. I've got a few questions on my mind. One of them is, do you have any idea of what required affordability would look like maybe any of the other jurisdictions you've looked at. Yeah, we we looked at. you know, 60 different jurisdictions. I I can't think of one analog where they required affordability as a condition of increased occupancy. And I told this to the board last night. I I think anything that was close to that where there was some sort of application process to ask for additional occupancy has been met with a lot of enforcement challenges in administrative challenges. So you know, 1. 1. One example is Madison.

[33:01] Wisconsin had required that, you know there'd be a 2 occupant limit in the single family zones. But if you wanted to go to 3 you could go through an application process and you could restrict it so that the property would be would include an owner occupancy as a condition of going to 3. But they they had a lot of problems with that, and they actually ended up. We're revoking that from the code, I think in May. and they actually decided to go to 5 unrelated and I think, for Collins has something similar, and they're kind of struggling with it right now. so we don't really have any good analogs of how to I mean, it's certainly something we can explore but it I think it would be in a Ministry of challenge. Thank you. That's a great question. Julian. Now, following up on that little bit. Is there any analog to what was done with they use?

[34:06] which, you, you know, there's a carrot. They have to be part of an affordability program. And you some of the requirements. I think the parking space was a big one. I mean, I I think that's that's why we certainly could go down that road. It it would just it would be a much more complex solution. I think the the affordability piece of a to use has been relatively straightforward because it there's there's a good incentive for people, you know, doing the do you? Or the declaration of use for affordability. But also right now, the the market rate isn't too far off from that. So it incentivizes a lot of people to do it. so I I think it's certainly something we could do. It's just it. It's tracking it. you know, like, across all properties. And all the increases is gonna require, you know, potentially additional staffing. based on application load and and all that kind of stuff. So it's something that I can't give a quick answer to. I think there would actually have to be a whole new system put into place to to monitor that.

[35:19] following up on that, you mentioned the term deep restriction, which. with housing that would the work in relation to I'm not. I'm not entirely sure, because, you know, like for the longest time we we couldn't do rent control right? And I I think there's some state requirements that have changed. So our our housing folks are are looking at that. so I think it could be factored into that somehow. But I'm not sure you know the answer to that in our housing folks like Jason.

[36:05] hey, Carl? Great presentation, thank you. couple of questions. So the suggestion is to go from 3 on, unrelated and foreign, related to a blanket. 5 unrelated everywhere. Is that that's the suggestion. with the exception that if it's a nonconforming use unit, that it would just stay where it is. Currently yeah. Otherwise, yes, city wide. So 5 unrelated city. Wide is is the proposal. Do we know out of the 33,000 living units in Boulder, how many are non conforming, whether they're nonconforming use or non-conforming occupancy, do we? We have a percentage, or we how big a deal? That is? it. There was a an analysis done on that 2 years ago, and I think it was about 1,200 properties for considered nonconforming. and I think it might have been like a upwards of like 5,000 dwelling units.

[37:03] So that's like. so percentage of the whole city. Let me let me try to gauge that 15%. I think it's like 10% got it. Okay? So so those 1,200 units or 1,200 properties don't get the occupation bump because they're already not looking for right? Correct. And then we're not carving out. Or for this suggestion, we're not carving out University Hill. We're not farming out costs. We're not carving out areas that people are concerned with parking your own partner, or whatever. Well, there's there's 2 options that the one option we have in the code is is just It's all, all zoning and low density areas versus non low density areas like we do today.

[38:01] option B would apply it to zones that are that are around the university. we don't have option B in the ordinance right now. right now we're we're thinking that it would be, you know, more simple to just apply it. Citywide. Yeah, okay. okay, I think that makes a ton of and basic question. But I'm not totally understanding how not conforming applies to housing. In this the context of this discussion. You don't get additional. It stays it through your phone. If it's nothing, or the physical layout of the house, or setbacks or anything. Oh, what? What? The what's the finest non conforming is on the question. Yeah, yeah, I have an amazing slide that will help. Are you sure you want to get into it?

[39:02] All right? So try to illustrate that best there. There's actually a number of different scenarios here. Let me go through it. So don't you open Pandora's box? All right. So scenario, one is conforming to conforming occupancy. So everything that's in green is a conforming unit. It meets the the density requirements. So just to paint the picture. this is single family on the left and multi-family on on the right. so you can see if the ordinance passes an in a conforming unit that would be limited to 3 unrelated. Today it could go to 5 right? And then in a multi family situation, you might have some units that have 4 unrelated after passage of the ordinance. It would go to 5 in each unit, and again in conforming

[40:01] in a non-conforming situation so non-conforming to conforming. This is a a, a, a scenario where there might be a unit today. That's 5 unrelated. So it's considered a non-conforming occupancy. And then, when the code passed, when, if the ordinance passes. that unit would become conforming at 5, and that's what the multi-family is showing. Is everybody following me on this? It could be It would like a co-OP situation or one of those special ones. But it it's really where there's more dwelling units on a property than is allowed under the current code. So you can look at the multi-family scenario here and It could be like a lot that has 6 units on it where it only allows a single family house. That's a non-conforming use.

[41:03] Yeah, it it was built under prior zoning. So zoning gets changed over time and a lot of times. The the zoning then, doesn't allow as many dwelling in it, so it becomes a non. It's grandfathered. Okay. Now, now we're in the that. Just me, me. I gotta always start with any. What a non-forming uses before we jump into it. Sorry. So I got a lot of fun from this phone. I make sure one has a chance to sound off so time go for it. Oh, do you want to see the rest of the scenario, or you? No, I I will say the the scenario world that you explained last night that made a lot of sense to me was like around University Hill. It was single family, and then it was up, zoned, and all these units got subdivided, and then it got down zone again. So all those subdivided units are still there. But they're no longer conforming to the current.

[42:07] zoning. Is that right, Carl and Jay. yeah, the concern is like there's like, there's an example on the hill, for instance, where it's a triplex right in the middle of the single family neighborhood. So it it basically has 3 units where the code only allows one and one unit today allows 3 unrelated occupants and the 3 units on the site. Each unit allows 3 occupants, and that meets our code. The concern is so. That would be a total of 9 occupants on that property where a conforming property would just be 3. So with the passage of the ordinance, the concern was that that would jump to 5 in each dwelling unit. So you'd have 15 occupants on that site where the current code is 3.

[43:01] So that's where the the the ordinance would freeze that occupancy at 3. And those units when they when it's considered a non-conforming use. So none of this is time to bedrooms right? None of this has anything to do with how many bedrooms are in a living. You? That's right. No, not because it's strange. But anyway. you would think you could you fire, find out what the board like about your board last night is different. If it is different from the staff recommendation that Carl, this present. well, I think Carl summarized it really well, but it was in the middle of a lot of information. So just to repeat, we, we agreed with Staff's recommendation, or at least it was a 4 to 3 vote. So 4 of us agreed with, that's recommendation that it should be 5 unrelated people citywide.

[44:00] We did not choose either option A or option B for the nonconforming uses that was introduced by Mark Mcintyre. just feeling that there shouldn't be any car out, that it should be a blanket by citywide. Every unit should be treated the same and then, some additional language about increasing enforcement for the nuisance, violations like parking and trash, and just like the city acknowledges, they need to probably up their game if there's increased occupancy with some of that enforcement. And then the last thing was just a suggestion that the city explore. If there are ways to tie this additional occupancy, which, of course, is a financial games, the landlords to tie that to some kind of promise and affordability. That was the an amendment that I suggested, and I suggested tying it to the rental licensing that we already do. You know, since everybody wants to rent a property already has to get a rental license through the city, you have to meet certain sustainability requirements like energy efficiency code stuff that's actually quite stringent. You have to get your house inspect and bring things up to energy code.

[45:03] And so my my feeling was that our values around affordability are just as strong as around sustainability. So why wouldn't you try to get some additional affordability beyond market rate affordability. If we're giving the benefit of this additional occupancy to landlords who could presumably charge more. Now there's some debate about whether landlords actually would be charging more. Or if this just naturally provides market rate affordability, and we don't have to do anything to it. Guarantee additional portability. I'm not gonna go into that too much. There's debate about that. So again, my suggestion was just explore it. It's not mandatory, and we were very clear that we didn't want this to stand in the way of implementing the ordinance if it if Staff and city council decided it was not feasible. Some was very debate about when the. So to actually, when it comes to the form of rent control. We did not talk about that last night. You should. We did talk about the parallel potentially to the eightyu situation where you're offering a benefit to the homeowner, and in exchange, you ask the homeowner to help meet the city's affordability calls. So that was kind of the thinking. But we didn't. But we discussed that. We don't know if this is feasible. We don't know what kind of administrative burden. It would pose. We don't know if it would have unintended impacts. And so we were just suggesting to explore it. And maybe it's already been explored, and I confess that I'm coming from position of ignorance about that. So

[46:22] if Staff have already looked at this in the term, it's really not feasible. Then, you know, we we yield to that judgment again. It was just a suggestion to explore it. so I'll have a hard time. Understand this. So an 800 square foot, 2 bedroom house would have a 5 unrelated person limit in 2 bedrooms and an 800 square foot outs are muted whatever proud. No, I've been this by same as a 4,000 square foot, 6 bedroom house. Still 500 later. Same thing. It's treated the same.

[47:03] Sorry I don't know. Yeah, I mean, I I think just just like with the bedrooms are for people valid initiative. There's a lot of concern about tying it to bedrooms, because then it gets it gets a little bit difficult for what constitutes a bedroom in in that framing, you know, bedrooms into units to get more occupants, and I think when we looked at other communities, the vast majority of them did not do it by bedrooms or floor area. And I think it's it's largely because of that that that issue. For for me. the the, the parking issues, probably the biggest issue, right? And and if you have 5 fun related in A, in a single family home that has a garage in a driveway and parking in front of the house.

[48:00] that you can manage 4 or 5 cars, typically, you know. But if all of a sudden you have a a triplex or fourplex or a duplex or apartment complex, and you could theoretically put 5 people in each 2 bedroom apartment and a 10 unit apartment complex. That that that adds up I don't know. but it's kind of back to your original points like, well, it seems arbitrary. So I mean you a family. You can have as many people as you want, right? And you know you've had of kids that drive. Yeah, no, I I I just try to process. I mean age. So they're just so many different variables. Yeah. So it's so challenging for for what it's worth here, as some sort of metric, I agree. Increase the act 2, 3 to 4, or 3 to 5, and and I think the blanket thing is fine, but it just seems I don't know. I just I just want to understand it very well. I I do think the

[49:02] the what to call the non conforming or about is a good idea, because of the example you just said on the hill where you have 9 people. What's the 15 people when under current rules, or 3 people that I agree with it? But I think I think there should. Maybe this could be dissected a little more. Obviously, I don't think that's gonna happen. But just the thought. And and I just say, I think it's a good step in the right direction. I do like the non-conforming carve out as well. I would express concern, Karl. Maybe you could elaborate on this, but I I guess my concern. with the whole notion of trying to tie the kind of a occupancy. Forbearance to affordability is is the the fact that it's it's different than the A to use, and that it's it's a different type of policy. And and when you're trying to address occupancy, there's some fundamental. it's only about, you know, bundle of sticks of of your property, and just stuff there that to to try to say you can do this, but only if can can get very sticky kind of lur us into

[50:10] somebody trying to litigate, just to make a point of it and stuff like that. And so I'd kinda I I I I would love to see it. You know I was very supportive of having that for the to use and stuff I I'd be very pensive in terms of applying it here, because I just think it, it just starts to make things a little bit more challenging. And we're we're gonna have to, you know, work with our attorneys on that, too, because even that the 80 you example, it's mostly a voluntary type thing, and we haven't really had to go into any kind of enforcement if somebody, you know, violates it, and if we perpetuate that to another level with occupancy. It it just it could be very challenging. So I think it's something that we have to to look at more exactly. You know that. V. The the scope of voluntary definitely starts to dilute, you know, as you go further and further, you know, my son's been going a voluntary football practice as well.

[51:11] there's only allowed to miss 4 voluntary practices also. Yeah, slippery slope. I have some. How about 10 questions. So sorry I even though I can't vote I'll speak for for a little bit, because I know he's so in favor of this, and you know he came from the bedrooms with people who meant, and he set a note about the same ready because he couldn't be here. His new family and everybody strongly supports any move to increase occupancy. I think the bedrooms are for people group. Is that numbers on the madam, I think that rooms and boulder it's like 5 million or something. It's very hard for that.

[52:05] you know. I'm saying I'm the fence on this a little bit, you know. Try to explain why. I do agree for starters a little bit with the hill groups. Assessment this. This will primarily affect landlords. and having put 2 kids through, see you in rental housing and boulder. I can tell you that at that time, between 2,000, the 2,010 and 2,018, the landlords were running as many bedrooms as they could, and you know, bending the rules. so in a way, this might not. the increasing, the housing supply might just be legalizing what's already happened which is not a terrible outcome. that another element of that is I. And I I think this is my supposition from that indirect experience that there's a formula. If you have so many beds or so many bedrooms, you rent them for so much each.

[53:08] and increasing that number is not necessarily going to bring prices down. I I don't see a single family home on this is Boulder. basically taking in borders and using their surplus that I just don't think that's gonna happen. I think much more likely. And I've been in that situation, too, and didn't like it so much that we wind up developing the to you. Yeah, and having a set, that separation that does work much better. But you know, people who are in 2 million dollars is not going to say, Let's red our extra bedroom to student. I just don't see that increasing I think supply, and those bedrooms will continue to be up to your full golf course, or whatever So I. And then on the Enforcement issue. and if the city has not been doing a great job of enforcement on behalf of neighbors who reported to services. so again, I'm

[54:14] I wonder like, how is that going to get better? You know you have a a problem in your neighborhood, then you're not going to your piece of why, that that's a problem that's not easy. So in a certain amount of respect for that. so a few thoughts something else that will currently be. Oh, yes, I'm sorry. An important question is. how is what Staff is recommending differ from what voters turned down at the ballot box not so long ago. Well, just that it. It's using the the construct that we already have in the code. just a a a maximum of unrelated it, and it doesn't do it by bedroom

[55:01] And I I think when we have talked to folks that have told us why they didn't vote for bedrooms or for people. That was the concern was that it would encourage a lot of potentially non-conforming bedrooms to be created or cramming in bedrooms, or that there would, it would be difficult to know what counts as a bedroom or not, someone might say, this is just a study or a library. you know, or something like that. So those are that uncertainty, I think is what drove a lot of people to not vote for that ballot initiative. So we we didn't want to go down the route of bedrooms. So again, we're just kind of making what we have in the code how we're doing it already more flexible and those who started it like it would be all that. This is not gonna create a rush to subdivide rooms and create more bedrooms, not like the outcome. Then the idea is to get the existing bedroom to be used, even though you're not using that room in this language.

[56:08] Yeah, I think I think that that consequence would be more if we did it by bedrooms. I think we felt like going in this direction would maybe avoid that. It seems to me that the concerns the concerns that people voiced. not supporting bedrooms are, for people are still going to be the same concerns with this proposal. True. yeah, I mean, I especially, you know, with respect to neighborhood impacts like parking. I think it's it would be a concern either way. Yeah, I. And it wasn't because of parking. It was because I don't trust landlords in Boulder to do a great thing. What's that?

[57:06] I know? I think that's the student rentals and boulders kind of a racket. And again. I'm a little concerned that this won't actually increase housing supply or affordability. but I'm you know I'm I'm persuadable. I'd like to hear. I think I'll be persuaded. I I think, when it comes to affordability. This may be a situation where the landlords maybe get a little bit more rent. I can see that. But the people living there also pay a little less rent for person. So in theory it would just charge the same right, and then add more people. well, that would be that. That's what happened right? So right now, you got 3 people in a house, and they're paying $3,000 total. That's you. You you have that same house. So you put 5 people in it, and they charge

[58:00] $3,500. So when it gets 500 more bucks right? Or that's for our little hypothetical here. But per person in the house they're not paying. They're paying 8. I think I think the market what people think. I think that there's a lot of people even we have in our leases and all the stuff. You can't do it. I think it's happening anyway. So you know what I mean. That's one. And secondly, I think there's also a market demand issue, you know, if you have a 3 bedroom house, and there's 3 people living in there. You'll pay more to have your own room. If you're 5 people living in there, you'll pay less because you're sharing rooms. And it's 5 people to one, you know. I've seen that there's a there's a market ability to. It's not like just open top, you know, and and our brains and older are pretty recent. Given the price of the house to buy right cost of owning cost of renting a bowl is a big difference. So I I I'm just what's holding me up. And I know this is not gonna affect thing is

[59:03] you can have a a 10 flex with 2 bedrooms, 50 people I don't know. I'm sorry I have a hard time with that. I know it doesn't. It's not going to change anything, but it's just but yeah, sorry I didn't interrupt. So I just want to make sure, because we're people we want to testify. So I wanted to make, because we're supposed to limit this to questions only. And then. Yup, so we can do that now. Good, unless there are other questions, just a big question. So you want to go back to board questions. But we want to be sure we get our public comment. you want to review any of the rules of public comment. Now, Jenny, oh. yeah. see now, I'm not prepared. Hold on 1 s. all right, while you're clarification question. So currently, if somebody lives in a zone that appropriately allows 3,

[60:03] can they put in a request to up that to 4 or 5 under the current code. No? Okay. Okay. do we do. We generally see landlords pricing by the bedroom or by the octopus? So I remember one of the bedrooms there for people arguments was that I learned we're already pricing by the bedroom. No, I I I think it's you know it's driven by the market, and I don't know that I have a good answer for that alright as someone with a daughter who recently was looking for housing. As soon it's by the person that's what she was seeing a lot. Yeah, yeah. I lived in a over-occupied 6 bedroom house last year, and they knew that we were over occupied. So they prices by the person. Yeah, I don't really understand how they get around that. The overall like how the landlord, yeah.

[61:16] Sorry to step down for you. It's this is 3 min earlier. Comment period is never too apologies. Right? That just turned my off. okay, give me a chance to I want to share the rules very quickly.

[62:01] and then we can begin our our public comment. Oh. we got our as a rule check pulling them up right now. Okay. it's very fun waiting. We've been in a momentary all right. just a couple of rules for community engagement. So the city did engage with the community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. so to to create sort of a a physical and emotional safe space for everybody. we have developed these different roles. for more information. You can go to the community engagement process. productive atmosphere is The following examples are rules of decorum found in there. all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. Please no participant. She'll make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person, obscenities, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise. It's the ability to connect the meeting are prohibited.

[63:20] and participants are required to sign up speaking, to speak, using the name that they are commonly known by, and individuals us display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is branded at at this time. That is it. are you? Okay? I think we should proceed to public comment, and you have several. Eric Budd has his hands, and Eric to hear from you. Thank you, Eric, but I live in Boulder I was heavily involved. There was one of the

[64:00] co-organizers and leaders of bedrooms are for people happy to answer any questions on that if people have them. I also testified a planning board last night, and I really talked a lot about the ordinance itself. which overall I supports. I think. To sum it up generally. it's past time to make this change and that I would like to see it essentially flat across the city, including non-conforming units. one thing that did come up at the meeting last night was around the potential for affordability requirements. And this is something. You know we've been talking about for several years. We got questions on the campaign about bedrooms are for people. Why didn't that that also not have affordability requirements, and I just wanted to put a couple of things out there for consideration about this that I think are useful. the first thing I want to mention actually was already mentioned by Carl Giler. thank you about Madison, Wisconsin. And so we don't have another example of any other city ever implementing a re affordability requirement on on occupancy. And I agree Madison is the closest analog, and

[65:10] these extra regulations and the extra friction to allowing people to share. Housing, I think. have ultimately been unsuccessful, and that's why they've been removed in Madison, and many other cities are going to liberalizing these laws are getting rid of them entirely. So I think that's an important case. The other thing is, if If the current occupancy limits of 3 would allow landlords to charge rents without affordability limitations. Then now there would be an incentive for landlords not to apply for increase occupancy and keep the status quo or keep things under the table and the main one of the main reasons that we want to get these changes in places. as Julianne said, many people are living in over occupied situations. Today, they're currently breaking the law and the putting extra requirements and extra friction on that is going to not accomplish the mission which is to

[66:14] get people above board. Have them be legal. And on a lease like that's a big goal of making these changes. let's see the I think that's that's pretty much all, for now I think the other thing of just this dynamic of between. as proposed with a port billing requirements, it would only be on rentals, and that would mean you would have differences between rentals and owners. And also you would actually. essentially, if if a concern is about families and their ability to afford it. Families would not get any help with affordability, whereas 5 people sharing a house would. There's just a lot of strange dynamics here that I think are really problematic, and that we should just move towards getting rid of laws that are based on family status altogether.

[67:02] Thank you. Thank you, Eric. Did. We have other members of the public who would like to comment? It's like. Thank you. My name is Rosie Vivian and I testified at planning board last night, and was pretty alarmed by some of the anti student anti someone that doesn't have the same lifestyle as me type of comments. I mean, you might have a different age, or a lifestyle, or different assets than a student, or a single person, or a family, or a retired person or 2 professional couples, a cooperative group, or someone struggling to find shelter, or a colleague or community leader. But is anyone more or less important, or more or less deserving of a home or access to housing. I would argue that we all deserve access to housing and moving from 3 to 5 is going to help people I support raising occupancy limits city citywide to 5. Simply put it opens up housing options for people, whoever they might be. Mark Mcintyre was so eloquent at the April eighteenth Planning Board meeting about the role of Government planning board, and I hope everybody remembers and can reflect on his comments at that past meeting

[68:25] on this new code addition. It's going against the whole idea of simplification of the codes, and exactly why we need statewide rules that eliminate occupancy altogether. It's just way too granular and complicated for the average person or landlord or tenant to understand. And how many, you know parcels does this apply to? I think there's an answer tonight of 1,200 that we didn't have last night. But can we just improve the 5 people and strike all of the overly complicated additional language that just makes it hard for people to figure out how to

[69:02] brent or lease of space. yeah, I mean, I guess if no one questions the infrastructure. When a family of 5 moves into a house, then why would it make sense, or even be fair to question the infrastructure. When 5 people live together, however, they wanted to find their relationship. 5 people are 5 people, and it's time to remove any judgment. And what if this happens? Or that happens? Because, I mean, it's a huge land area that this Rl, one is from the pre map presentation that we can share with people. We can share the buildings, we can share the existing infrastructure and the empty bedrooms with more people. I just heard a lot of del delay tactics, and it's sort of frustrating as a community member, as an architect, as someone who's had clients that are 2 professional couples that want to share a house and they can't. It's just the the building codes. I'm also an architect, and the building codes have requirements already in place that take care of all of the safety concerns, such as egress, windows, smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, you know, doors and window size requirements. So we I just think we can't make judgments on people, and how they want to live. And I feel like all the other ordinances are already addressed with our

[70:19] existing regulations about traction parking and complaints and noise. So that's all. Thank you very much for considering the feedback. Thank you very much, for those are really great comments. We have. more public comments coming up. No hands. No. Okay. okay, we can have some more important discussion. I think that will be needed. I like to clarify that I'm still. I'm going on this one, but I'm certainly not anti student or in my lifestyle. I think. My.

[71:03] it was. You know. What if it doesn't really help increase the housing supply or for ability? I mean, I'm usually like so knee jerk through anything. But that was this really got me thinking, But I'm up to here more from other board members. One thing that does really concern me that this could potentially address it is, and maybe you you you'd have some personal experience with it, Julian, but it was a parent of the season. I'm hearing more and more about C students who live outside of older and community. I mean not good outcome for anything, I mean for community, for traffic congestion, for you know, convenience. that's that's the thing I like to see reversed. and the only way to do that is provide more formal housing for students in Boulder. But yeah, I mean, you find that about your students. Yeah, actually, I've noticed a little bit more. It's so surprising to hear people say that they don't live in Boulder. Well, I'm not surprising anymore, because this is all a huge issue.

[72:10] But on top of your first call, and you just need about if it would actually increase the housing supply or not. I like what Eric just commented on about like, maybe not, but getting people on a lease is a really good thing, and they're protected. I really exposed when you saw one of those leases, and it's actually not. I was the one to kicked curve. And that was really, it's really bad. It's a lot of legal problem. Yeah, so yeah, that those things happening, it'd be better if they didn't for sure, right and just everything else at least protects you from.

[73:01] So when she was looking for her place off campus, she really wanted to stay in town so she could her bike, and that was a big stretch. money, wise and a lot of what she was seeing was per person rental. By. So you mean that If it was a 6 bedroom house, so for 3 they would rent it out for the market rate price of 3 people, or, let me say it a little bit differently. So there would be a 2 bedroom place. and they would happily accept for people the same cost that somebody else in town would find their own bedroom. But you had to look really hard to find that one bedroom voice that cost the same

[74:09] right what I'd say when I moved back to Boulder years back. And so we lived in South Boulder. So we we rented a house and South boulder and and that whole area. And and there's a lot of like grad students there, a lot of older students, you know. What have you that area? It's rented by the price per house. And and you know. we saw. And there's a lot of a lot of families renting over there, too, and a lot of people, you know, putting their kids into the schools down South Boulder over there and stuff like that. And you know, you end up with a lot of missing bedrooms, and I do think there's a certain level of market factor here that you know we'll control it from just going up per occupant in there, and I can say, like I rented a you know, ostensibly is you could call it as high as a 5 bedroom. you know, there is very few people in there, and and I would love to see something where the occupancy wouldn't become an artificial

[75:16] our artificial kind of prohibition from something like that happening and it and I think that, Michael, I certainly share your concern. I think that there are definitely market factors in place. And I think there's also you know, the fact that you can get creative roommates in place that can kind of deal with some of those things. And and so, you know, rather I I think it. Maybe it puts 10 in in a little bit better of a negotiating position than if they weren't there. Which is I, I think, you know we what Julie is just saying. So I I think I I all in all. I I think there's more positive than negative, and I'm I'm pretty supportive of it, just because I think it's been a arbitrary restraint that now we're not just get rid of, because that would concern me. But it's something where, you know we're taking a few gentle steps in the right direction. I think that's something that you know can have a positive effect.

[76:14] so I don't think I'm definitely got it. What's your opinion on Essentially accepting the recommendation, Karl language as opposed to revising it and customizing it. It's up to the board. no, I know that that wasn't. I think we can get can take you in a lot of different places.

[77:06] But I think overall. the good outweighs the bad. It's not gonna hurt anything by way of affordability. Yeah, I mean, it's gonna make things. They're reasonable per person, I believe. looking like this, even if it if it's my person. that person who otherwise wouldn't have been able to live in in a in a unit because they could only have 3 and not 5. They're moved to what? Looseville they're driving it right, even if they pay the same. If it is per person, it's still better that they're living here, you know. You see what I'm saying so bad that they're living across the street or down the block. So I think there's a lot of things that make sense about this, but I think overall allowing more people to live in the buildings that we already have. It's better than not i' a point that Terry brought up before about the disparity between rental rates. Kind of common rental rates now, and mortgage rates.

[78:10] I think you know it's not. Every landlord is a You know we're in a top hat and swirling their moustache. A lot of people are trying to figure out. So from that perspective, you know, there is definitely a disparity between rental rates and mortgage rates. If you're buying something nowadays, right? Especially if you're just a normal individual. And so I think with all those things. It's just a question of. Loosen this up a little. My suggestion is one thing, one approach that we might want to take here. cause I I I'd be afraid to open up the can of worms like Terry just mentioned, and and room Carl's week, so I'd say but maybe what we could do is say, you know, we we're supportive of this. But here are some things that we think deserve, you know, some further attention, or some, you know, further concern, but we're supportive of this. That could be a way we b for Kate some of our reticence with our overall, you know. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[79:05] Hmm! It's a great point. What would you? So we'll get to that like what? What's our? It's our. But we support this, and it's not a but those lines. I I I agree so far with what people are saying is trying to which. But this is going to get really complicated, to be a kind of worm scheme. I think one of the butts is the situations where, like we've been talking about. It's a 2 bedroom apartment going to be some for 5, that one. That's one place where it doesn't make a lot of sense. But then we don't want to go off the bedroom because of all the other reasons. and we've kind of already viewed that it sounds like. So that's one of the little discrepancies, I guess.

[80:01] What else. Andy, but you one along those lines. That's a good one, actually. do. I mean, I think that's a good one, I I think. yeah. whatever their concerns are that you know that you know board members have articulated here. can be something we just say, you know we approve this. Here are things we think should be, you know, contemplated for the next steps, or whatever right? And then, you know, kind of lay it out there. I I I kind of share in the yeah. The the point that Tyre is making about, you know just the but not have any bedroom variable in here, you know we we have the same factors for a a condo and a home and stuff like that. But Outside of that. I'm I'm just open everything. I'm just saying, I think that a structure you know, where we can kinda get an approval or or I I mean to get a a support or not support. Vote straight up, but then add those things to. It could be helpful to try to kinda loosen up the not a little bit here.

[81:11] Can you bring up the the suggested motion. and then also keep in mind. You know, typically, what staff does is you. You have a motion, and you it'll present that to council. But you also talk about You know what else you said. so you could have express concerns, Karl. And just basically summarize that as the staff report so that way, our recommendation is like a Yes, but situation or not really. they had concern. These concerns right? And I will watch the meeting to make sure. You say that Carl Karl is really good about that. I'll just send them the Youtube video link.

[82:02] Send them the planning board one, too, while you're at it. I trust, Carl. Not by large. But it's kind of like I want to make a motion 1 s second. all in favor. I it's like the motion. This is 5 0 with the understanding that Staff will report it on certain concerns should take a consideration. Moving forward. Carl, do you feel like you have what you need? Or do you need some clarification on what those concerns are. I've taken I pretty good notes, I think. So. I I I'm happy to convey this to council. Thank you.

[83:02] Yeah. Carl's in on the east coast, too. So it's probably oh, wait. thanks, everybody over on the agenda. This is titled The Retreat. Follow up, although I believe we're we're gonna publicly. guys, I'm sorry I'm I'm gonna have to excuse myself a little bit early I got. Is there a ceremony on Saturday, or just a party? It's the ceremonies right on site. So it's just going to be. It's a buddy of mine who ordained himself online or something like that. And then and then right to the party. So great, Dan, you know what absolutely 5 of me I'm not allowed to. I just found out. So I got my son's my best man. He doesn't have any close. We gotta go shopping tomorrow.

[84:19] No dress code. A lot of fun. Lot of lot of beer. Okay. Don't need to one out your hair fire. We'll see you soon. It's an inappropriate bye, guys, the training session follow up. I think I would characterize that train session as a team building. I've heard we got to know each other what kind of show fish we like and don't like. For example. we had a really really interesting discussion, more philosophical

[85:00] about rental rental housing and it or it's it's just, I guess you can call it. And and it's somewhere they have to be? Or is that just kind of a marketing employ that we've all voted to? things that far and see the scope of the Housing Advisory Board. That's we get what we probably have now. but I thought it was fascinating conversation. so that's my we. That's talk more about yeah, sure. Thought it was great. I think it's great to be able to just to free, flow and discuss things. And you offline and talk about bigger picture items. That was great things you do more often zoom and feel like there is a

[86:02] actually don't remember. This is this question a new policy direction that we haven't considered before that came out of that discussion. Something clear on my head. It's popping around okay. Anything else on the any fish? Is that a scheduled once a year? Thing it is if they come in time. Jay, yeah, I mean I. The reason it's on the agenda is, you know there were some things where that we thought about doing so. One of them was like a bite tour of affordable housing again in the fall. So if you guys want to do that, we should like to date, get that scheduled on the books. It's like, you know, it's like 2 or another late October, combined by 2 or one, the bike tour with another.

[87:06] We want to call it retreat, or what it kind of happens. Anyway. The oh. September, I might be away in September eleventh. What is that? Are you remembering that as same, or in addition to also maybe doing like a walking tour of holiday or well, so there was an orientation for the 2 new members. specifically. But I was just throwing ideas out there. So we could, I mean. in addition to instead of up to you guys, what whatever you want to do. But the bike tour is actually it was really fun last year. People really enjoyed it. And then there are other people that want to join. Right?

[88:00] We so many things to look at that we didn't actually cover. Yeah, there's exactly no, and we didn't even make it to everything that we had on the list. So maybe we could do some some of the stuff new here, maybe cover. We didn't do much in South Pole. It's a little more sparse in South building. Yeah. it didn't all they popular common. So do you want me to try this like do a doodle with some potential dates in like September. It could do it before September 23, before the 23. Anyone else of September plans. I won't be back until the fourteenth. How about the first week of October?

[89:02] I'll just work with Michael. Okay, anything else under entreat before we move to. I don't see. Great. I didn't see for the airport update. I think we'll turn to Laura. one of the groups that's working with the sure. Yeah, actually, I'm sorry Philip isn't here because he's here. He's like your liaison, but I'll try to fill in for Philip. So we had a working group meeting last week and an open house. The open house was extremely well attended. But J, were you there? Yeah, I think it was over 100, maybe 150 people like a lot of people, and I had to leave early. Staff gave a presentation about where they're at. They have developed for scenarios. I don't know. Phillip has told you what those 4 scenarios are. basically, the first scenario is, keep the airport basically as it is, but with enhanced maintenance, bring it up to up to speed. Basically, it's kind of dilapidated

[90:06] in scenario is actually to grow the aviation services of the airport in various ways. The third scenario is to add neighborhood serving uses to the airport to actually like, bring in a cafe, bring in an aviation museum. Maybe bring in that stem learning center for kids like bring different neighborhood kind of activities onto the airport site itself. Some folks have said, maybe that that's not kosher with the Faa. So there's a feasibility to be done with that. That's the third scenario. That's the concept. And then the fourth scenario is decommissioned. The airport almost entirely keep the head of a pad for emergency operations, but basically get rid of the runways, decommission almost everything, and build a new neighborhood there that housing and neighborhood serving uses. it would be an opportunity to imagine something new, and Philip and Ryan branch too hard. Who is the liaison from transportation board, and he's also running for City council. Philip and Ryan. Just run an OP. Ed. That appeared in the boulder. Be today with a vision for housing at the airport, and what they think that could look like.

[91:10] So that's an interesting piece. So those 4 scenarios were presented at the Open House for people to comment on. They're also up on a survey or a questionnaire. Excuse me on, be heard, Boulder. I would encourage everybody to visit to be her boulder site. Look at the scenarios. Give your opinions as individuals. You're welcome to do that. Spread it out to your networks. I think that Everybody acknowledges that just by the nature of this project the existing airport community of pilots and tenants at the airport, not just the ones who live here, but also once you use it from around the State and beyond are participating heavily. So if folks from the community want to have a voice in this, I would encourage you to go to the be her boulder site. do the different scenarios, and register your opinions on what you think the future would be the process from here. This is our last big public input window that staff are anticipating. Originally the plan was that they would try to take all the public input, not just from be heard boulder in the open house, but other things that they're doing as well, including community meetings and talking with various folks, and

[92:13] take all of that and some analysis, and come back to city council with a preferred scenario. They're no longer trying to narrow down to a preferred scenario. Now they're saying that they're going to go to city council with all 4 scenarios and the analysis and the public input kind of on an even playing field and let city council think about So the first step is August 20 fourth, they'll go to City council and ask city council. what more information do you need to be able to make a decision? On what scenario to pursue? In my mind? Some folks see it differently. The big question is, do we want to have an airport into the future? And if so, what does that look like? Or do we want to have a neighborhood, because that's a whole different pathway that would involve negotiating with the Faa to try to decommission it and think about what to build there.

[93:00] So what information do they need to make a decision like that? Because there's a lot of information they could request. So what information do they want staff with limited availability to pursue. Prior to the decision point. The system point actually comes in January after we have a new council. So that adds an interesting twist. Let me stop there and say, are there any questions? That's my update for limited capacity and hub and add housing. So the third scenario, with neighborhood serving uses. I'm sorry I forgot to mention they are talking about some limited amount of housing they were originally describing that as live work housing that would be like. For example, you're a pilot, and you have a hangar with a plane. And now you have an apartment over that you can live in so sort of live work housing in the last meeting. They said that. they're not sure exactly what that looks like. It could be airport community that lives there. It could be in other people that that it could be students, student pilots. It could be community serving that. They don't know what that looks like that's to be determined. But I think that would be relatively a small amount of housing on the order of versus thousands if it was a new neighborhood, probably a couple of 1,000.

[94:15] But there's not an option of airport and a lot more. Now. There's kind of a limited housing like slight rules there. It's not the reason why, or just people think they don't want to look by there. I think that it's kind of both. I think that there's a question mark around whether the Faa will allow it. Some folks have said it is possible it has happened at other airports, and other folks have said, well, that's grandfathering, or that's a car B, or that's an exception. And Faa is not going to go there anymore. Or and it's it's sort of a question. It's an open question for whether that's even possible for the to have a significant airport with runways and a significant out of housing. I'm sure at some point. This has happened before decommissioning and air decommissioning an airport. so we probably know what that means. If it's an option, as anybody explored that more than just talking about it. There, there have been a few times after 25 miles away. Well, state content is different. Because, yeah. And and you know, I think, probably all know this. The Faa does not like to decommission airports. They would probably fight it they, the way that the Grant agreements are written. They don't

[95:19] we have to let us decommission it? We are. We have some obligations to the fa that are kind of in perpetuity. It' be a fight. and the airports that have managed to do it. It has been a legal battle. It's my what I think. At least some of them have had to go through litigation. So there are at least 3 examples of airports that have managed to negotiate with the Faa to completely decommission. Rialto. I I have a list. I can send it to you. We they even gave it to us as a slide at the first room for meeting. Sorry I should have it on top of my head. But there's somebody names that get banded around, and sometimes the airport has multiple names and the airport name that's pretty tough.

[96:12] They they gave up the presentation. But, yeah, it doesn't happen often, and it's not easy. You have to really want it. So it's a it's a decision point, it would definitely take negotiation at the very least with the Faa, and probably litigation. There would also be some costs. I can talk more about that if you want. But I don't want to dominate here. So that's but that's where we're at is some people get to request more information, and some of these things are information that city council is probably going to request like, what does it actually take to decommission the airport? And what are the case? Studies. I expect they're going to want to know that planning board has asked Staff for that information. We have suggested that that would be good to know but we don't direct staff. We just make suggestions. So well, I look for that information. Any other questions.

[97:08] And you see on this, even just to keep that option in and so forth. Option, and, you know, have this video as well. Maybe a lob shot. But it's a pretty intriguing 3 miles from downtown. So definitely discussion. It sounds like it's going to go here, which is great definitely, would not be easy. Yeah, you may hear figures turn around about how much it would cost to be commission, even in the worst case scenario that would be completely paid for by selling the land that land is worth, you know, 350 million plus dollars at least. So selling it to the city, selling it to developers for development. So the idea would be for creating a new neighborhood. You would sell some of it at market rate to pay back the faa, and we could possibly sell some of it at reduced prices to get additional affordable housing. Basically make you deal with developers. You'll hear Mark Wallace talk about this view. Watch the City Council meeting

[98:13] you get the land for cheap. But the condition is you have to build what we want you to build, which is, you know, middle income affordability, or it's, you know, low income housing at a greater percentage, right? Even if we just sold the land all at market rate, as you all know, 25 is that obligation to the inclusionary housing program to either build it on site or pay the cash in Loo. So you know, if we sold the whole thing at market rate and didn't interfere in the market at all. We still get 25%, the formal housing. And then people talked about the Alpine balsam. Yes, when the city owns the land, we have leverage, basically to get more affordability out of it. The 3 case studies are Santa Monica Airport is set to close in 2,028.

[99:03] You missed. Excuse me, Rialto. We just to pull Airport in California closed already. September 2,014, and East Hampton Airport closed in May of 2,022, so 2 that are closed, and one that he's Hampton, New York. It's all 3 case studies that Staff gave us. So as far as I know, there's the only 3 that the Faa is like I of how far is the Longmont Airport. It's like 8 miles. This is just on Airport Road, down the way you know. Diagonal hang left. It's right there in the regional airport, you know that team mine and then Tink Chefco and then, Erie. there are like 8 8 different airports within 45 miles of boulder. We're one of the most airport rich areas of the country. Yeah. The pro airport

[100:01] Proponents have their arguments as well how every airport is valuable, and you close one, and it squeezes traffic to the others, and that causes ripple effects. And you know, I I think it's a rich conversation. My perspective from planning board has been. Let's have all the perspectives represented. Let's get all the data and the data makes good decisions. And that includes the stories of community members. Both the people who love the airport and the people who might be able to live there if it were a neighborhood. Right? So let's let's consider all of that. That's great. Thanks. Oh, thank you. This is really great before any more questions. so many. That's how

[101:08] well we first we first saw this in. So when planning board, looked at the capital improvement program last year last August there was a line in there for the airport master plan update, and we were like great. This is a great opportunity to do what it says in the bolt of rally comprehensive plan, which is that the time of the next airport master plan update, we would look at City will work with the community to assess the potential for developing a portion of the airport for housing and neighborhood serving uses use. That's right in the whole of really comprehensive plan. So we really promoted that last August before any of this was designed. So we've been like from the beginning, saying, Let's look at this housing option. Are there groups of people kind of trying to visualize other than maybe the article that's up in Brian road. Are there any designers architects like trying to visualize what this can look like? That is a great question. I think Staff would say that that's premature and so I don't think anybody has been commissioned to do that. I think that there are people who would be interested in doing that, but I don't think anybody has sat down to do that. Lisa Morzel was part of. She's she's the person who put that language into the Bowler Valley comprehensive plan to say, Let's look at the airport for housing. And she was part of

[102:20] the group that did the visioning for holiday, and North older, and then North folder. So community plan back in the nineties. And so she's really a proponent of let's do that again. Let's bring in architects. Let's bring in designers. And let's really be progressive and imagine what this community could be if we can build it from the ground up. So I think there are people who are interested in it. I would like to see that happen. I don't think that that has actually taken off yet. I know it's stable. Then it's out to the much bigger place. But that started way back in the early nineties when you know this new airport was being built, but they established the vision in 1,985, with a social degree book, which is, you know, about a general planning document for the established principles. This is going to be a sustainable, you know, transit, and one of all, and family friendly that parks and schools, and

[103:12] well, that I think it was. Really it was. Actually, it turned out to be an amazing it's it's I don't know. It's it's it's a great example of taking land that it used to be an airport. Right? Yeah. And what kind of clean up like? So environmental remediation is a question like, what kind of cleanup would be entailed. And so I think if it's a good example of you know, what did it cost? What did you have to go through? How did you do your visioning process? Right? So it's not a great example of decommissioning with the Faa, because they didn't completely be commissioned just. But for the what does it take to take the actual land and do something to try it. It's a great example, right? And for the jet, for it's, you know, environmental.

[104:00] Yeah. But I mean, anytime you'll have a fuel tank which we do. You know, anything like happening for bust leaking underground storage tanks like, basically anytime, you have a storage tank. It leaks. So there's definitely going to be some remediation required. So that would be part of figuring out the cost. I'm curious about those airports in California is housing related, or what are they doing with that land? Do we have any idea? That's a great question. I've never asked that question. I mean, I'm sure he's not giving anybody affordable. But I don't know. That would be a great question to follow up on. Yeah. Anything else on the airport. thanks to you. Okay. it will be finest detail this or I. I did attend a book for a gathering of all the folks for around of the last month. And basically, you did

[105:00] city plan of orange plan to consider 3 different scenarios. and generally I'm there just to speak up for housing. But other issues that I discussed? Or what is the What's the street plan that like that? We have connectivity. A big one is how much retail and where we put it, because look at the other parts of the reunion, they built the retail. What? They did not come in we still so it was the second, for example, copy training retail and notes on 4 corner of each other rather than the whole street. for example. and then you know there's a lot of concern about, and I think it's quite the German. you know, we've got these longstanding over businesses that are not you know. Observe their service businesses. you know people that they think some things, and you don't want to kick those people out. Some of those people were at the meeting and They had some cool ideas on how to integrate to the businesses with new development. So I don't know.

[106:07] I think it's the example, it's a guy that fixes motorcycle charging station, coffee shop entertainment venue. You charge your eb and boost it around way through to charge. Why not have a pool. So basically, I think this is the rough numbers, because I remember them very well. But I think the range of housing could go from, say, like 800 to to 1,400, and I'm saying, go as much housing as possible, because I will. I'll try retail and your other goals double. What if you plan for a lot of office? That's what it's built? That's not a sort of thing getting this point out of the office market versus the housing market. the other interesting that is not related to the planning.

[107:02] but the company that owns 11 acres of whatever that total like which is, you know, it's starting to create a development plan conceptual plan. We have a lot of housing. It's conscious to me. you know. And then they're they have a great project of these meetings talking about how they can help create simply for the whole district, and also what we're better than they're making public spaces, and the whole picture not just for so. He has already made a recommendation on t back It was more. Things go forward and like something that I think it would be helpful when the time is right for us to make a recommendation. It's a great to say. You know we've pursued the greatest matter housing and here's why and that, you know, it's something we might have to, but not to our gender and outlaws. so I've already done that pretty here, and you can go read about that outline and Council, I think, is probably going to get something to build on that in September.

[108:13] you know. I don't know have it, you know, but I mean, it's gonna be a fairly general plan. out of super detail, and in the city owns not that land. It's unlike You have one where they and the 11 acres of the all our site This will be up to the private sector to expute the details, and it's gonna be built there. So that's the T. That report. I'm actually kind of encouraged. I think that area could really blossom. a lot of people lived there already. It's not maturity yet, but it could get there going. More good quality, development. Good.

[109:01] Any questions. September 20. First, the public hearing and council, for I thought, that's our bike tour. right? adders from staff. That's me. Yeah. couple of updates. So the middle income down payment assistance pilot is going to officially launch August fourteenth. So people will be able to apply. We're just getting the the processes in place and Impact Development Fund, which is a community development finance institution will implement that program for us. and they'll you have an agreement with them to implement it for us. So that's exciting. It took us a little bit to work through the last minute Council request to make sure that we income enough to qualify future buyers. Oh, it could be problem that we're going to give it a try.

[110:06] So if you want more information, I'm happy to send you what we sent to council. It went last Thursday. as an information packet that was on the agenda. So at the end of their council package, so I'm not sure how many people read it. But it's a way to get the information out there. inclusionary housing updates. So August is going to be a very busy meeting. So we have Carl's coming back with zoning for affordable housing. we are also going to be presenting alternatives for the inclusionary housing update. so it's fairly complex stuff. so hopefully, we're gonna give you enough information that you can provide some direction in terms of which alternatives make the most sense. We're gonna do the same thing with planning board. A week later, and then a couple of days after that we're gonna go to council. Then our schedule is is fairly accelerated just because Council wants to get this done before the election.

[111:07] Unfortunately, our cons. Our consultant was extremely delayed, so we were supposed to have this information 2 months ago. We were just getting it this week. so anyway, you we're gonna have a lot coming up August and September. and that's it, and I'll schedule it back to her. Any other questions things you want to know about. so there'll be an interesting news about fruits coming up. Good news. Yeah, very good. The hotline should be going out shortly. it's an agreement. Can you review that for anybody who is never to have, and then that

[112:00] well, it's not finalized yet. So I just want to. 3 11, Mapleton. it's called the Academy. It is up on the if you've been to the end of like towards sanitis development there. Oh, So the construction? Yeah, that big project. So it's very, very high end housing mostly for seniors. I guess very various levels of care right anywhere. They to get their product approved. They made certain certain promises to council in terms of providing a certain number of units on site. That's what planning boarding council through just part of their sec review When they went to get their permits, they said, We can't do the units on site and we also can't because they're also gonna build units on proofs which is so forget the address. And but everyone knows where that is the right. So

[113:05] basically, they were gonna satisfy a part of their inclusion or housing requirement with units on that side as well. and instead they paid cash So for a portion of the units. Now they there's been a deal negotiated. with involvement, with a couple of members of council to basically provide a line dedication plus cache. But sure more to come on that one. That's good, because that's like it's been vacant for years. Now it's been torn down and just sitting there. There's some good news that you don't kind of the original view just a different way to get there, a different way to get there. And that was going to be a really innovative like car sharing like almost no parking Onsite senior living, and in the seniors would have cars that they could share for trips and stuff like that. It's going to be a very cool project. I think everybody is really disappointed with that kind of fell through.

[114:14] Yeah, if we have a partner who's interested in building it? Oh, Jay's eyes are lighting up so I'm not going to say any more. Hey? Do you have any other questions for staff. Just it's just it's funny because we're talking about retail office housing. We have a shortage of housing, so shortage of. We're talking about building things with no cars. It's like these are paradigm shifts in the way we've lived for hundreds of years. You know. it's interesting. Yeah. Nope, that's what we're yeah. You'll enjoy reading Ryan and Phillips article with their vision for what we built. Yeah.

[115:03] that's pretty cool. hey? Item, 7. De Greek meeting since before we did reach out, it's gonna to ruminate for a minute or not I was in. I've been on Anna before. They've been both in a little summer. And I've never been there, I thought, wow! They're fun since. It's like Boulder 30 years ago. That's not really true. It's this interesting from the housing perspective. I think prices in the city of 50,000 middle of now we are very close to what you experience here. and I don't seem to have same kind of high restrictions as I saw. I don't know buildings that I did in Denver like 6 8 stories. and they don't have this robust and open space program. So they've only had the money. They're in the sales tax. But we've only been able to buy 4,000 acres versus what is it? 46 year? So they've got height, and they got it for all goes on for a good 8 to 10 miles. So so you have to have the same housing dilemma with basically that with a lot of multi 1 million dollar phones. And

[116:19] you know I didn't look into that. But I think they're pretty high. It's not. It's it's pretty big. It's about 20,000. So that's more pressure on a community of 50,000 than ours, with a hundred 1,000 but it's just really interesting. And you know, it's one of the same issues you see here. But the conditions are slightly different. It's just a desirable place to be as close as skiing. It's got a nice out of town. They they do have some nice open space. We have culture. so you can on the head. The more desirable place, the more expensive it is, irrespective of heights. For all this. That is a really nice place to know, for whatever reason prices.

[117:02] whether there's to call these, or short buildings, or 1,000 miles of development or not. If people want to be better because it's nice, and they like it. Prices are going to go, and I'm still in favor of, you know, having a lot of having a vulgar and trying to address the issue, especially if we have a 25% of our yep, with that. if we've had a good meeting we I have a public. Well, I can see, including 2 comments from the public during a hearing. and we did both to yours with certain reservations the staff recommendation, and I can tell you to raise it to 5. So we might good report on airport update. And I think some good outcomes there and reported on the mortgage assistance program moving forward.

[118:00] so I'm just we can. We debrief on our retreat and talked about a like tour in the fall. It would be really fine. We've been thinking 40 now from the debrief. Danny's getting married. Next meeting is to be prepared for that question, you we'll have a really full agenda. We'll try to move things along quickly, because it's done in 3 h, but no regulation can be very simple. and then Jay is going to send out a zoom all to the side of my video director. But we have a bike to our enemy in September. Yeah, I think we we we need to meet a lot of business right? But with the meeting, maybe in September fourth Wednesday.

[119:03] Get a phone in 27. Yeah, correct. Can I offer something? Yes, you may. If anybody is interested in the history of the Citizen Ballot initiative that led to our height restriction. I just got a really fascinating article that Brad Mueller and the planning department shared with me. That's like it was written by one of the main authors of that height, restriction, ballot measure, and it goes through all the politics and what was happening at the time. City Council was in favor and improving 100 foot tall building stuff like that. How we got that 55. But he limit. It was a a a vote in 1971, and it passed by like 1,200 votes. I don't think I don't.

[120:02] It's kind of it goes with the offers, and that whole thing, the blue line, the whole deal. Yeah, it was connected with a lot of those. And it's the same era, right? It's like in 70. It's a lot of environment for all concern, and apparently both was instrumental in passing the high restriction. So I thought it was fascinating. I'm happy to share that our folks want to see it. It has these guys ballot language. I'll send it to you. Sorry. I'm sorry with details unless I really like count them in. So I just read this. Yeah, 2 days ago. Sorry. It's like 47 pages, but it's like a lot of footnotes that you can skip. So

[121:12] it is excellent to work with it. everybody. motion to adjourn so much there a second. Sure, it's great, that's true. It's like we have an option. I hey, tomorrow? Meeting great work. Yeah.