September 27, 2023 — Housing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] I don't know. You're Monday. Okay. Alright, hello, welcome to the The computer. Right again. Hello. Perfect. Welcome to the September 20 seventh housing advisory board meeting. My name is Philip Ogren and I happen to be the senior member here today. And, Michael, which is absent. And so is, Danny. I remember how to say his last name. And, so I'm going to chair until he gets here, I guess. And so I will start with a roll call. Let's see. Karen's here.

[1:00] Here. Hello, I'm here. Do I see the other names? Michael, did you say? No. Okay, everyone else is not here. I don't know. Okay, everyone else is not here. I don't know. Thank you, Laura, for being here from Planning Board. It' so that was, our, agenda started off with the call. To order and roll call and. Agenda number 2 is agenda review. And we have 8 things on our agenda. The, I just mentioned the first 2 that third will be, the approval of minutes, which will probably have to, kick. And down the field to later. Number 4 is public participation. Number 5 is matters from the board where the main thing on the docket tonight is an update about the inclusion area housing ordinance that's gonna be moving on soon. And then updates, about the airport. I guess. I'm not sure who would update us on border junction phase 2 if it wasn't Michael, but if anyone has an update on that, you know.

[2:11] Number 6 is, manners from staff. And so, we're gonna do a little recap of the affordable housing. And Let's see, I guess I can get that for now. Item number 7. It's debrief the meeting and calendar check and hopefully will adjourn by 9 PM. Exactly. And that's the agenda review. I see that we just skip number 3. The. Of minutes. That's correct. To to discuss the edit or is that. Okay. Okay. And it's 608. We are 3 min behind, but, Number 4 here on the agenda is public participation.

[3:01] Open comment. So do we have anyone here? Do you? We do. Great. Let me, let me. Go over the rules for, public participation. Let me share. So the city of Boulder is engaged with the community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful and inclusive civic conversations. This designed to support physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members. More information about this vision you can go to the city's website The following are examples of rules that take arm, bound in hold to revise code. These will be upheld by the during the meeting by our chair.

[4:08] All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participants shall make, or use other forms of intimidation against any person, obscenities. And other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are a prohibited. And participants are required to sign up speak to speak using their name. If they were commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak on line, currently only audio testimony is permitted. Thank you very much. The.

[5:01] Sorry, I lost the audio a little bit for a second. Can I go ahead? Absolutely. Okay, great. Thanks. Hi, my name is Becky Davies and I am a member of TAB, the transportation board. I do a bit of a cold, so I apologize. My voice is a little rocky tonight. I'm here to introduce myself and and say hello and let you know. Members of housing board that I will be reaching out to each of you. Via email to let you know about an initiative supported by members of TAB as well as members of some other boards and commissions in the city to submit a request to the 2,024 city council so that is the council that will be in place at the start of next year, meaning members who are continuing on from the current council as well as people who will be newly elected in November. So we'll be submitting a request to them. To add an item to the 2024 work plan. To update off street parking ordinances, that the current that the city currently has.

[6:07] And, I wanna emphasize that this is a request that will be coming from, individual board member is not something that we are asking anyone to vote on as a full board, but essentially, what, what we would like to see, the reason we want to see off street parking ordinances updated is because they've they've been problematic certainly for transportation but as well as you know for other areas of work in the city and I'm aware that they're pretty significant for housing given that they impact the development of housing and the cost to build housing. So we wanted to invite you, to sign on to this request to city council asking asking asking that that they prioritize revising those ordinances in next year's work plan. So I will be reaching out to you via email the next day or 2. I'll give you some more details of the request specifically. Feel free to respond to me with if you have any questions about it. I'd be happy to chat.

[7:06] And, you know, we'd love for you to sign on to this request and have this be a, you know, kind of joint, join ask from, from various boards and commissions to the city council. So thank you so much for considering this request and also for your work on issues related to housing throughout the city as board members. So thanks a lot. Thanks, Becky. That's super interesting to me. So, I couldn't understand if. The ask was just as individuals that we. If we should help. With support there as maybe like endorsers of this proposal or if something will come before have as something that we can vote on as a recommendation.

[8:00] That's the question for you or maybe it's for Jay. I don't know. Thank you. Yeah, I'm happy to. Yeah, Oh, sorry, go ahead, Jay. No, I was I was deferring to you. Thanks. Yeah, that's a great question. I'm sorry. I didn't make that clear. I so this would be effectively, the goal is to have a letter with the request that we will share with the goal is to have a letter with the request that we will share with the incoming council and then individual board members who will share with the incoming council and then individual board members who support that will share with the incoming council and then individual board members who support that will sign on to it. But as individuals in the same way that individual board members can endorse a city council candidate. It's kind of like that, except it's endorsing this request to council. So, you would not vote on it since it's not a formal city item. And you wouldn't, you know, discuss it at a board meeting. That wouldn't be the expectation. If you have a favorite article about parking that you'd like to send around to get people fired up about this issue, I'd love to travel and need to read and to share with others.

[9:06] Hmm. Yeah, thanks. Actually, I will share, you know, one pager with information. Background information. I'll share that when I, email, everyone in the next day or 2. Yeah, I know it's a can be a pretty wonky area, but there are a few few resources out there that have kind of summarized the issue well, I think. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other? Folks waiting to comment. No means. Okay.

[10:02] Yeah, go ahead, man. Thank you. When are you there? And if you're speaking, we can't hear you. This is when having audio troubles. It's not reaching. Goes is unmuted.

[11:15] You wanna look forward? Yeah, she'll have a chance to. Of the carrying portion of that age update. We can figure out the technical issues. Great. Then, let's move on to agenda item number 5 matters from the board. First up is the inclusionary housing update, Michelle. 1 s. She's typing to me.

[12:10] Can you hear us, We cannot hear you yet. Just to be clear. We'll come back here. Okay, yeah, so let's move on to the evolutionary housing update. Take it away. Yeah. Alright. Okay, let's see.

[13:00] I need Okay, share and then. Yes, I do not do I lose my Yes. Do you want me to pull it up for you? Oh, see it's funny. That month. Sorry. I'm not laughing at you. I can't. I sometimes can't, ignore the way that the actioning. This is things. It's very entertaining. It's not adapted either because, I remember when we were doing ADUs, it never once got ADU, correct? It's just every time, but it came up with something new every time.

[14:08] Okay. If you're correct just now. That's sorry. You can just look at mine. So one of the planning board is, the, the caption showed Erin Brockett thinking a candidate for her petting. It's Okay, I think we're set now. I'm, I'm a planner in the Housing Division and I work with Michelle, that, and I work with Michelle Allen. I'll be presenting that we're all here to answer any questions. So, our request tonight is for have to make a recommendation to city council on those changes in board notes 8 6 0 one this update's been going on for about a year.

[15:06] And we're now entering the the city council, post changes in ordnance 8 6 0 1. This update has been going on for about a year. And we're now entering the implementation stage and this is an implementation of a, or it's an update of the existing program that's been in effect for more than 2 decades. And the IH program is re-evaluated and updated periodically the last update was in 2,018. So just to refresh your memory, there, were 2 items as part of, the 2223 work program. They were both related to middle income housing. The first was to consider updates to the IH program focused on increasing middle income ownership units and the second was to launch the middle income down payment assistance. And have provided feedback on the majority of the changes in the. In the ordinance last month at the end of last month, however, at the meeting on September seventh, city council directed step to remove the proposed incentives for middle income homeownership units from the project.

[16:08] So we've taken that direction and. Not, not, not, not, not, and I would also just notice part of that direction from, we're also proposing to modify the community benefit requirements to remove that penalty for not providing. On site providing the So the major topics of this update are the updates to the captioning. Methodology, which, would align with best practices and then just adjustments to the code and regulations to clarify each requirements, simplify code language and reduce redundancies. And then the last item here, just is a side note that we did get direction to move forward with the Nexus city that's required to apply a impact. We need to demolitions and replacements. And we're hoping to pursue that next year, but that's not actually part of this, so it would be.

[17:09] So as I said, we're in turn that sort of implementation state of the project and updating the code language. We did present the updates to planning board last night and received the recommendation. The ordinance is scheduled for first rating at city council on October nineteenth and the second reading is on November seventh or second sorry. And if past the changes we're proposing that the changes, so thank you would be effective. 90 days after adoption, so that would be late January. And that would give us enough time to sort of. Implement the procedure will changes and do the updates to the administrative regulations. And just as a side note. Hi, and that there is a separate companion set of administrative regulations for the program that help. To find exactly what the procedures are for administration of the program.

[18:03] So. The code language is the skeleton, but then the sort of details are all in the administrative regulations. And ask a quick question. Backing up just a bit. Can you remind me why you brought up the down payment assistance program? Is that part of the inclusionary housing? No, no, I'm sorry. I was just trying to go back in time of how we got here. So when they, thank you when the work program was defined, beginning of 2022, I'm guessing those were the 2 items that were part of the housing and services. And so the pilot has launched. 2 months maybe. And so this is number one on this. Okay. So in terms of community engagement, we've been following the city's community engagement framework we all hear. We're at that evaluation and decision making stage.

[19:06] And then just as a reminder, the city hired Kaiser to support the program updates. They did an evaluation of the feasibility of the current. And sort of explore nationwide best practices. They did an analysis of financial feasibility of the range of development types. Tested some alternative requirements. And from this, we know there's going to be continued difficulty in achieving onsite for sale outcomes. And we also know that a modification to the cash in the structure and the is sort of necessary to align with the best practices and what other cities are doing. No, I wanted to just throw this slide in here and to just point out that IH update is only. One item that's running parallel with the other city efforts to. Address the housing process. So I, which is only one way to address housing needs.

[20:03] There's no single program that's gonna, you know. Single handledly solved the housing crisis. And just also wanted to point out that that missing middle is considered a housing type, not, it's not based on affordability or permanent affordability anyhow. So the takeaway from this project is really that a well-structured IH program should not constrain production of any one type of housing. And we're hoping that that proposed for Football Adult methodology would remove this. In the program for small or more affordable market rate units. So the first major item in that update as I mentioned is to adopt the CASH and the methodology, which is an assessment based on square footage. We currently have what's a hybrid between square foot and unit size also based on a project size.

[21:00] So this, methodology would adopt a base worth. Cash and rate of 40 to 50 squared. Dollars per square foot. That, amount would scale based on unit size. So rather than calculating the required number of units and converting that to a cash and, amount, we would just take. The entire residential floor area and residential projects. And and apply the cash and low amount to that or the rate and then this would also remove that 1,200 square foot cap that we currently have. In the program, whereas if you hit that cap, we're going to apply the same rate for anything about that. Sorry, can you remember that how the 1,200 foot cap works again? It's been in the program for how long, Michelle? It's my name, So, it's on a sliding scale up into. An average square footage of 12 others per feet.

[22:02] Any project that has units that has an average square unit square footage of over 1,200 square feet will pay the same amount. It's just a cap. The 1,200 is as high as it goes. It's bigger. They just pay that same amount. And so that actually, encourages larger, you know, this is definitely one of those. Kind of. Unintended consequences that we would like to. That we're hoping that's going away. It is going. Okay. Or it's just decided to have more caching than for bigger. Yeah, it seems like that. Here we go away just by virtue of the, the fact that you're changing it to the. Okay, so the second item is to adjust the required affordable rent if rental units are provided on or off site.

[23:06] So the current requirement is that 25% of the units must be affordable and of that 25%. 80% or affordable to 60% of the AMI and 20% are affordable to 80% of the And we found that those 80. Ami rent cause a lot of issues and meeting the state and federal funding requirements. Also that was 80%. AMI rents compete with the Okay, especially in those older rental projects in the city. So the proposal is to change that. Part of the pie that was 80% AMI and change that to 50%. Up to 50% AMI and that would just help retain the diversity of affordable rents that have some deeper affordability. So the next item is to increase the middle income pricing on for sale affordable. Projects either on side or offs.

[24:05] The current requirement is that 80% of those required units are price to HUD low moderate income. And 20% are middle income. So this proposal would change the allowable prices for all units to move up to that middle income tier. And it would be, between a hundred and a hundred 20% of the AMI. So this one, we know that it's, not really feasible to provide ownership units on site. And this would probably be a very little used option, but we'd like to, just sort of provide. More equity between the options for developers right now, Passion, is clear. Preferred option, this would just help at least. Gives them another option. This is the main slide that's changed since last time, right? Where before it was like, you're gonna bring it down to 15% and city council said, no, thank you.

[25:05] So now it's still going to bring it down to 15% and city council said no thank you. So now it's still going to be at 25%. Yeah, yeah, that's a really good point. And then you said something 100% to 120%. What did you mean by 100%? Of the Why is there a lower bound? That's what the prices would be set up. For these for selling. Affordable to household earning 100% AMI or 100. It would depend on the type. So, yeah, depending on the housing type. Okay. So there's there's a table somewhere in the in the packet where I could go and look and see that for these kinds of housing types. The, is gonna be a hundred percent. We just think it's actually pretty simple. If there are single family homes or townhomes, they would have the higher price of 120. To describe it's actually pretty simple. If they're single family homes or townhomes, they would have the higher price of 120 cent. AMI.

[26:03] They're more expensive to construct. That's what Okay, so, is that a change from, what is, what is it now? So it's still that like, so we have 25%. So the percentage it gets really confusing because it's like the same percentage over and over. But just think of 25 as 20 and 5. Okay, the 20. Part of the requirement is that, which is about 70%. The 5% is currently supposed to be split between 8,101 20. It's a very small number of small percentage. Anyway, it's very ambitious to say that we're going to get enough units to actually get all 3 tiers on the project. So we're taking it down to 2 tiers. Both of them. Yeah. And the whole 25% would be.

[27:07] Either a hundred or 1 20% AMI pricing. Okay. Pardon me and can I ask plexus like duplexes? Quadplexes like BHP is proposed not those are for rent. Flexes would be at the 120% 100 Yeah. Okay, cause like the VHP project that we just saw was constructed. So it was like 2, 2 story townhomes with a one story unit attached on either side. But would that be considered townhomes or? Well, so should somebody choose to put these in, they would have to do proportional. The, one stories and the 2 stories. So. Let's say it wouldn't matter that they're making it a building, but let's just say the numbers, let's say there's 10 of those things.

[28:04] So you would have 2.5, rounding is a big deal in this program by the way. But anyway, if it's a town home style, it would be 1 20. And if it's the smaller unit on the end, it would be 100. Okay. So, because typically we want them spread throughout the project so we wouldn't actually do them all in one building. Typically we want them spread throughout the project so we wouldn't actually do them all in one building. We would say we'll take so depending on whether their account hostile or a Not. Then it was either 100 or 100. Okay. So you're looking at the individual unit, not how they're attached or not attached to each other. Okay, got it. Thank you. Okay, so, just following from that policy direction. We're proposing, to remove the current incentives and penalties in the code, which are the sticks and carrots that we're put in there.

[29:00] To apply to onsite, the portable. Ownership units. So the proposals to remove that requirement that half are the required for sale affordable units are provided on site. And it's not provided currently they pay a penalty at 50% more cash and lose so we're just proposing to remove that. Only feasible or desirable. And we know from that financial analysis by KMA that they're not feasible. So let's remove that. And we're hoping that helps. As similar to the last side, I'm gonna help sort of disincentivize that for sale onsite requirements. Good. And then also following from that policy direction, this is sort of an implementation code. Clean up the current. Community benefit requirements. For projects that ask for height modification are required to. Demonstrate community benefit. And the current requirements, require them to be provided on site or pay a penalty similar to what I just described.

[30:12] So we're proposing to just remove that to be consistent between. The site review criteria and the IH. Which was the original intent that they would't marry each other. And then we live into a bunch of smaller changes. I'm gonna kind of. You know, quickly go over these and if you guys have questions just stop me and I can talk about it. So the first is to remove that, remove that option to different cash and, it's an administrative burden to the city and it really just results in a balloon payment for homeowners. The next one is to modify the land dedication option to included, city manager approval of the location of the land. And also to require that open space. It can be provided on the affordable parcel independently and on the market rate personally independently.

[31:11] The next one is just modifying the affordable housing design review requirement. This is for projects that don't go through site review or form days code review. The, we're proposing to increase the threshold from 5 units or more to 40 units or more. That's total market and affordable. So, Oh, it just feels like it's a little too low and I think originally the intent would be it was supposed to be 5 affordable units, but it was codified to say 5 units in total. So it's. It's just not really necessary for a project of that size. The next one is that small projects with less than 5 min for proposing to remove the category. Because of the change in the passion, the methodology, it's not, necessary anymore.

[32:04] The next one is. Adding a requirement to the code for housing inspections. These are currently done. They're just not codified. We don't have someone in planning and development services that does it. It's done by private. Private entities and they just Do instructions to make sure that they're meeting all the affordable housing agreements. Covenants and, standards. You make number 8 clear for me again. It's Bye, go back. This is, this is for when the entire. Project is affordable housing. Is that a big point of decision? I'm not upset about it.

[33:00] I'm just kinda curious like how you came to that number. It seems like quite a jump. So, or somebody to put all, are they required you at some site? It would be 10 affordable units. So this actually came out of, somebody utilizing the offsite option. Pretty hard to get a project of that size. Through without going through. But, somebody managed to figure out how to do a by rate project. I had 60. And it was fine right. And so there was a lot of push back saying. They're not being reviewed. We don't like that. It's gotta be reviewed. That happened to be offsite so they, it was a hundred percent affordable. But it could also be on site. So anyway, I think the 5 number was supposed to be. It was supposed to be 25. So it's supposed to be great. So we're really going from 25 to 40. We're just raising it a little bit, but we're also cleaning up. What is essentially a type of But so this is most.

[34:09] For somebody that for offsite projects because on site projects are gonna be part of a bigger project like think Spine route or weather. They're gonna go to site review like very, very it's almost impossible for a project with any not that that can that can subsidize onsite affordable units to not be big enough to go through site review. This really kinda comes into play with offsite projects. And. And so that is too likely, highly likely. To be a like a project and like tech projects are they have a scale so it's about 40. And up can make a light type project. You can't really do like text with less than 40. So that kind of went into. So it would be a real. Unicorn to get a 32 unit project that was gonna have data affordable units in it.

[35:02] But if someone came along and said, Hey, I wanna do this, they don't need a. They might not have any review that's possible, but honestly in 25 years I've never seen it. So. I think, yeah, yeah. Would be inspected as well. So we wouldn't ensure, at least through that process. Yeah, actually, before the inspections, we've put the inspection piece in place. Chicken. Alright, so number 11 is just to. Clean up the requirements for onsite or offsite affordable units. To allow them to be townhomes. It's within a development of single family homes. Currently the requirement is that they must be provided like for like so if you had a hundred percent single family phones the affordable units would be required to be single-family homes.

[36:05] This would allow you to provide towns as an alternative to that. And then number 12 also just, cleaning up some conflicts in the code. The code currently requires at least one bedroom for middle income units provided onside or offsite. And that conflicts with that requirements. That affordable units are the same size and type of the, and relative size of So if you had a project of all efficiency living units. If you did wanna provide the affordable units on site, they would not be allowed to be efficiency living, they would have to change the floor plans to provide one number of units, which doesn't seem consistent between the cheaper requirements. Ask about number 11. Is this, is this kind of an exercise in throwing something at the wall and seeing if it works? Or is it, did this come out of like some actual projects where it would have made a difference? You know, it really was tied to our original goal, which was to encourage outside middle income units.

[37:07] And we said, well, you know, in that again, sort of rare unicorn project of single family homes and folder. Where they're gonna build them all at once. What little sort of. Can we build into the program? So one was all the pricing gets to be middle income. That's like, can we build into the program? So one was all the pricing gets to be middle income. That's like this carrot. This That, well, let you do what is slightly less expensive type of unit instead of a single family house. So we decided to keep a few of these. This funny kind of made sense. This seems like it might come up at like the project that January, 20 eighth perhaps. There is no single family. No. I think, I can't think the name of the school up here.

[38:11] Oh, They have a piece of land that they're proposing single family homes on. They've also got town. There could be some way between that they're going to do. I need to please pretty certain about. But. That's one that comes to mind. That's one of the only single family known projects I've seen. That's one of the only single family home projects that's seen. You have a little, reminder setup to email them after this gets changed. You have a little, reminder setup to email them after this gets changed. You have a little, reminder setup to email them after this gets changed. Yeah, they'll be talking to years alone again. Let's say for example, when the planning reserve gets developed, if there were concept to do tiny homes, for example, that would be considered single family homes. Somebody wants to do that or mobile home park or something like that. They could provide their affordable units on site as town.

[39:03] This is what I'm hearing. Okay. Yeah, but I would point out currently most of the parcels that are large enough to do single which is a totally separate process. Number 13 is, just adding a time limit. Of 10 years for the replacement of the market unit. In order to receive that waiver to each so it this is just sort of the clean up to make sure that someone's not coming 20 years later and saying, oh, well, this was just by fire. 20 years ago, I'd like to replace it. And then also just to clarify who's making that determination. Whether a structure is considered safe and habitable in order to receive that labor from my age.

[40:01] Number 14 is just removing this language about. Converting from rental to ownership. Products, because we're removing those sticks and carrots from the for sale option. This is no longer necessary because you wouldn't have to pay an additional penalty in order to do that. And also based on that change in the. So, I don't remember getting this one. So the results is we're hoping to have roughly the same passionate revenues between the 2 options. But it would be more proportionally shared by those larger units rather than the smaller units because we're moving the cap and it's a square foot basis. And then, you know, just everyone the benefits of, because the, could be leveraged to provide 2 to 3 units. On the. For every on site unit that could be provided.

[41:03] I feel like the public doesn't recognize that. They often feel like developers are. Cheating or getting away with. Doing cash and low. Because the cost of cash, it's significantly less than the cost to build. On site but I don't think the public recognizes the leverage. Trying to get the word out. It's, it's fantastic, but our, our current city council fully understands that concept. It wasn't always the case. Yeah, and I think some people are just really attached to integration like that. They just like that idea of mixing the incomes in one project and they're just don't really want to let go of it. It's a good value to try to work for if we can figure out how to make it work. But. Then we still have the H away problem that

[42:04] So just as I said, for next steps, we'll be going to see council, next month and then right before the election. And November to January just working on updating that if everything is approved. I'm saving the administrative reps, the online materials. I'm coming up with a calculator that people can use to calculate what they're cashingly would be. And then as I mentioned, hopefully next year, pursuing that Nexus study and looking at. Demoing of large, or small homes, I'm replacing the floor chomes or, you know, significant additions as sort of the next phase in this project. That's all I have that we're happy to answer any questions. And in this iteration, you, you never, Is, is it true that the definition of community benefit is just? Pretty narrow and it hasn't been updated. Community benefit always means. You're gonna provide more affordable housing.

[43:09] Is that right? There's different definition. Around the company. That's a plan. But I mean, and this is context. Yeah. If there's only one related to affordable housing and it's for additional. Additional height for increasing the amount of affordable housing. Okay, and that's in both of those that in that extra that you pay that's called community benefit. Is that right? Has there been any discussion about kind of expanding? What's possible with. Community benefit under the umbrella. I don't think so, but I know that community benefit phase 2 has been on the burner for a while.

[44:01] I don't think so, but I know that community benefit phase 2 has been on the burner for a while. Well, I'm thinking about, these older. Sub community plan and. There's a lot of, Well, I'm thinking about 3. Venues there's So all the dinner theater, the. Eva is back there and there's a vision quest. Which are, you know, places where people have community, you know, there's and so it'd be kind of sad. It's like when I get to rezone and I know that there's a whole other separate conversation going on around this but It seems like there would be a possibility of a big project going in saying, hey, here's some community space. Yeah, that would be instead of more affordable housing, for example. But that makes sense. No, other than housing, you're saying? It's a provision in the new site review criterion that we just adopted this year that says the project proponent can make an argument that they'd be considered.

[45:13] Provision in the new site review criterion that we just adopted this year that says the project proponent can make an argument that they are providing a different kind of community benefit that is that equivalent of value to the housing. I don't think it's ever been done. And it seems like it would be challenging for the benefit, but is of equivalent value to the housing. I don't think it's ever been done. And it seems like it would be challenging for someone So for community benefit to work, you have to give the developers something in return. So you can't exact something. And provide at the same time. So you have to provide extra. Hey, you have to provide that's the concept behind it. So it'll be outside of IH specifically. To benefit other than housing. Yeah, I guess I was just thinking if someone wanted extra height and in exchange they gave some more community space or more green space or something like that.

[46:07] That seems like some more community space or more green space or something like that. That seems like. And, you know, there's, there's, many, space, or, more green space or something like that. That seems like, with Laura's describing. That's how you would do it. Yeah, that's it. It's not it doesn't live in. It actually lives in the planning world of. So that's where that would have to, 1, one of the challenges with that, one of the challenges with that, cause it's been brought, it's actually been a lot, both of the years. Is that trying to because housing is so valuable and expensive trying to find something that is equivalent? Is a pretty hard sell community space. It's just, it's a lot cheaper, you know, yeah. So they'd have to get a lot more space. They have to give up a lot more to provide it in that way. You know, yeah. So they'd have to give a lot more space. They have to give up a lot more to provide it in that way. You know 2 million dollars or whatever, right? And then it's like, what's equivalent like a little park space?

[47:01] You know, like it's just hard because having is so valuable to find anything equivalent that makes sense. But it could be a package though. You could have a package. But again, that kind of is a plant in the planning world. We all work together on all of this stuff. We meet and talk and, you know, try to make sure that we're all synthesizing. But wouldn't be IH doesn't really have to include stuff like that. The program itself doesn't include. Things outside of housing. So. There is another program that's working on. An alternative kind of community benefit of affordable commercial and that's community vitality but we haven't heard yet about exactly how they're going to do that, but I think they're planning to come to us sometime next few months. Here's what's happening with community vitality and their efforts to do some kind of affordable commercial which might have to do some kind of affordable commercial which might have to do with community space and kind of arts, that you're talking about. I don't know. That one's always been. A hard puzzle because If you are offering affordable commercial space, how do you pick the winners and the losers and who gets to have that affordable commercial space is pretty easy with housing to say well it's income-based.

[48:11] But with a business, it's a little bit more. But that's another program outside of IH that might. Do the kinds of things that I think that you're Yeah. I have another question. Yeah, go ahead. So can we sort of go big picture. So I, you know, I think I understand the changes that you're making and some of them are cleaning up errors and some of them are sort of like simplifying. The calculations and so do you think in the end this is gonna result in more cash in lieu more units like sort of big picture if this gets implemented what are we gonna see in the next couple of years?

[49:01] Well. You're going to see very few units produced directly through the program on site because Hey, I was very clear that 25% is. Challenge for anybody to meet. Which is what we've seen over the last 5 years. So it's really no change there. On most projects, almost all will meet there requirement with, the cash. I think the one place where that might be different, we've talked about a lot is the very large rental contracts. Actually, it works for them to put you on site because they can do it like they can leverage line text money. So that's where we might see on site units, but outside of that, money. So that's where we might see on site units, but outside of that, probably not. And then I do think even though how we're going to set the cash and at this point will be equivalent to about last year's cash and loo because KMA said. That was when we bumped it up this year because we increased it 10% per year. It kind of put it over the.

[50:03] Over the line of feasibility for some text projects. So their recommendation was keep it consistent with last year's numbers. So that's what we're working on. But this it's a little hard to know. But I would assume that because we taking Now that cap of 1,200 square feet and cash and it will scale up for larger size. For It's not really for larger units, but it will scale up for more square feet. Actually, I'm, checking myself as I say that, but we may see some more cash in that we had hoped that the biggest bump in cash and loo would be this demo replacement. Idea, but it turns out we can't do that with NIH. But if we do that as a linkage, that would be another source of revenues. It's not cash and it's actually linkage money. So that could increase our revenues. Right now it's basically the program will run a little more efficiently.

[51:05] But the outcomes will be the same very few, few, few units on site and mostly cash and then about the same amount of cash. Yeah, so basic answer is no, you're not see a huge difference in the amount of afford blows and produced in the city as a result of this. But it's something we that's important to do every 5 to 10 years is to update the program to make sure it is efficient. So it wouldn't be a lot easier for a developer as well. To figure out how much they owe. As opposed to having to figure out What unit types, what sizes and doing all that complicating that. Hmm. You, I know you were about to say something not just gonna fit into what I was expecting you to say. So I wanna just clarify something that the 1,200 hopefully that will change the character or the sizes of the.

[52:02] Alright, units that get built. My intuition is that if a developer was thinking, I mean, I see you shaking your head. No, but my intuition is that developer was thinking about building. 4 luxury condos that were each 2,000 square feet. But now that developer might consider. 6 condos. But the same footprint, same square footage. They might. They might and they could sell that for more. Hey might go for the 6 condos. With the same square footage. Oh, aggregate. As the 4 simply because they don't have that incentive anymore to do like as few units as possible because it's not based on units anymore. That's right, I had to check my side to say larger units. It doesn't really matter. What matters is are you putting in more or less square feet? So we're really matters because with single family homes.

[53:06] So that 1,200 square foot cap literally no single family homes a boulder built at or bloke. 1,200 there the average over the last 5 years was something like 35. The average last year was 5,000 square feet. So, we have a cap at 1,200. For 12 people. We have a cap of 1,200 and everything above that paid exactly the same amount, which is about $52,000 for a single family home. Well, now. So it's really gonna affect single family homes and we're kind of working with that because we want it to affect them but not like. You know, make that make it. Such a high amount that it's problematic, right? So. So for single family homes, about 1,200 square feet, they'll be paying more. But the example I get is accurate too, right?

[54:02] In the past, I would agree. So if you were to do 4 units instead of one, I'm a single parcel. Or if you were to subdivide, you would have been paid 4 times the amount of cash in live, right? So that is not 4 times more. So, but I just really want to be clear, developers don't typically consider cash and live until or how much they have to pay in the feeds until after they've developed a concept. And I've gone through a lot of process forward. What we're trying to do is remove any potential disincentives. What we're trying to do is remove any potential disincentives. Well, that's what we're trying to do with, the zoning for, so there are other ways to do that in our zoom. I just want to be clear. I don't think it's, It's layering on top of them.

[55:01] But that's not driving their decision making. Yeah, and it used to be, well, it is now, but, before this change. Yeah, the 4 larger units would pay less than the 6 Not for time, you know, not, you know, but less. So they was that's what we talked about. We wanted there's a disincentive. For small units and an incentive for large units built into the way we could catch me right now. That needs to be removed. Yeah. And this will actually, That doesn't mean it's gonna make and make different decisions, but it's. Thank you, at least it's tiff in the in the right direction. But you're just kinda skeptical. You, so you were shaking your head now just because you know what developers actually do and how they think and they're they're gonna kind of ignore this or. You're gonna ignore it. I just, like I said, I don't think that's. First and foremost, in their mind, they're finding a piece of parcel with Zoom, what they can do, and they're figuring out what's the most profitable.

[56:03] And then they go through a design process. And then they come to us with the proposal and we tell them what they're caching. . Study with the new zoning for affordable housing changes. Past to allow duplexes and triplexes. I'm assuming that might take the scale or make a difference in the developers thinking, should I build one very large single family home or should I build a triplex of the same square footage, but like in the past that would have been. Quite a cache and hit to add 2 units where there was one and now it's gonna be the same, right? Whether they build one large single family home or. Or 3, And like, getting that mostly, right? Okay. So maybe in that case, it might have made a difference if we had not made this change. I know that this zoning for, but housing change is brand new and they didn't have in the past but. It seems like that's a case where it could actually take this case. Yep. Well, the way we have it right now, that one gigantic house is gonna pay 52,000. If it's new though, right?

[57:12] Like right now you don't know that one gigantic house is going to pay 15,000. If it's new though, right? Like right now, you don't even know. It's just, you know, it's okay. But if it's a new house, 52,000, if they do 3 units is probably about a hundred 50. Okay. So yeah. Make sense? I feel like I'm thinking it's your patience. It's been a big problem. But my understanding was they built it into the program initially because when they when they first went program together in 2,000. They needed to get developers, maybe not on board. Supporting the program, but not opposing it. So they made some concessions and one of them was we will not have . That was a concession. And it makes sense at the time because they were like, session and it makes sense at the time because they were like these concession. And it makes sense at the time because they were like, these concessions are going to get the program put in place.

[58:13] But this out Anybody else have questions? I have one more. One of the. Things that just keeps coming up, but it just sort of just gets mentioned and it kind of floats into the ether. Release to the construction defects. And I know that's outside of the scope of the IH update. But I wonder, you know, like. It just it's just like this thread that just lingers and it's always there. Is there something that comes out of this where we say, hey, the city of Boulder. We recommend the city council. To go to the state and say we want this changed because This is affecting our inclusionary housing policy or our ability to build affordable for sale housing.

[59:01] And so I just wonder if like, if, if at the, you know, as we're trying to coordinate with state officials, if that ever gets kicked back to them to say, hey, Here's the kind of things we'd like to see so that we could do the things that we wanna do. Yeah, I think would be actually a great topic for him. I would say the future meeting to discuss that. Maybe you can find somebody who might have more expertise than us. Cause it's definitely not specific to IH. I mean, across the board. But They're all there have been and there are a lot of efforts out there other jurisdictions older has participated. And there has been. Construction defect. Legislation basically to try to mitigate for it. So there's a lot of history to it. Others some like, would try some pretty interesting things to try to mitigate the risk for developers. There are any levels of success. But again, it's just a big, topic that we could spend some time on if you like.

[60:06] So, I've, some condo projects and, developers will often purchase a wrap insurance policy that helps mitigate that risk, but it's very expensive and they say that If you're trying to build affordable housing, you can't, you can't make the numbers work if you want to buy this rap policy. So if we can't necessarily change, it might actually be cheaper to subsidize the wrap insurance policy for developers who want to do affordable. So kind of a workaround. And I do know an insurance company that provides that wrap around if you were looking for a guest speaker to talk about. Trying to find them. Any other questions? Do the public hearing portion.

[61:02] Hey, who's counting the attendant here? Yes. Can you hear me? Hey, can we have anyone, online per public comment? Audio Yes! Yes! Perfect. You're not muted, it can hear you. I don't know what happened but now there's a mute. I Yeah, now there's a mute icon on my lower left. Before it said audio. And I don't know what if I if it was something I was doing wrong at my end I'm not blaming anyone but it's really essential that I'm able to. Testify at this board because It's always conflicting with another board and this is the one time I can be here.

[62:02] So I've had to distract myself with just trying to go through all this audio setting stuff and other junk. That I don't need to be spending my time on. I need to be concentrating on what you're talking about. So I don't know. How to solve this. But it really needs to be solved. It now says mute. On the left lower corner. Is there is that some? We can we can hear you alone clear and I think your audio is working great now so Right. Did I do something wrong? When it says mute and it doesn't have a line through it, we can hear you. If you were to hit that mute right now. It would put a line through it and then you would be. Yeah. Right. Right. But what I'm saying, Michelle, is that that wasn't on my screen before. Yeah. There was a thing that said audio. And then I went to audio settings and then I'm going to a whole 2 tutorial on freaking audio instead of watching the meeting and trying to formulate what I want to testify about.

[63:11] You know what I'm saying? So I wanna avoid the problem. And if it's something that I did, please tell me what I did wrong because all I know is it says mute. It's really difficult to know exactly what your Seeing on your clients, we kind of have to be in in your space there to know for sure. I can't. I can't possibly know. Which just, it says, It says mute or unmute now. Yeah, we can hit, yeah, that's right. So you're connected and the audio is great and we can hear you. I understand that too. Right, but it did not. 4 of audio and audio, then I get into audio settings and audio options and all this audio stuff. It's like, and the other thing I don't understand is that I'm supposed to be on Zoom. Right? But when I click on Zoom on my left column, I'm not on Zoom. It's on a tab.

[64:02] This is on one of my tabs. So I'm told by the administrator that this is not an MS Teams meeting, but something's different about it. And maybe it's just that there's different things that happen without letting the user know what's happening. But. With all these multiple things happening at the same time, it's very confusing for me. I don't know how to avoid it. Because So, Lynn, Then we're not equipped to give, personalized, you know, support for Zoom. I'm sorry. Yeah, I know. I think. And also you've spent, you spend 3 min, talking about your audio problems. And so. Right, and I think what we can do is have an IT person assisting folks because it's it's a matter of access.

[65:02] Well. And I do not have that. And that's not okay. I mean, unless it's okay with you that you just don't hear me and I'm the one lousy person that's speaking. I can hear you just fine. So I'm not sure how to give you more access than what you have right now. I understand that you had technical difficulties earlier and I don't know how to help you with those. In this moment. So, I guess my question is, would, would it be okay with you to move on to any public comments you might have that are not related to technical. Yeah, I'm gonna move on, but I'm gonna first ask that the city that I pay taxes in. Hires a qualified IT person to assist with these kind of things. Because I will not have my access denied and it was denied earlier. I'd like to suggest that if you have if you have public comments that are unrelated to technical issues, please make them know. Inclusionary housing needs to be much higher than 25%. I don't care if it's a hundred 40%.

[66:02] Which is probably what's reasonable. And I don't care if the developers don't like it. We need to cut development in this town. Because like in Lahina where they stopped the hedge funders from just buying up the whole place. And you know making out like the bandit instead now what they're doing is guess what the same thing that Jared Polis is doing. Densify, densify, densify infill. Triplexes, quadplexes. ADUs, occupancy, anything to densify, anything to densify. And they're pulling a Jared and Lahina. Behind it is like demoed all the way like I went to today to to protest my you know to appeal my property tax. There's no way, there's no prayer I have. Other than, you know, 100 bucks or something.

[67:01] And I've had it raised 3,000. So what are you gonna do? Phil and others on that aren't here. Now Laura is ex officio. What are you gonna do? To make things more affordable for me. Because yes what? Densifying is going to do the exact opposite. That's just going to create a bigger market for the developers and the higher rents that I'm seeing. I went from 5,500 to 8,500 a year in one fell swoop. For my property taxes. I went from 600 property insurance. To 3,500. Overnight. This is no way sustainable. This is, you know, what are you gonna do is my question, what are you gonna do? Because whatever you're doing, it's not working. And guess what? Taking lietex funds. Low income housing tax credits is push putting the foot on the accelerator for the developer.

[68:06] Thaterally, the federal guys want nothing more than just growth with no end in sight. This is called population management. And it's got to stop somewhere. And it's gotta stop in Boulder. Because that's the local level where we have the ability to do this. Excuse me. So. What are you gonna do? Because nothing's working. And. You know what? I'm 70 years old and I'm gonna get squeezed out of here. At 90 years old, I'm gonna be on the streets. And I've got a 1.3 million dollars house. And think of all the people. That are gonna be on the street with me. Has all the the youth all the deb you know diversity, equity, inclusion people that are going to be out.

[69:03] Thank you for your comments. Your 3 min is up. Because I'm in the upper end. Gotcha. Thanks. Tiffany, was there anyone else that, is here for public comment? There's no other. Let's see, we asked questions. Or discussion and decision. So I guess we go around the room and see if, wants to say anything. That's the idea. I wish that there I wish that we could see more positive impact with these changes, but I understand that. I understand that a large majority. If what it is is cleaning it up and that there will. There will be some changes.

[70:01] I wish it could be. More positive impact, but. I don't see that down the road. I'm curious like how we need to find that more actually. But I understand that I understand the complications. I think you'll be more money from. From the single family. Yeah, I mean, so did the calculation for last year. We took in about a million dollars to single family. Would be about 2 million with the changes that. So double another 1 million, but not a huge need of whatever. No, but every look, yeah, every little bit helps. Yeah. I mean, and just keep in mind, I mean, IS a very successful program.

[71:01] I mean, it produces half our funding for affordable housing. So. You know it's again it's just more between not not designed to basically Just production. Will there be a linkage fee revisit as well? So that was actually planning board recommendation. Was to If you, to for council to consider, adding a escalator like we are proposing for the, square footage. We had one other recommendation and I can talk about if that's helpful. We approved, you know, we supported the ordinance. We had George's very good suggestion to look at commercial linkage fees and give it an escalator because right now it's fixed in the code. It's $30 per square, but never changing. So it seems logical that that would change over time.

[72:01] Was Sarah Silver's recommendation and it was about you know, she and others onboard were very concerned about this idea of middle income affordable ownership units and that if this isn't the right tool doing trying to encourage onsite building. That perhaps council should think about or explore the idea of using more of that cash and move to for acquisition of middle income home ownership opportunities. And I had a really wonderful back and forth over email today with Michelle trying to understand. You know. If you could get 3 middle income home ownership opportunities through build on site. And then there's the equivalent cache, how many units would that cash in, acquire. And it sounds like, and we didn't have this discussion planning. Last night but I'm understanding correctly it sounds like you would actually get more units through acquisitions and and purchasing.

[73:00] Now the trade off is that those units are typically older. Rehab and, different parts of town. They're not in same, very desirable locations that new development happening. They're kind of all over town. But you would get double the number, basically double the number of acquisition units that you would get through build on site with the change that was recommended to encourage them being built on site that going down to that 15%. So it's not, it's not necessarily a bad outcome, you know, that we're not gonna get those build on site units because the city can acquire them through the cache and loop. And it's not just your trading home ownership opportunities for rentals, you can actually get the ownership opportunities through the caching program as well. So, but that was the recommendation planning board made was explore. Using more of that caching money for those acquisitions for. Okay. Like. So we've talked about that a little bit so the city has started purchasing.

[74:00] Condos on the market basically, you know, once the 2, 3 bedroom places. And then buying them down and selling them and, Steve restricted. So basically we buy in at market rate and then we sell them to through the program. So basically we buy in at market rate and then we sell them to through the program. So they're at a more affordable level. So we're subsidizing it anywhere from 150 to $180,000. But that still buys you twice as many as you would get built on site. Build on site brand new. So there's Well, I'm still glad we, we recommended the 15% proposed. I'm glad you, put in front of city council. It's their prerogative to swallow the way I guess. Well, and you know, I think to just reiterate what. What Jay was saying about how successful the program is. If we're producing, do you know? 200 Something like 200 units a year.

[75:03] Fully half of those if not more. 100 and 20. Are coming from the cash and from my age. So I just producing a hundred 20 years a year. It's just what I always say. One of my talking points is just, it produces a lot of use, just not the way you think it. It's not on site, but through cash and load. But without IH, we wouldn't have the money for. Never take a hundred 20 units every year. So. You know, it's a really important tool in the whole 2 box of everything that we have. I know this is time for you folks to deliberate and make a. I just want to make a comment and just really thank staff for this really thorough exploration Michelle, especially I know you've worked hard on this for like a year. Thank you. A really thorough explanation. No, no, no, I just really wanna acknowledge the effort that you put into trying to figure out how to make this particular tool the best it could into trying to figure out how to make this particular tool the best it could be for trying to figure out how to make this particular tool the best it could be for producing what council ask for and then when counsel at the end of the day saw the work saw what it would require going

[76:07] down to that 15% they decided that price was too high but I mean that is what a good staff work does it gives the information to make it really considered a good decision. And so I just want to thank you for going extra mile to make sure that council really understood what they were listening for and could make that deliberation. You know, honestly, I didn't think even, us who do this day in and day out. I was surprised that it had to go down to 15. Like I was not expecting that. I thought it would be lowered and maybe cat, you know, maybe there'd be some adjustments in the cash. I wasn't really sure how they play out. That's why you hired. It's consulted to do on our, but you know, now we know, we know what it's kind of like what is development. Very expensive.

[77:00] Yeah, I just wanna echo with others. I was actually getting ready to say a big thank you as well. But thank you for that and really like the step by step. All the changes and going through them again. I know it's a lot of work. We didn't even know, show up today, but I appreciate you. Answering questions and going through, today. It's really, really great. And I think that wraps up the discussion. And I think that wraps up the discussion. And I think that wraps up the discussion. We don't have a quorum to make a decision, but we, we can still voice individual. Recommendation. So, is there any, I don't even know. I don't, I don't make a motion. So how do we do a recommendation if we don't have a call? We just will say that. We didn't have corn, but say that it's very likely. So we get brought back when.

[78:08] We have probably not. Well, we might have time because potentially but I'm not Sure would be necessary because it I think city council does not require a recommendation like it does from planning board for changes to code. You're purely advisory, so, it's not gonna get in some legal. Issue if you guys make a recommendation. Okay. You guys are the board. Okay. I just realized that you've asked for 2 things from us. One is, do we agree with the changes to the IH arguments? Yeah, there is. Do you agree with the changes to the community benefit requirements in the site review criteria for projects. And.

[79:06] We've covered that, right? This evening, okay. And so, I just didn't remember that as being like a separate thing that wasn't part of the, inclusionary housing ordinance. We just wanted to highlight it because it's different than what we what we presented last month. Oh, I see. Okay, so it's still part of the Viage. So it's a separate part of it. It's one, so it's a separate part of it. That is the first site. Review. So that's why it Yeah, listen to our world. And I'm sure we went over it. I'm sure we went over it. So, but. Okay, so. Where we are, I think we're open to somebody making a motion to, No, Yeah. Okay. So what am I what am I doing? I'm just reading this. I was thinking by, okay, here.

[80:12] I just say like, I would like to make a motion. Can I make the motion? I like to make a motion that Have recommend that the city council adopt ordinance 8601 amending chapter 9 to 13 conclusionary housing. Section 9 2 14 site review and section 9 16 one general definitions BRC 1981 modifying affordable housing requirements and incentives and setting forth related details. I second. Thank you. So, vote, now, invoked. All in favor, say aye. Unanimous. That's what we're gonna start.

[81:03] Thank you. Okay, okay, so, take some food. Okay. That's all. Perfect. I think that was my fifth time talking about, a little bit more. It's so detailed. Right, it's surprisingly complex. You know, at one of my goals for this update was to simplify it. I don't know. Then we did that, you know, to 10 great extent, but. It's not. Yeah. So let's say I'm a developer. Do I come to either of you and say, hey, I wanna build a 300 unit apartment complex and then you help us.

[82:01] You have the developer with the calculations. Yeah, we have an online calculator, which is really been a great tool. We put that in place 5 years ago when we had the last update. Before that they kind of had to come to us because I'm the city was too complex for them to sit down and like, let me do it as they do all the time. We used to do it in Excel spreadsheets and stuff, but it was quite complicated. But So the way the way it works is that they get on our radar usually through a preact, our concept plan. Or sometimes they will just contact us out of the blue because they've heard the plan and said, you know, I'm thinking about this project. You're like, you have, you know, you have residential component too. You need to go talk to so they'll send them to us. But yeah, so we try to get, have a conversation as early in the process as possible. So they kind of know. But sometimes we, you know, they don't necessarily want to talk to us right away.

[83:01] They want to go through constant time, for example, without having a very in depth conversation because they don't wanna. They want to just know it's just, it's just a viable project. That's like first step for them and then they're gonna go into all these crazy details. And so we may not have a very in depth conversation at that point. Some of them really do. They're like, what numbers for me. So it's kind of all over the place. There's a residential one unit to any number of units. He will be tired. So it's. You know, like we're monitoring about 50 projects. At any given time that are some, No, you're all waiting preacted. To construction. Yeah. It's fun. Thanks again for being here and all the hard work. And the, incredible packet.

[84:06] I just note that the packet at the end has a has a bunch of project summaries that are just we're browsing through if you're not familiar with all the BUt, projects going up. It's kind of. Alright, well, thank you. Okay. I know we are still I'm kinda confused that number 5 is matters from the board. In the visionary housing update that's also managed from the board, but. Guess that's how we do it. That's how we call it. So now we're on to updates. Yeah, 2 items under updates. I suppose there could be more if other people have updates, but, one is the airport and one is, I suppose there could be more of other people have updates, but, one is the airport and one is the airport and one is the airport and one is older junction phase 2 I assume there's no in there.

[85:05] I need to talk about both junction phase 2. That's a Michael, Okay, so you have you have a thing to say about it. You know, that's all I can tell you. That's all I can tell you. Okay. So, that in theory be another topic where somebody talks about. What's being envisioned and who owns what parcels and what the timing might be and or I should just look online. I mean, that involves a crystal ball that no one really has. I mean, the purpose of both injection phase 2 was to set the zoning to encourage development, but it's going to be up to the market to respond. They did talk about it a little bit at planning board in terms of that. So they, it's basically 3 chunks, right?

[86:01] There's a northern horizontal, band around Goose Creek and then there's the southern. And the middle band was zoned, I think, mixed use industrial or mixed, yeah, mixed use industrial and the other 2 bands were mixed used to, which allow a little bit more flexibility and more housing that makes use industrial and the next use industrial middle is designed to try to retain some of those ground floor industrial uses, but they're probably not gonna look like classic manufacturing kind of stuff. It's gonna look more like maker space and you know, breweries and stuff like that. But it will still have kind of more activity on the ground floor there. And then in the southern band they talked about that's most likely to redevelop first. Because there's kind of one very large property. And so they're thinking that that one will turn over first. That's all I remember, but the planning board, discussion, if you did have a little bit more of that. And then, yeah. There was also a question at council about, one of the property owners wanted to know about.

[87:01] Including. Indoor recreational uses and then there was some very sort of bureaucratic discussion of well do you really mean our code definition of, indoor recreation? Or do you mean more like the stuff that falls under personal services like gyms and, some of those more kind of Okay. There's a hardcore gym over there somewhere. One of the property owners mentioned like if it gave the example like a climbing gym and I guess that's a personal service and not an indoor recreation. Thank you. Okay, so, That's it for, junction phase 2. The airport, Yeah, let's see. So the community conversations, I'm not sure if the umbrella community conversations has wrapped up, but I'm certain that the community working group, which was a piece of that community conversation is had its final meeting.

[88:12] And, that was an interesting meeting. I, well, I guess I'll just say just to review the There was 4 scenarios that got proposed. And the city council and I was basically leave it to saying 2 is like some modest updates to the airport and I'm probably not doing this justice, maybe some improved hangers or, I kind of forget what wanted to head in them but scenario 3 was kind of like hey let's invest in the airport and make it the best. Municipal airport that we can and then scenario 4 was Hey, let's scrap the report and So. All 4 are still alive and well as far as I know. There were folks that were upset that We were still having a scenario for.

[89:11] Because they. There was, there was some discussion about, you know, the FAA memorandum that said. There this will be an airport in perpetuity and there's no there's no wiggle room on this and so some of the airport components were very frustrated that scenario 4 was still in. Pushed forward. But, you know, FAA isn't, the only legislative and government body that has an interest in the airport and they can say what they want and you know there's the city council has a big decision ahead of them if they decide to pursue. Scenario. 4 because it'll almost certainly require. Suing the FAA or you know, legal action.

[90:04] Is there? You couldn't sound like one of those. Scenarios included. Both keeping the airports, some portion of the land for housing. There was not really a hybrid scenario. Scenario 3 did have some provisions for some amount of housing, but it was kind of of a housing above hangers, something like that. Yeah, the workspace. So we mostly serve the airport community. But when you talk with staff about it, there was some. I guess still some flexibility there. It wasn't entirely defined how much housing there could be. How are you 3, but it would be a very limited amount of housing. Compared to scenario 4 where it would be mostly a new neighborhood. Not just housing, but integrated services and things like that, but still maintain a helipad. So, 3 and 4 will go hybrid except that 4 really minimizes the airport. And 3 really minimizes the housing uses probably down to the 4 units.

[91:06] Okay, thank you. One of the little points for me in that meeting was when someone spoke up and said, yeah, well, the East Boulder sub-community plan. Those guys don't understand that they're. Trying to have housing built that's also going to be affected by noise and in the airport. And, to me, it's, it's kind of amazing how this extremely valuable piece of land. Is used by such a small number of people and the negative impact that they have on the community in terms of noise is really. Impactful and then, you know, it's gonna be impactful to future neighborhoods that we wanna build over there. So that's it's kind of discouraging. But.

[92:03] And then, oh, one of the things that I think that came up was there was a Be Heard Boulder survey that got community feedback and. The results of that survey. And, comments all across the spectrum of noise complaints and pro airport people and housing and whatnot. But when you sort of like. Did the numbers. The most comments were sort of in support of the airport. And, you know, Laura, Kaplan, thank you for, doing your duty there in that moment. Hello, the fact that the herd folder is not a statistically valid survey. It's like you cannot repeat this. Fact. Enough. And then even after you get that eloquent description, some guy who said you was a data guy. Spoke up and said, I don't understand why we're considering this. When everyone said that they like the airport.

[93:03] And, it's one of those frustrating moments. be heard both. There's a great tool for what it is, but it is not. Statistical survey. I do want to point out that we know that survey got distributed outside of Boulder outside of Boulder County statewide outside of Boulder outside of Boulder County statewide through Boulder outside of Boulder County statewide through the Colorado Pilots Association I think it was and other venues. So the Colorado Pilots Association, I think it was and other venues. So the pilot community, not just locally, but statewide and other venues. So the pilot community, not just locally, but statewide and from other states as well responded to that survey and from other states as well responded to that survey, not just locally, but statewide and from other states as well responded to that survey and from other states as well responded to that survey in overwhelming numbers. And we know that happens. We also know that every single person who is Got a personal message letting know about the survey, right? Because the airport maintains that list and they sent it out to their list. We don't have a similar list for any other stakeholder group. So we know that the local airport community was over represented in that. Beard both survey and frankly all along like they're 50% of the working group.

[94:05] They showed up in large numbers to the open houses. So the, which, you know, I understand the perspective of they're the most impacted because they use the airport. And if it's closed down, there are people who care the most about whether the airport is there or not versus people who care about could it be a neighborhood or much more dispersed and not nearly as organized. So I just, and it's not that, anybody is trying to discredit what that community has to say. We just have to put it into context and say, this is one very valuable perspective from one stakeholder group that showed up in overwhelming numbers that is very far out of proportion to their population in the city of Boulder. So just as long as people keep that in mind. And don't do what Philip was talking about where they tried to represent that be heard, Boulder survey or the results of this community conversation as being this is what the city folder thinks. We just have to continually push back against that because some folks will want to do that. And so I have suggested and some of the accounts.

[95:03] Members have, liked this suggestion that there should be a representative survey done of you know, people in Boulder, right? We know how to do that. There are companies that specialize in that. So if you want to know what the city bolder thinks. There are ways to do that and be her builder is not that tool. I would say that there was one, sort of silver line you could call it that, but one of the positive things that came out of the last meeting was, maybe a little bit more awareness between the airport community and some of the nearby. Affordable, in particular, a mobile, mobile home park. A little bit more dialogue I started and there was some brainstorming about, possibilities for. The youth programming and for possible job possibilities. And so That's him. That seems positive, but you know, it's kind of one of these things where it's easy, easy to talk about that sort of thing and nothing's really, you know, binding or.

[96:14] But anyways, yeah. It was an interesting process to kind of watch this. City staff, plus the consulting teams. Navigate is very difficult and unusual terrain for them. I think the consultants. Are you to coming in and working on very different kinds of projects where it's not like You know, we came up with these scenarios. It wasn't about like. I guess I don't understand fully what their typical engagement actually looks like, but I think it is fair to say it was nothing like their typical. They're involved and required a lot of. Yeah, just navigating on familiar terrain for them.

[97:01] So. That's all I have to say. Do you have anything else you wanted to? I would just add from, to the city council did have it and thank you. That was, summary of the community working group. Process and how it wrapped up in some of the highlights there. City Council did have a study session about this after the fifth working board meeting after the working group wrapped up. And the staff basically asked the question what else do you need to know so that the next council can make a decision in Q one of next year because that's where this is headed is that there will be some kind of decision on what is the future of the airport, what direction to city council want to go? Do they want to keep studying the neighborhood option or do they want to shut that down and go into an airport master planning process? That decision be made by the next council. So at this study session, council basically said we need a lot more information on is this even peaceful because people were raising the question.

[98:00] Can we even do this? Will the FAA If the, says no, which we know that they have already said that they're not interested in the in the option of shutting down the airport. Then what is what's required. And so staff are gonna go away and I think they already are doing some research. You know, that if the airport closed, what would be our financial obligation? Other airports who have done this. What did it take in terms of litigation or hiring consultants or? You know, how did they navigate that? And is their situation similar to, because basically every airport is unique. There's some complications around. The types of grants that we accepted because we've accepted 2 types of grants. One type is just for improvements to the airport, like paving and stuff like that. And those come with a timeline. There's also land that the FAA helped us to purchase and their argument is that that land all that gives us in perpetuity not just for that piece of land but for the whole airport is obligated in perpetuity and that is the piece that may or may not have to go through litigation.

[99:01] And so it's. Staff is studying exactly what were the land purchases, what do they give to the time of the purchase and what is the precedent from other communities, other other communities that are like us. There's a whole complication with a confidential legal memo that their council already has, but legal council has not disclosing what's in it or what the advice is because that could disadvantage them in future. So there's all of this stuff. Swirling around about like what can be said publicly and what can't. You know, what really is the feasibility of that shutdown, the airport option. And that was the major thing that council said that needs to be. The next council needs advice on, but can we even do this because there was a concern of you know are we just spinning our wheels on something that is not even possible and I think there are a lot of people who think it is possible and there are a lot of people who are hoping that it's not and counseling need some really solid Sorry, that was overly long.

[100:04] I mean to bring that up. I was it was in my brand as I was talking earlier. I was it was in my brain as I was talking earlier and then I dropped that one. I was talking earlier and then I drop that one. So I appreciate you circling back on that. I'd drop that one. So I appreciate you circling back on that. So I appreciate you circling back on that. Thank you. I probably shouldn't just say, Hey, Philip, do you want to? Okay, I think that's enough for about the airport. We're on to item number 6 matters from staff. Let's see, we are 55 min early. We just go ahead, right? Okay, drag this out for an hour in 5 min. Let's see. So first thing I wanted to mention. It's not big. Tomorrow night at council. The annual update on homelessness. I would highly recommend. Listening to that watching. 60'clock? I'm assuming. Some stuff at the beginning and public comments and it's usually at 6, 46, 45. We're against the need. Great. Thank you. But on near the affordable housing tour, cause I wasn't sure if it was gonna happen, but it did.

[101:11] Yeah, it was great. And then the other one is just. Encouraging you to. Get the RTV pass. So. I don't know if anybody has one, but I would highly recommend it. Nothing else. It's a free ride to the airport on the bus. When do we start using the QR codes? This month. I believe that your physical passes or deactivated on September thirtieth. And then all of the buses should have that. You're good. Okay. You've done it. All right, I generated you, and I emailed Tiffany, but I didn't assume that just because you would email me back. I didn't. I didn't. Just be good. It's now our TD. They're doing their switch at the end of the month.

[102:04] Okay. Oh yeah, I, I said you pay for whether or not you use it, so please. Okay. Hey, that's all I have. Unless there's anything else you guys want. Okay. So many things. Gotcha. I'll make a motion to adjourn. No, We have a debrief meeting and calendar check. So let's do the calendar check first. What's our next meeting today? October 20 fifth.

[103:02] Let's see. We had a great meeting. I, I ran the meeting because Michael and Danny right here. We review the agenda and we did not approve the minutes. Because we didn't have a Becky Davis, spoke up during public participation and encouraged us to. I anticipate her email about, changes. A recommendation to city council about changes to parking that they would like to promote. So looking forward to that. The made of our meeting was, the inclusionary housing update, which involves a great presentation and lots of questions. 3 to 0 recommendation such as it was And for our approving the 2 questions they asked us.

[104:02] And we had some comments from L and in particular concerning audio technicalities, technical difficulties. And let's see what else. That's about the airport. It's, And that brings us back to, I did a wonderful job, in briefing the meeting, just moments ago. And I think we are ready for some of motion to adjourn for meetings would anyone like to do that? Is that one more thing so we don't have anything on the agenda for October right now? Michael, but if you have thoughts, please send them along. I would highly recommend that you start thinking about what you would recommend to the new council. That they're next to you priority should be related to housing.

[105:04] So I know we had a retreat where we talked about what this group would focus on next. But, but given that there are topics for. Like as you mentioned, an opportunity to make a recommendation. Can this be sort of an open discussion? Session at the next time. I have a topic I would like for the to discuss. Maybe we do that at the next meeting. Yeah. Sounds good. That's all I have. I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting early. Well done. I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting early. Well done. I'll second that also. Well done. Alright, We start doing it. Did they stop recording? Like, still recording.