January 17, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Thank you. So before we move ahead, I'd like to just mention that there'll be a slight revision to the agenda tonight, and that is that we're going to reverse the order of the 2 information items that we're dealing with. But, we'll start out with the information item on with an overview of Denver Regional Council of Governments information. and then we'll move to the 80. You update instrument information. So just wanted to make that clear for all of our participants. and the other point I wanted to make before moving into consideration of the minutes is that we have a public participation Section following our consideration of minutes, and because we have no public hearings tonight. everything is

[1:00] you can talk about whatever you like in the public participation. Section. Normally, when there's a public hearing, we ask people to who have their comments on those topics in the public hearing section themselves. but because we have no public hearing Tonight you can talk about whatever you please in the public participation section and we'll ask you to limit your comments to 3 min each. and I think Vivian will probably manage that section for us. But first let's can do. Let's deal with the minutes from December sixth, which have been distributed, and I know that there's been a response by with some edits by at least one member of the board. so I hope you've all had a chance to see that. and I would entertain a motion to approve of those minutes.

[2:02] If you agree with them. I'll make a motion. Okay, do we have a second? I will Second. Very good, all in favor. Raise your hand. George. You you weren't there for me. I wasn't there. Yeah, yeah, okay. All right. It looks like the minutes are approved. Thank you. And now we'll move ahead to the public participation section of this meeting. So, Vivian, take over. Thank you, John. So the way this will work is. We asked the public who's here to raise their hand if they'd like us to call them. and we will have a timer of 3 min. and we already have a few hands. so I will just go down the list. devin. If you could get the timer ready, please. That would be great. so we'll start with Megan coast. followed by Lisa Spalding.

[3:02] Megan, please go ahead. Hi! Everybody making calls 1726 Mapleton. I want to talk to you about one aspect of the AD you changes that you're considering, which is flexibility for height. and that makes a lot of people very, very nervous when they hear about that. So I want to give you a good real life example. Our friends and neighbors across the street. on seventeenth, and Mapleton. at a historic ha have a historic house. and the historic outbuilding on the alley. They wanted to make a studio of it, and eventually an AD you. When the regulations changed in 2,019. They actually got the design through landmarks.

[4:02] approving this design for a changed and renovated studio on the alley of their historic house. When they went to build a or pull a building. Permit. The planning department said, You're 3 inches into the alley. The shed that they were renovating to make a studio was actually built in 1,870, and so they told the design. They had to lift the building up and bring it forward. since they're moving at 3 inches. The planning department made them move it 3 feet. Well, then, the building was too high. The studio was too high, so they actually had to build a whole to lower the whole thing in order to come within the current height. Restriction for

[5:00] so accessory dwellings that cost them $32,000 to dig a hole raise the building and poor new foundation. So providing flexibility for height modifications really is an important aspect of enabling AD use, and I just wanted to tell you about that. So you would understand, maybe some of the context, some reason why that perhaps should be considered. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much for your service. We really appreciate you, and I appreciate your service. Thank you so much. Next up we have Lisa Alding, followed by Amy Hayward. Lisa, please go ahead. You have a few minutes. Lisa Spalding, I'm. Representing the University Hill Neighborhood Association. We sent you a letter that we had sent to the City Council

[6:03] due to the current impacts from a high population density on the hill. We oppose the one size fits all approach of the proposed a to you. Changes that eliminate saturation limits for neighborhoods of vastly different needs, desires, and caring capacities, especially those neighborhoods surrounding the university. The assertion that no other city in the country has saturation limits has become a rallying cry for deregulation. But 3 of the 5 zones in Chicago that allow a to use have an annual limit of 2 per block. This allows the city to judge the effects of a gradual population increase. A Utah law law allows a to use in any residential zone statewide, and stipulates that cities may not regulate or restrict them. However, this law also allows cities to prohibit a to use in a percentage of their residential areas, which ranges from 25% in most cities to 67 and cities with large universities.

[7:03] provo home to bring him young University, and comparable, and population to boulder, passed a code change that promoted the exemption of up to 67 of its residential areas. There are other examples of cities with saturation limits, but many cities use other tools to guard against as adverse impacts on neighborhoods like special permits that include a public hearing. Dallas requires a special exception to single-family regulations adjudicated at a public hearing before the board of adjustments the board may not consider how the appeal may benefit the applicant, and can grant the exception only if it will not adversely affect neighboring property. The saturation limit is the only tool boulder has that prevents adverse effects that could overwhelm our already dense neighborhood. In the 19 seventies medium density blocks of the hill south of college and west of Sixteenth were down down zone to low density in an effort to ensure a balance between family homes and student rentals.

[8:06] Unfortunately, the city grandfathered everything in without a sunset day. Non-conforming uses count toward the AD. Saturation limit and the large number of legal nonconforming properties on the hill already places a huge strain on many blocks. For example, the 800 block of Eleventh Street has a sorority with an occupancy of 109. A triplex across the street from it, with 9 legal residents, and the soon to be completed. High End student apartment complex, formerly mark the house across the alley from the sorority, which will have an occupancy of 48. We do not object to ads, but share concerns about the proposed changes with other neighborhoods surrounding the University and hope to discuss alternatives to the one size fits all approach with staff before a final draft ordinance is written. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. Next up we have Amy Haywood, followed by Brent Grumman, together with Amanda Tanner.

[9:05] Amy, you have 3 min Thank you. I'm Amy Haywood, 2075 upland avenue we? I completely support making a to use an option for all single family homes in boulder that have a lot size that will sustain it, or that want to share their house. We have a housing price crisis, a. To use are an amazingly simple way to integrate and impute, prove socioeconomic diversity, secure aging and space create community supplement income for those who need it and provide more affordable housing. They're doing amazing things in other States. They've in Vermont. It's they passed a law that allows

[10:00] equal treatment of housing and town bylaws require municipalities to allow all homeowners to add one a to you to their house as permitted. Use as long as they they meet certain requirements. And i'm not exactly sure what they are in New Hampshire. They pass the same law in Washington State. You can have one to 2 a to use if you have a large lot over 5,000 square feet and up so it's pretty amazing that other communities are not falling apart because they've loosened 80. You requirements. I live on Upland Avenue and our house backs up to Vine Avenue, where developers are building 4,000 plus square foot homes, single family homes. and one next door just rented for 10,000 dollars per month or more. I'm not exactly sure. But I know that it's in that range. I can't even imagine spending $10,000

[11:02] per month for rent further down vine Rob Naman was granted permission by the city council to build a to use and a home on every one of his lots, but they are building instead vina states which are large, expensive luxury homes. And there's a lot of advertising out about that. I don't think that there will be a rush to go crazy building a to use in boulder. I wish that there would be but most 2 person, Single family households in Boulder do not want to share their home or their yard or their bathroom it use, require an effort effort to build a sacrifice of privacy, and giving up space in your home or yard. It's just not appealing to most boulder rights. so I encourage you to make it easier for the average person to have an 80 or 2 on their property if they're willing to share.

[12:06] I see 3 car garages, and just can't believe that we provide housing for cars, but not for people. So please equal the playing field. If people want a big house and 3 car garage, that's fine. But if people want a yard, and I mean if they want to have share a portion of their property and have another person living there. Please allow that. Thank you very much. It's a very important topic. Next we'll hear from Fred Gilman with Amanda Tanner, followed by Jesse. human. Please go ahead and rent. Hi! This is Brent Groman with my wife Amanda Tanner. We live at 9, 2, 7 Pine Street. And reason we're joining today is because

[13:01] we have an existing structure that is, consists of a garage, and there's like an overhead loft area. and we wanted to When the regulations passed in 2,019, we wanted to go forward with this structure and convert it into a full rentable unit. And we went through that process we came to discover, because we live on the side of Mapleton hill and additionally, because Boulder requires the height of a structure to be measured from the lowest point within 25 p to that structure. When we go from the alley side at 16 feet, and then go down the slope. We end up in a situation where now the height of the building exceeds the 25 foot limit allowed for with the AD regulations. and so we have no remedy, even though this is is about as close to an existing a to use. You could have just in structure and physically.

[14:01] So the only option we were left with would be to actually build something in the yard. Of course that's superfluous. It uses additional resources, and creates more impervious area. all of which, I believe, are contrary to the city's goals with respect to sustainability. So therefore, a change in this ordinance to allow for a grandfathering of existing structures would be very beneficial to us in order to be able to have a rental unit and add to the housing supply. And with that i'll yield back the the balance. My time. Thank you very much. Thank you both. So much. okay. Next up we have Jesse, followed by Kurt Nord. Back. Jessie, please go ahead. You have 3 min.

[15:00] Jessie. Are you with us? I see that chastity seems to be muted. so I've given her permission to speak. I think she has to unmute herself from her side. but we can go to the why don't we go to Kurt, and we can come back to Jesse and if you can start the timer over per please go ahead. Hi, Curtin or Beck 7 7 7 Delta Avenue. I sent you an email which hopefully you received. I'm just urging you to endorse the have recommendations which are in your memo have spent a lot of time, a lot in multiple mess meetings and a lot of public input time. A lot of public engagement thinking about a to use over the course of the fall, and came up with a an extensive suite of proposed

[16:11] changes that they felt or balanced. That sort of covered a a wide range of current impediments, and and allowed in a measured way for additionally use, with, you know proper constraints. And so that's that suite of of changes that is in your memo. And unfortunately, staff did not endorse all of those in the council restricted the scope of the project. To what Staff endorsed is my understanding. But I would like I I would just urge you to recommend that Council include the full suite of have recommendations in particular. There were 2 that were left off, one removing the parking requirement, which

[17:02] you know. We all know that we need to move away from parking requirements anyhow, and this would be a tiny step in that direction, and the other one is removing this strange minimum wage requirement. Both of those code was both of those are extremely simple. It's just would be a matter of removing existing code literally. In Microsoft word, it would be 1 min of removing code. So it's really not a complex thing. So I would just urge you to recommend the Council that those be reincorporated as part of this. Thank you. Thanks so much. There. let's try Jesse again. Jessie. you just have to unmute yourself from your end. and you should be able to speak. We had a couple of please.

[18:01] Okay, so I I wanted to have you. If you will take a look at Puds as part of the solution. because there are a lot of older parts of boulder, were. They were developed using planned unit developments. And they're frozen in time. So I I I send a little note i'll just read from. You know Beauties also stand in the way of change. Please consider dissolving old pods as part of removing obstruction to AD use. The pud we live in has 3 conforming houses on low density lots, and 9 non conforming medium density houses on low density lots. They're all frozen in time. There are 12 houses in the ped. They're frozen in time. You can't really alter them.

[19:03] 3 of them conform and our our large lots. They're they're 9,300 square feet or larger that we can't alter the footprint on. and They've been frozen since the 19 eighties. so I think that first, before you can solve a problem, you have to define what the problem is, and you should take a look around the city and see how many puds are are frozen in time, and how many lots in those puds can can actually be freed up to use for a to use. So we, we happen to own 2 lots like that that we would love to be able to do things to that have been frozen in time. and and the city won't alter them. It's like. you know, someone had had written

[20:00] is something into the Bible it shouldn't be changed and and I think that every 40 years you should be able to look at zoning and say, well, maybe we should alter it so that people can update their houses and and be able to actually do things that would conform with their existing low density zoning that we can't do now. because the city is frozen pure. Ds. So if you have any questions, i'd love to answer it. We've got a 9,800 square foot lot, with a 1,200 square foot house, and one bathroom. and we can't do anything with it. You can't put it in a do you? On that. so you could keep things frozen in time. You can't alter them. You have to look at everything that's pretty much. It. Thanks so much. Thanks for sticking within the time. Next we have

[21:01] Emily Reynolds, followed by Dorothy Cohen. Emily, just appreciate, if you can watch the timer, and please go ahead. Hello! Planning board Emily Reynolds 2,030 mesa drive Boulder, Colorado. Like many people you represent, I'm terribly upset of the prospect of 3 buildings per lot in our beautiful established neighborhoods city officials have promoted so much development. The heat island at thirtieth and Google is but one example of the aggressive development out of state developments. Developers and local adu developers like Ml. Robes will be pleased if you allow this. They will be able to fill their giant coffers. Further Board member email robes has a clear and obvious conflict of interest, and should not be permitted to vote on this planning board cannot be oblivious to this

[22:05] Robes has no business voting on this issue. There are others in the immediate vicinity, but the AD. You next door to me affectionately called the Ally Turd blocks my views to the west, and no sunsets, no view of the weather coming in, no mountain views, and offers 2 by 4 foot area of afternoon sunshine in one of Boulder's earliest solar homes. You may have seen my before and after picks in in an email today. A lovely sunset versus a semi-truck sized black plane when the ally Turd was under construction a worker, asked me if he could work from my side because he couldn't open his ladder in the 3 feet between the building and the fence on his side. destroying the integrity of our established neighborhoods, is not the route to affordable housing. I wish the city would do more with affordable housing, but this simply will cause prices to go up. The only way it would work is if in in.

[23:12] If an individual having just finished a construction project chose to rent at a below market rate. This is so seriously unlikely. unless you make it a requirement. Any AD news should be required to meet affordability housing requirements. Otherwise you're simply adding more expensive housing to boulder. Another suggestion would be to enforce the laws and regulations. My neighbor has countless illegal acts to his name, and has seen 0 consequences, with the exception of the chi ching part. Owners are supposed to live on the property. Ha! He lives in Pennsylvania. He lied to neighbors about building a 10 by 12 foot shed, and so on and on. jamming more and more people into boulder is a nightmare for those of us who are long term residents. Please moderate this extreme stance. You've loosened regs for a to use twice in the last few years. All this will do is increase density and housing costs.

[24:17] Please consider carefully. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. Thank you for sharing your view with us. Next up is Dorothy Cohen, and I just want to remind participants here tonight to please go ahead and raise your hand if you plan to to speak up tonight. so we can see how many people we have remaining. Dorothy, please go ahead. My name is Dorothy Cohen. I live in Martin acres at 2845 elm avenue. And i'm horrified about some of the ads that people are putting in. It's supposed to be affordable housing.

[25:00] and some of them. I've heard, are bigger than my house. My house is less than 800 square feet. and I've heard people are putting ads that are over 900 square feet. It just doesn't make sense, and some of them are above the low income housing there charging rents that are exorbitant. So where do we? Where do we come out ahead? W. What what are we gaining? What this other woman said, it's like if you don't if you have an AD you and you're charging rents that are exorbitant. it makes no sense. and I've heard of people that are living in the ages and renting out their house. So how are they coming out ahead? I mean, there's just there's too many questions. There are too many. I've seen pictures of a D. That are what that lady was talking about that are close to the fence, and Don't. We have a sunshine law

[26:03] that you can't block. If somebody wants to do solar, you can't block it So how would you, if if these ads are blocking somebody's view of the sunset. What do we come? How are we coming out ahead? And if these Co. If the cost of these units is more than affordable housing. What if we gain from the whole system? I mean, I think we need to have better housing. but I don't think I think, that there has to be some better regulations and better control of what's going on to a to use on one property. Make no sense at all. Thank you. Thank you, Dorothy. next up, and the this is the last hand remaining. So just encourage others to raise your hand. If you intend

[27:03] to speak fran sheets. Please go ahead. You need to unmute yourself from your end. Let's give fran a couple of seconds to figure that out, and otherwise there are no other hands raised. I'm mute. Hi! I'm sorry I was doing other stuff. My name is Fran sheets, and I live at Fifth and marine in Boulder. I've lived in Boulder for nearly 49 years, and my husband's family has lived here continuously for over a 100 years.

[28:02] and now many people in boulder today. People know Boulder's history, and what it was like to live here, and why the decisive decisions were made that made this place somewhat unique and a very desirable town. We watched Boulder change directions over time, and from a city concerned with livability and quality of life. We were now facing a history of our own inequities from red lining and racism. And now the current concerns with climate, crisis, and housing. But the quality of life is no longer on that list, and it should be. We can provide housing. and we can maintain a quality of life if it's done thoughtfully, but not by building randomly, and packing in as many people as possible, or making the disparities wider. To this point. The trajectory of a city in the past was set historically by a series of insightful citizens. John can tell you about this. The overall goal was to create an environment for ourselves and our children. That was safe, aesthetically pleasing, and where people could flourish.

[29:10] we did have a process for building affordable and subsidized housing, and it worked. We also maintained our smaller houses, which we are not doing right now. We are taking them down and putting up big houses in in in exchange. We did more than the surrounding cities as well from times past, boulder into implemented the the blue line, the green belt, the height limit, bike paths, sidewalks, subsidized housing and and zoning regulations, and, like it or not. All these issues define the city. The trajectory of creative thinking in the past did not come from city staff of urban planners, but from active, unusually hardworking citizens. Through petitions. The ballot box and just hard work older, became known as a thoughtful and unique city, because they were highly educated people who were able to imagine and implement change in unusual ways that still met the needs of people.

[30:08] Maybe Boulder became somewhat unique because we had high expectations for a lot of creative out of the box imagining for the city and its future. And we need to do that now. This proposal to put 3 houses on a lot makes no sense. maybe with the changing times the pressure is facing the city and the whole country, for that matter, thinking of our classes and racist past. We change course, but the idea of building multiple ads in our backyards completes the leap into an inequitable, unsustainable city rather than creative solutions. We'll continue the course of overcrowding with people in cars and unsafe unhealthy environments, and not enough parks and play areas for kids and adults, and the wealthy get even wealthier. So this proposal trashes our zoning, and and in one way it's a one-way permanent street

[31:02] into expensive housing, and more wealth for the wealthy land owning it will move bolder into the category of being, like all other cities, with rising crime, too many cars, people not enough space. It puts us squarely on the unsustainable path. Lacking imagination and reasonable solutions, it's failed in other communities. And it will fail us here, too. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Okay? So there are no other hands raised or the open comment. John. you're on mute. You're on mute, John. Thank you. and with that we'll bring the public comment to the portion of this meeting to an end. and we'll move ahead. We don't have any call ups to consider, and there are no public hearing items on tonight's agenda. What we do have are 2 significant information items to consider.

[32:00] and as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, we'll start out reversing what's shown on the agenda, and we'll move ahead with an overview of the Denver Regional Council of Governments as an information item. and I think that's Nicole Spear, who is going to be presenting that to us tonight. So go ahead. Thank you so much. and I am just wondering, Devin, if you will be able to pull up my slides, or if you prefer that, I do them. I can get them for you. Okay? Well, thank you. I'll just tell you when it's time to move. Move on to the next one so thank you very much. planning board for having me here tonight. I'll just state for the public. this is Nicole Spear from City Council, and I am coming to you tonight as our councils, representative and director on the Denver Regional Council of Governments, otherwise known as Dr. Cog. so thank you again for giving me time to share these updates with you all. before I get started. I just want to thank Jane Samson in our transportation department for putting these slides together.

[33:08] and to Jean and Natalie Stiffler and all of our incredible transportation staff for getting me up to speed on some of these regional transportation issues over the past year. as you all know, but i'll stay for any members of the public on the meeting. Dr. Cog is the Denver Regional Council of Governments. It's basically our regional planning organization, who's directors or Council members and County commissioners from across the Denver Metro area. the Board of Directors works with Dr. Cog staff to establish guidelines, set policy and allocate funding for transportation and personal mobility. regional growth and development and aging and disability resources all right on to the next slide, please. So some of you remember, may remember that in 2021 Senate Bill 21260 established some greenhouse gas reduction targets for state and regional transportation plans.

[34:09] What this meant for the Denver Metro region is that we were required to come up with a plan to reduce surface transportation greenhouse gas emissions through our Dr. Cog transportation planning process. So this past year, in 2,022, Dr. Cog spent a lot of time working on changes to our region's Transportation plan. It's called the 2,050 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan, or the 2,050 rtp. The changes not only included updates to the 2,050 Rtp. They also committed our region to further action through a mitigation action plan, and the Dr. Cardboard adopted the 2,050 Rtp. And mitigation Action Plan in September 2,022 next slide, please. The changes to the 2050 rtp resulted in some pretty major shifts, and how we plan transportation across the region. We're planning to meet almost 90 of our greenhouse gas reduction targets just by changing how we spend transportation dollars.

[35:10] So, rather than spending billions of dollars on highway expansions, will be investing instead in building the multimodal infrastructure that we need for more transit biking and walking. So in the coming decades we'll start seeing changes like removing several high we've highway widening projects like along the I 25 central corridor, and C 470 expediting bus. Rapid transit corridors like our Colorado, 119 bus rapid transit project. adding another 900 million dollars for multimodal projects and adding investments in pedestrian bicycle safety transit complete streets, and so on. So these changes, along with some changed assumptions about how many and how many people in our region are going to be teleworking now that we're more used to working remotely. we're quite enough to get us to our goals, so we'll accomplish the remaining 11 of our reductions through voluntary. For now changes to our land use and parking management strategies. So let me first show you what some of these strategies are, and then i'll say a little bit more sorry my answer about to the

[36:16] But i'll say a little bit more about what I mean by voluntary, for now can we go to the next slide, please? Okay, then. thank you. Dr. Cock identified several mitigation strategies that are going to make a big difference in our regions. Greenhouse gas emissions things like increasing residential density, increasing job density, having more mixed use, transit, oriented development, reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements and adopting local, complete straight standards. And you can see the anticipated annual reductions under each of the icons in the slide mit ctl, and the latest intergovernmental panel on climate change report lists, increasing density as critical for saving the planet. And you can read more in the latest report about how increasing housing and job density is a key transition that will help the plan and avoid more than 1.5 degrees of global warming, 150.

[37:09] Dr. Cog is going to be providing technical assistance to communities that are ready to work on these mitigation strategies in the coming years. and, as usual, Boulder is out ahead on climate, and our new East Boulder Subcommunity plan actually meets a lot of these requirements already, so i'll share more on that in just a moment. But I want to get back to what I mean by voluntary for now, so the region has some check in points on how we're doing on our greenhouse gas emissions. Reduction goals. The first one is going to come up in 4 years. If we're not on target additional mitigation, strategies will likely come into effect which will start tying transportation funding to this mitigation action plan. What that means is that to be competitive for transportation funding, we would have to show that we're making progress on these changes in this current funding cycle. We've had over 47 million dollars come in through Dr. Cog for transportation projects. So it really matters for a city that we stay competitive for this funding

[38:09] transportation staff, and I are all a little doubtful that the 2,050 Rtp. And the Mitigation Action plan are sufficient to get us to our goals by the first checkpoint in 4 years. So these more stringent regulations on funding, we think, are likely to kick in next slide, please. But, like I said, the good news is that we're already coming out ahead. You may remember that our East Boulder Subcommittee plan address this issue directly, and we're anticipating a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to increasing the number of people who make trips closer to home and work so by creating a well connected walkable and bike-friendly transportation system. Paired with these 15 min neighborhoods, we can not only improve mobility and quality of life, we can meaningfully move the needle on our broader climate goals. Our East Folder Subcommittee plan addresses 3 of the 8 Mitigation Action plan strategies that Dr. Kott created. So, keeping up with the Senate Bill 21, 260 greenhouse gas emissions. Reductions really just means doing more of the work that we're already doing.

[39:14] That's the end of the first part of this presentation about the 2,050 Rtp. And the Mitigation Action plan. Does anybody have questions? I do call. Thank you. Very interesting. But what's built into this is the assumption that people will, by definition live near where their job is, and i'm sort of curious how, which is not necessarily true. So i'm curious how you all how the plan accommodates that reality. yeah. And so I think they they were working on the modeling for quite some time, and I think i'd have to go back to look at the specifics of how they did that part of it. but what the staff we were trying to take into account was kind of how how far people are commuting for their jobs where their jobs are. and then then the number of people who are tele working, and who maybe increasing their their tele working as well.

[40:15] So I know that doesn't totally answer your question, Sarah. but I can. I can go back and look more in detail at the at the the math that they were doing in and making these projections. I appreciate it. We'll have, and I don't want to make you do more work than you already have to do on on City Council. We can ask the transportation staff when next they present to us. Sure. Yeah, no, I don't mind asking. I'll pass that question on if I if I can't find it quickly myself. Lisa. yeah, I'll just kind of piggy back off what i'm. Sarah just asked him. I'd be interested in one kind of like what went into the modeling. And then also, if there are similar analogs where we can look back and see like, oh, we we we put these assumptions in.

[41:01] and either similar neighborhoods in the Metro area, ideally or in like a comparable city, you know. And then we actually saw that board out in like, you know, trip studies that we performed. because I think that's the piece that i'm always curious about whether it's Tdm or you know G Ghd. Plan or anything is is that we we do our best, you know. We model, we look at it, and then i'm always curious, and if we come back and look at that in 6 months, 2 years, 5 years. what do we see? because I think that if we could say, okay, these are fairly analogous examples or other examples in a neighborhood in the Metro area. And yes, it did indeed bear out in that way. Then I I would have more confidence in it. yeah, I'd be interested in that. Not just the the inputs. But any you know, post mortem analysis of of how it actually turned out. Sure, yeah, absolutely. And like I said, our first checkpoint is going to be in 4 years. so I think that'll that'll kind of be when it's coming up. But I think we will be hearing some updates before then, so I don't think they're going to wait 4 years to tell us that things are way off track. And

[42:01] I think you know some of some of why we were a little bit cautious about thinking that we may get to that we may meet the 2,050 Rtp. Goals is because of some of the assumptions that were made about how people were going to be moving and commuting around our region. I think that's why why our transportation staff and I were a little little wary of that, and why we think it. It may be more likely for this. The mitigation Action Plan stuff to he can. But I will go back and and find that. Find that part of the report and make sure that you all have that. Okay, I think we can move to your next section. so next slide, please. This is just shifting topics to talk a little bit about our Td. So that you all are aware of some transit updates. so, as you all will know, we have quite a few Rtd service cuts during the pandemic. Our Td. Has been trying to get back as fast as they can. But workforce challenges and budget shortages have really impacted the restoration of services. So our Td. Is expecting significantly reduced services through 2,027.

[43:13] right now there's a lot of uncertainty around when services are going to be coming back. what they're trying to work to is getting us to 80% of pre Covid service levels for routes that are serving folder. so one example of the service to me to pass. I just have a question about this that maybe you can fold into what you're talking about, which is whether Rtd. And the city have determined where the people who live in Transit village are going to either. Are they taking public transit by going somewhere else? I mean going up to whatever some other bus stop. or are they? What do we know about the constant impacts of these shortages?

[44:05] Yeah, I can. I will ask that question to our transportation stuff. I have not seen those data presented either at Dr. Cog or through any meetings with our Td. But I can ask if anybody has that information. Lisa forgive me. It's possible that a baby was in my ear at this point, and this is a somewhat inflammatory question, but I was thinking about it earlier today. I think it was actually a some someone we're in with a comment I think on a to use, and and but the toward the end there's something I thought was really interesting. I was talking about free bus routes in Mazoula and I just keep coming back to if Rtd. Can't provide it in the city, and I realize we still maybe have a relationship with father and fire. Leave the district which I know is terrible for equity and terrible for other people. And why don't we take the same money and fund free transit throughout boulder.

[45:01] Everybody gets an eco-pass, or whatever the equivalent is, without having to run through the Rtd egos but I don't know I mean I I don't know where it counsels that on this I don't know where our reps are at. On this I know so regional issue, but I personally am so frustrated with our relationship with them, and I I don't know. I I I hope that conversations around that are happening, and that they're meaningful and not just like I. I I'd be curious to know if meaningful conversations around that are happening, I guess, would be my question. you know, or is it just something that people yell about when they're mad, like I get that sure. Yeah, that's actually my next slide. so. But I I think I got everything. No, no, it's it's okay, Lisa. It was a great great segue into the next slide. but just what is the obligation of Rtd. To operate the transit center depot under all the arrangements under which that was planned and built. In the first place.

[46:02] that that remains unclear to me, I i'd be interested to know more about them. Yeah, as far as I can tell, there is no obligation there. so I will. I will confirm that. But I do not believe that there there is an obligation there. I maybe I may be completely speaking, and not not knowing but in any of the conversations that I have had nothing about that has ever been raised writing that question down. Sorry I remember it. Thank you. Okay. All right. so. But you know we we are looking to get a couple of routes back. in the next 5 years. But the timing on when those will come back is very uncertain. okay. So we can move on to the next slide. Thank you.

[47:00] So. right now. There are some plans in the works to figure out a path forward given. There's some uncertainty about when some of these services will be restored, and there are a few things that are being created. and this actually was the presentation for a couple of months ago. So closer to closer to being created. Now. a sub regional Service Council is going to be advising our Td. On service changes, and our city staff will be participating in that process. There will be a partnership program that is going to be implementing pilot programs and cost share programs like the Hop that's currently funded by Cu. Boulder and Rtd. And at the this doctor cops up Dr. Cog's sub regional form, which is basically the Dr. Cog: Directors from within the county and from the cities local city governments from within Boulder County. We're going to be working together on starting a county-wide strategic transit plan to think about what we're moving towards. So kind of getting to your point, Lisa is, you know for Where, Where are we headed? What are we trying to do with our transportation? And what does that look like as we move forward?

[48:08] The Forum is going to be made up of a county commissioner, and then County staff and city council members, and our transportation staff, as well as transportation staff from cities across Boulder County. so it's just a a little update on some of the Rtd plans, and we're where we're headed as a sub regional forum within Dr. Cock to think about transportation in our region and in our subar, and as we move forward. do you just tell us what's included in our sub region who's included in our sub region. Yep. So it's basically everybody in Boulder County, so Longmont Superior Erie Lewisville Lafayette and then somebody from the county, the County Commissioner's office. Those are. I think I've got everybody there.

[49:02] so that kind of goes to Lisa's point that you know, if we have. If we have that conversation going. you know, at the risk of you know, being revolutionary. we could conceivably just set up our own system that solves that solve addresses some of these transportation issues because it's going to be a couple of years before East Border subcommunity plan. All the underlying stuff is actually completed before folks start building. If they start, you know it depends on what happened to the economy. and obviously it's going to be till 2,027, according to your documents, before anything happens to improve our Td. It's a and and then there's this four-year check, in which falls right in the middle of that. So maybe this sub regional council is the best, most likely. forum for moving forward more quickly.

[50:02] Yeah, I think we'll have some really good conversations coming out of there, and just trying to understand, you know. Given given the transit needs of our region, what are How do we move forward and give more updates anytime? But thank you. Thank you so much for having me. Okay, Was Are there any additional questions for Nicole? All right. Well, thanks very much. No, thank you again. Good night, everyone. Thank you. Okay. So now we'll move ahead to our our next item tonight, which is a information item and and hopefully a discussion of of the access accessory dwelling unit updates. And this is

[51:00] what an information session. But and we won't be taking any formal decisions tonight. But staff views this as an opportunity to present the latest and greatest of what has been accomplished. And that consideration of Staff's recommendations, and we hope that there will be a coherent and useful discussion that staff can take back and use in their refinement of the material which will be dealt with in a. In a public hearing by planning board and city council. probably later in February or in March sometime. and Lisa has been running this show. And please take it away. Lisa. Thanks. Chair. Thanks for the great

[52:00] Yeah, I I should do that. So Lisa has identified several questions for us to consider explicitly, and we'll have a discussion. questions and a discussion after each of those items and then some at the end, we'll be able to raise any issues and questions dealing that we feel have not been adequately addressed in the individual discussions of each of those 4 items. and Lisa will be presenting those and then we'll have the discussion after each each of those presentations. So I hope that clarifies. Thank you, Sarah. I should have mentioned that at the beginning. alright, thanks. I am really looking forward to this discussion about accessory dwelling units, or you'll hear the acronym 80 use used a lot because accessory dwelling units is a mouthful.

[53:05] But tonight we're gonna talk about the evaluation report that was done last year. Kind of look back at the last few years of a to use. Talk about the comparable cities research that we've been doing, and then we'll dive into the focus areas for the update that we're planning to do this year. So, starting off with the super basics which some of you might know, but I just wanted to to w level Set there. what is an 80 you so in Boulder we have both an attached to you, and a detached day to you. So you can see on the right hand side those top 2 images. The blue is the so an attached day to you can either be like an upstairs unit or a basement unit. but it's always a small residence that's sharing the lot with the main house. So that's the important part of what an edu is. It can also be a detached edu, which mean, which is that bottom image which is in a separate structure, but still on the same lot.

[54:00] And the important thing is, it's an independent self contained housing unit, so it has a kitchen in a bathroom, and it provides an additional housing option. Often in places where single family zoning would typically only allow one unit. This project was brought to us by city council in their retreat last year they identified updates to the 80 regulations as one of their work program priorities for 2,022, and 2,023, with the main objective being to increase the allowance of a to use in boulder. Specifically they asked Staff to look at removing the saturation limit, which we'll get into much more detail about tonight, and also looking at allowing both an attached and a detached edu on a lot. So right now you're only allowed to have one a to use. So they wanted us to look at having multiple ads on the Lot Council also directed us to analyze potential barriers that exist in our codes to adu construction. And so that's where we did. Completed an evaluation of the most recent Co. comprehensive update that's been made to the Edu regulations. It was adopted in late 2,018, and went into effect in early 2,019.

[55:11] So that's what we were working on. kind of starting in the last last summer. but a ton of data analysis which i'll go over tonight as well as interviewing internal staff who works on a to use so licensing staff planning staff all the people that touch an AV you permit. We talk to them about the issues with process and things like that. We also worked with our housing and human services staff to do a survey of all of the eightyu owners in the city. and then we also interviewed even applicants who had started the process for an Edu, but chose to withdraw, to try to understand what barriers there that might have been in place that caused them to withdraw. So that's the initial direction that was given by Council early last year, as was mentioned by one of our commenters. The Housing Advisory Board has been discussing a. To use over the last several years. And so when this was put on the work program priority, they list they

[56:06] They excuse me, wanted to provide a recommendation to council on what the scope of work should be. So the Housing Advisory Board put a recommendation forward to counsel that this the these 80 you changes. It should focus on kind of a different scope of work than what that initial direction had been so eliminating the saturation limit. That was the same, but also eliminating the parking requirements for a to use eliminating the minimum W. Size requirement for a to use revising the eightyu size limits and some more procedural things like creating pre-approved eightyu floor plans that people could use, and streamlining the eighty- review process. So in November, just a couple of months ago we went back to city council to refine the scope of the project to determine what scope they wanted, staff to move forward with, and what Staff recommended, based on the results of the evaluation report was limiting it to 4 main items.

[57:06] So the first being eliminating the the 80 saturation limit, or exploring the elimination of that, the second being modifying the size limits as have had recommended us looking at, and we had seen, and i'll talk about a bit about that. What we saw in the evaluation. and then the final 2 are more general, just clarifying and simplifying the regulations. Some of these main sticking points that we went through that kept coming up through the evaluation process as barriers to adu construction. That you know, we could get kind of the most being for our buck, and making some some minor changes to the code that could really improve the clarity and then overall just some rewriting and simplifying and things like that. Then, aside from code changes, there's also a number of procedural improvements that we could make, that i'll go through tonight as well. So that's the direction that we are moving forward with with this project. This is what Council has given us to focus on and try to complete by the second quarter of this year.

[58:04] and just in terms of public engagement. Council also endorsed a consult level of engagement. And so the plan as laid out in the project Charter is to focus on. We did a lot of public engagement back in 2,018 for those changes, and a lot of it overlaps with the topics that we're thinking about now. And so, rather than lose all of that great information and input that we got at that time looking back at that, to inform our future engagement as well. So we looked back. He would have seen in your packet and attachment with a summary of kind of the relevant questionnaire answers and things like that related to saturation, limit, and size limits from that previous effort. and that allows us to be more expedient and efficient with engagement right now, rather than asking the same questions again. We also met with our community connectors in residents just last week, to who kind of represent, under represented groups in boulder to discuss a to use and got feedback from them.

[59:04] we obviously have our matters item tonight, and the little asterisk just means there's an opportunity for open public comment at that meeting. so Council wanted us to focus on the board and commission our existing Board Advisory Board process to use that for public engagement. So things like tonight. So it's great to see a lot of people coming out to provide input tonight. similarly, we'll have a meeting with the housing advisory before next week where there's also open comment. we're gonna have a study session with the City Council also next week. there is not open comment at study sessions, but what written comment is always welcome and encouraged. And then, similarly, we'll be meeting with the Board of Zoning Adjustments, since they review all of the variances related to a to use, and that'll be at their next meeting in February we also have be heard: Boulder. A virtual engagement opportunity where people can post their experiences with ads or issues with, they to use or thoughts about the updates so kind of just a virtual a virtual open house over there in the web. that will be up for anybody between. At during this point.

[60:10] and then we're planning to have virtual o office hours with staff. If people want to have you know, just ask questions of staff through February and March as we are working on the ordinance. Finally, we'll have the Ordinance Review public hearings, the typical public hearing process, as John mentioned. Probably late February early March is when you all would see the ordinance and have a public hearing. and then they would go forward to city council as well. So, as John mentioned, we have laid out these 4 main questions, and like, he said, I've organized the presentation kind of by each one, so feel free. I'll. I'll have a slide that looks very similar to this at kind of the end of each section, and we can tackle questions and comments related to each one. So, just to give you an idea of what's to come. Our first section is a little meeting, because it's all of the data, just a summary of the data from the evaluation report, and all the things that we heard, and then that'll dig into further saturation limits, size, limits, and the the future changes.

[61:11] So we'll start with the evaluation. So overall we have in Boulder we've had 80 regulations since 1,983, which is now 40 years. So we have 40 years of regulation regulating a to use, and you can see. In this chart. It shows the number of eighty-s approved each year since that time. and it also shows the kind of main significant regulatory changes that were made along the way. So you can see how those regulatory changes have affected the number of s that have been approved. As you can tell, there's a big spike in 2,019 after the last changes were adopted. So that's where we really wanted to look with. This evaluation is how those changes affected a to use. And what were the big things that were actually barriers for a Tou construction that might have been changed with those regulatory updates.

[62:05] So yeah, we were looking at these 4 years, 2,019 through 2,022. The evaluation went through the middle of 2,022. So you can see it was a record year, in 2,019, with 88 use adopted Before that it was usually about 10 or 20 that were adopted or approved each year. and then we've seen the numbers kind of going down each year. There was certainly like a built up demand prior to those changes. but also we had Covid happen in the middle of that, so that certainly affected numbers as well. But overall we had 280. You applications approved since that most recent code change went into effect. Through the middle of last year, so 200 were approved. 96 of them were built. at the time that we completed the evaluation. 44. We're still under construction, and 32 are still in Permit Review. so just to give you an idea of the numbers that we're looking at.

[63:00] Then, geographically, this is the northern half of the city. You can see. The purple little purple house is a attached unit. So that's the the integrated within the same structure. Blue means that it is a detached unit. It is for the most part are located in our lower density, zoning districts or shar often on the western side of the city, so that's why you'll see them mostly on the western side. but as far as the southern half of the city. You can see also kind of on the western side, but also across 36 depending on the zoning district. But just to give you an idea of where these are located throughout the city. and then some general data points about those 280 us that we've seen since 2,019. About 2 thirds of those are detached, so a different structure than the main house and a third we're attached. within the house. The average size of an 80 is 640 square feet. As you can see, they differ because there's different requirements for detached and attached

[64:02] and then an important thing to understand about our 80 regulations is that we also, we allow some flexibility for affordable a to use. And so the definition of affordable eightyu is that it's meeting 75 of the area median income. So you can see kind of in that small to font at the bottom, that that's a one at the equivalent of essentially of a one bedroom being about $1,700 a month. So if the owner chooses to do an affordable unit, they can actually have an increased size limit and a reduced parking requirement. compared to a market rate unit. So that was new. that was a new option that was provided in that last update, and we saw about a third of 80. You owners take that, take advantage of that 80 affordable eightyu option and two-thirds went with market rate as far as the location. I showed you geographically, but just an idea. By zoning district you can see the vast majority of 86 are located in our rl one zoning district. there is a lot of rl one zoning in the city. So, that is that we saw that consistently

[65:13] over the last few years, and then lot sizes. You can see about 8,000 square feet. Median Median lot size for those properties that have a to use saturation limit, was one thing we looked at with the evaluation, because it Those changes in 2,018 increase the saturation limit in the Rl. One and Rl. 2 districts from 10 to 20. I'll dig in a little bit more later about that, but just wanted to show that about over half. or actually over 3 quarters either met the previous saturation limit of 10, so they were below 10%, or they were in a district without a saturation limit. The saturation limit does not apply to every zoning district. It's just the Rl. One and Rl. 2,

[66:00] but there were 41, 80, us that were approved in the last few years that were above that previous limit of 10, but below 20%. Sorry I see your hands up. Yeah, I just I didn't understand this a graph in the in the in the pamphlet either. So, I first of all is this district districts. Is this all the to use? Is this just 80, you since 2,019. I'm just then what is the 41? And what is the 20? I just didn't quite understand all these numbers. Yeah, no, thanks for that opportunity to clarify that. So yeah, that the first number is the actual number of a to use, and then it's the percentage of the total 200 that we're looking at. So the evaluation only looked at the recently approved day to use. So that's up those 200, and because the saturation limit was 10% before they would have everything from before that would have been before under 10%. So it's those 41 that took advantage of the increased saturation limit. And we're able to construct.

[67:04] Does that help? Okay. alright, and that yeah. And then we also looked at the variances that have been applied for and approved by the Board of Zoning adjustment. So in the 80 regulations you're able to vary the maximum floor area of an eightyu, and so we saw that 4 applications went through to Bosa. All 4 were approved. They actually all 4 were the same situation where it was an existing basement. that was slightly over or it either. 27 square feet up to 500 square feet over the limit of a 1,000, and all 4 of those were approved. excuse me, Lisa, can you describe the logic that was used to approve those? Yeah. I mean the I think the common logic for those that were approved was that it was an existing basement, and in order to meet the floor area they would have to put up just kind of a random wall in the basement, just to cut that floor for area up

[68:12] so that it didn't count as part of the at you. So they found that it was an unreasonable change. Often it you know what it require, significant modifications to an existing house. So I think that that was the main motivation for supporting those variances. Thank you. all right. So the next thing that we looked at I mentioned that you know we're looking at all of the ads that were approved. We looked at the eightyu applications that were withdrawn, but we also wanted to understand where the barriers might be for people that never go through the process like. Maybe they inquire about an eightyu. They're interested in it, but they never take this step of applying for the application for an edu. So the best way to do that was to look at our inquire Boulder system, which is our customer service portal portal, where we get over 4,000

[69:07] comments within just 8 8 months. related to zoning questions, just to give you an idea of what's going on with that. But we had 218 tickets that were related to a to use in particular, and the vast majority of those or about whether people trying to understand whether or not a to you is allowed on their site, or specifically about the saturation limit. So we thought this was an really interesting finding just looking at that, and how commonly misunderstood the saturation limit is, and how confusing it is for applicants. and it really sets an initial barrier for people either both perceived or actual about whether they can actually pursue an edu. So I just pulled. These are direct quotes from some of these inquire boulder tickets just to give you an idea of what we're seeing, and the questions that come in related to the saturation limit. But I think the one in the top right corner kind of sums it up.

[70:02] We would like to consider an Edu over the garage of our home, but we need to confirm that the location is not saturated. First, how do we do that without going through the whole process, fully submitting a full application and the fee? So we get a lot of questions like that coming in obviously to the city. And it's something that the a property owner cannot confirm themselves. So it's significant administrative time for Staff to complete the calculation and figure out the saturation limit, and also because it's constantly in movement. The saturated. Someone could ask this what the saturation limit is a week ago. But then, if their neighbor applies for an eightyu and gets that approved, their saturation limit has changed, so it's constantly in flux. so those are some of the challenges with the saturation limit. Yeah, Georgie. I i'm sorry i'll hold my question. Thanks. Okay. So we thought that that was an interesting finding, just seeing how how

[71:01] it was something that was coming up a lot in our internal stakeholder. Interviews with the saturation limit was a common issue. but that was really confirmed by looking at those tickets. And then I also mentioned that our housing and human Services staff helped us do a survey of all of the eightyu owners. And what was nice about this is that they've done this survey in 2,017 and 2,012 as well. So we had some comparable data to see how things changed over time. So we sent out the survey to the 430 owners of a to use in 22. We got 212 responses, so that's almost a 50% response rate, which was great. there's a lot more detail in the attached evaluation report, if you want to see that. but some of the highlights is that in comparing it over time. We're seeing that a greater percentage of 80 us are being used actually a space for visitors or relatives rather than a housing unit, or like a rentable housing unit.

[72:02] and then we also saw that, about 40% of owners who chose that affordable eightyu route chose it to reduce their parking requirement. We also asked about that initial idea that Council have had about allowing a second 80, you on the lot and 77% of it current 80. You owners said that they would not be interested in pursuing a second one. Yeah, Laura. I had a question about that last bullet point there where 77 people said they would not be interested in a second AD you is that were they asked about constructing a second AD you from scratch, or if at the time they had applied to get their first a. To you, they would have done 2 if it had been allowed. The reason Why, I ask. That is because obviously each time you initiate a construction project there's a significant cost, and there would be significant savings if you could do 2 at the same time. So what was the question? Exactly that they were asked. Yeah, I could look it up. i'm, i'm pretty sure it was more in the context of these are changes that are being considered as potential updates to the Edu regulations. If it was changed so that you were able to do a second 80. You know, in the future what you want to do it rather than

[73:13] what do you have wanted to do to? At the same time, does that answer the question I can. I can look up the actual wording of how they phrased it to. I think that was my impression from from reading the more detailed explanation, the packet that it was more of. Would you add another one, now that you're done right. And so, just for the future in terms of If what you want to know is if people will be interested in doing 2, you need to ask questions slightly differently. So yeah, there was a lot of great information there that we got from the owner Survey and there's a lot more in your packet. but essentially the conclusions that we came to in the evaluation was that the changes that we really saw? you know, quantifiably produce the barriers to a to use was the change to the saturation limit from 10 to 20. As we mentioned, there were 41 properties that couldn't previously have done, an 80 that were able to due to that change

[74:09] as far as the maximum size. That probably had the biggest impact. because the previous maximum size of a detached unit was 450 square feet in 2,018. It changed to 550 square feet. and over 3 quarters of the detached a. To that were approved in the last couple of years. We're over that limit so they would not have previously been allowed. in addition, there are maybe a dozen properties that were affected by a reduction in minimum wage, so they were able to move forward with an eightyu, or they wouldn't have been before, and then a few new zoning districts were added. which also allowed a couple of more a to use and then through all of that internal stakeholder interviews talking to the withdraw the people that had withdrawn the Inquire Boulder tickets. We also identified several remaining potential improvements that we thought would further vary, remove barriers or reduce barriers to a to use

[75:05] so eliminating the saturation limits, reconsidering floor area. That's based on those proven changes from the last round. but also some other things which we've we we can talk about a little bit later as well, because it's directly informed the scope of work that we recommended to council, but extending the expiration of approvals for a to use a height, variance, or flexibility, an option for existing structures. and then the general code, clarification and process improvements. So that was really the outcome of the evaluation. I think it was really helpful to look back through all of that data. but also part of the the research that we've been doing over the last couple of months is looking at other cities and what they are doing with their AD regulations. There was a summary matrix included in your memo packet. This is definitely Over the last decade or so a. To use have been a commonly taken up issue by many cities around the country.

[76:05] so what we looked at we looked at over 30 different cities that were comparable in terms of different features, which that's included in your attachment as well. But then we looked at these. This array of different AD regulations. And I won't reach you, but zoning wonky ones. But generally, where Canadians go in that community, what do you use need to look like, and who can live there? That's what we're really trying to assess within these other communities. and the takeaways that we got from these other cities that we looked at was first of all. No other city has a saturation limit for a to use the same way that we do. Only a few of these cities have a minimum wage. That's actually something that's been a common of the cities that have updated their a to use. Maybe in the last 2 or 3 years. That's something that's commonly being getting getting. They're getting rid of a minimum. What size Almost all the cities we looked at limit. it used to only one per lot.

[77:04] and then, in terms of maximum size, the boulders, the maximum size of detached units is smaller than most cities. But if you look at Colorado cities, those are typically smaller than the rest of the country. so around the country it's typically about 800 square feet for a detached unit in Colorado. It kind of varies more closer to 600, but bolder still on the smaller side of that. at 5, 50 in terms of parking requirements. Most cities require either 0 space for the 80 or one, and then some provide variability based on distance to transit things like that. Almost all say that 86 can't be sold separately, and about half of the cities require owner. Occupancy, which is that the proper property owner lives on site. Yeah, Laura. Quick question that first bullet point. You know, we we heard a few commenters interpret that as that no other city in the country has a saturation limit for a to use. Is that what you meant by that statement? Or are you just talking about those 34 comparable cities that you looked at.

[78:05] Yeah. So I've been. I mean for the 34 cities that we looked at in depth none of them have a saturation limit. But I've been. I'm not able to find any other city that has a similar saturation limit. I did look into the ones that they mentioned the Chicago One it's a pilot program. Interestingly, Chicago, only in the last year or 2 has allowed a to use so this is the first time, you know they're 40 years behind us in adopting AD regulations, and so they're doing it year by year, but it's not the same kind of limit, because you can have 2 on a block per year. But obviously the next year you can get 2 more, and the way that our saturation limit works. If there's 2, there's that's it. You can ever get a third one if it's meeting the saturation limit that makes sense. and then i'd be happy to. I've been. I've looked done a lot of research trying to find the city, so i'd be happy to hear if anyone can tell me one that another city that has the same kind of saturation limit as we do.

[79:05] Thank you. Thanks. Yeah, Lisa. I was just gonna say that I looked into this a long time ago, long before planning board, and at that time I also could not find anywhere that had the same kind of saturation on it. So it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. but I I also wasn't able to find one. It's kind of it. Seems like a pretty unique regulation. Yeah. thanks thanks for that Go ahead, John. Yeah, Did any of the other cities have special rules for a permanently affordable deep restricted type? Yeah, there's actually a couple of other cities. I think Portland is the one that comes to mind, but I think there were 2 or 3 others in that matrix that I created that do have some special regulations for affordability, but we are one of the only ones that I could find. So so those other ones did. They have, you know, rules about

[80:01] relaxed parking or increased size? Same way that we we do. Yeah, they were I'd have to look back in detail. I can't remember off the top of my head, but I I believe in Portland. You can do a second 80, you if it's affordable, so it's something like that, but it's typically like a a relaxation of certain requirements, whether it's the exact same requirements that we have or not. in in in response to having the affordability component. Thank you. Thanks, John. All right. So there's a lot more in your packet as well. If you want to dig in more about the evaluation, but I know we've kind of taken questions as well. But are there any questions that I can answer on the evaluation report or anything else I can provide additional detail in. Yeah, Georgie. I had a question, and it was in regards to

[81:00] I was trying to square the survey that was done in 2,000 14,017 and 2,022 We were given percentages of different things. But if you could clarify the the to use that were in place during that. So we can actually understand how the percentages match to what actually existed. That would be helpful. Yeah, so the semi in 2,022 was a 439, 86 the one in 2,000, and 17 was of 230, and the one in 2,012. This one's a little bit more of an estimate, but it was about 125. So that's the the Those numbers are the totally to use in the city at that time. Got it. Thank you. That's helpful. Yeah, thanks. All right. so in the packet it talked about.

[82:01] It's a sort of a curious finding that even the ads that were allowed to be market rate tended to rent for rents that were closer to the affordable market rate, which is 75% of what would be affordable or affordable to someone making 75 of the area median income. Can you talk a little bit more about that finding? Yeah, yeah. I wish we had our housing staff here tonight, because I know that they could add more than I can. But when we do ask, I mean it's not scientific, because it's just whatever they tell us they're renting it, for you know. but we did ask all of those eightyu owners what they were renting at, and it does it actually us stay close to or below what the affordable limit is. So we're seeing that 80, even if they're not technically affordable, they're typically lower rent for those 80 us regardless of whether their market rate already affordable. And do you know why? That is, you know I could speculate on some possible reasons of why. But

[83:06] i'm not sure. I I mean with the limited size. There are smaller units, so that probably keeps costs down compared to other housing units. but yeah, any answer I would give would be speculation. Okay, thanks. I think Sarah was next. Maybe. Thanks. I'm: i'm going to just 2 questions. One is a follow up on Laura's, and then a separate one. I the graph you did on page 36 of the to of the total packet, which is where you talked about the rents. I was just a little bit confused by the the average rent of $1,600. That is the average of the 48% that you surveyed, and that would include some permanently affordable and some

[84:04] market. Rate. Yes, yes, okay. So we we don't actually do we have any sense of like? What the maximum rate rent is that people have charged, and with the minimum like cause it, it's not that I think this is a deceiving number. I just don't. I think it's an incomplete number, because it includes the permanently affordable rents in there. So i'm just sort of curious what you can if you have any more additional information about like what the range of rents are. Yeah, that's something I can look into. Further our our housing and human services. Staff led the survey, so i'm not quite as familiar with it. But I think you make a really good point that that does. That number does include the affordable ads. And I think because we asked a question about like why someone chose an affordable a to you we should be able to parse out that data and be able to see what the difference is. So that's a really good point, and

[85:04] i'll definitely look, look into that and have that for next time. You see this. Okay, thanks. do you all mind if I ask one more question? so I have a question then about. I had organized, organized myself to the 4 proposals that were not to the 4 questions, so i'm going to run through. I did have some questions about the the the survey itself so. not that I think it's a bad survey. I think you guys did a great job. But but You got 48 of the folks who you reached out to to respond, and then you have these you know smaller percentages of that 48% who are telling you about what? Why, they what with the primary benefit was and why they are, whether they are renting

[86:00] actual renting or having family members, or using it for office space, or whatever else they might be using it for and I I have to say I came away. with a real sense that what while there have been some rental units built, a lot of what is built is not in fact, being used for housing rentals, and i'm curious if I mean I I can read you my the statistics that I wrote out. But i'm curious if if that's a if you all felt similar finding. Yeah, I think that that was. That was kind of the main Finding that our housing staff came to, and the difficulty is that obviously it Over the last 3 years we've been going through a pandemic where people might be less likely to want to share their home with a stranger, or with somebody else, so there might be some outstanding, you know, some some unique circumstances of the last few years. but certainly that was something that was one of the main differences that we saw, and that's why it's helpful to have this survey be pretty similar over the years. is seeing that more people are using them, for you know, not an additional housing unit, but just extra space.

[87:14] So that was, that was one of the main findings Housing Staff came away with too. Okay, I appreciate that. I'm sure i'll have other questions, and I will come back through Georgie. Do you have any statistics about where these are being built relative to the property value where they're being built? So, for instance, I'm. Just giving it an example right? So there was a there was a $900,000 house that sold in my neighborhood on on Fourth Street, and Dewey if sold for somewhere around $900,000. So it was a perfectly nice little, you know, sort of 2,000 square foot house. It was

[88:00] perfectly livable. It was scraped a new house was built there. I think Rosie Flivian was the architect. It's sold for 5.8, 7, 5 million dollars and it included an 80 year. so what I'm seeing in my neighborhood is a lot of potentially affordable or or market rate affordable housing that's being scraped and new housing coming up along with eighty-s, because since they're scraping it they're able to reconfigure things, and the a to use are really being designed as just extra available space within a housing unit not necessarily designed to rent. I mean no one in a 6 million dollar house is renting an 80 year, as far as I know, so I i'm curious. It would be very helpful to get granular on sort of where these things are being built and the property values where they're being built. But also when a property sells with an edu

[89:03] what it sells for because I can. Also. I've also seen scenarios where 86 are built, and then resold, and the value of that adu is included in the overall value of the house, and therefore increases the property value, substantially blocking out what might have been an affordable single family home. because now they have an addition on there. So I I don't know how to slice that data, but I think it would be really helpful for all our decision makers to really understand how these things are being put together. Yeah, I think that's a really helpful point. We will talk with our data folks and see what we're able to do, and whether we're able to parse that out kind of that before and after, and what the property values of those bots are. Obviously, we know every parcel that has an 80, so we should be able to get at least some data on that. so yeah, we'll look into that. I think that would be helpful. That that'd be great. Yeah, they're assessed values or something like that would be

[90:00] Yeah, thanks. Mark. Hi! I'm not the turn on the camera just because my Wi-fi connection is very weak that i'm afraid that Oh. oh, thanks! So. you had mentioned in in Prior slide that some number of people were using their AD you for visitors or relatives, and so I I find it to be a a huge distinction between someone building an AD you and using it for a guest house for occasional guests and those that would build an a to you and have there, as someone who, you know, is caring for aging parents, etc.

[91:03] So walking together, having a relative aging, or rather a a a is transitioning into different housing, or whatever whatever the situation may be, I I find that lumping those 2 things together is not particularly helpful. So I i'm curious one. Why, you lump those 2 things together. and and considering housing a person who is a relative as not added an additional housing unit. I think, is incorrect. So would you address that? Yeah, thanks. For bringing that up. So sorry. Don't have this on a slide. But on page thirty- of your packet. The overall packet. 35 out of 1 19. There's a chart that breaks it down. That was mostly just oversimplification for the bullet point. for that slide. But you can see the chart there that

[92:08] the long term rental to paying tenants went down from 64% of 80 to 46% in 2022 but housing for relatives went from 5 to 15%. so that was a bigger jump than housing. For the visitors went from 6 to 9. So it was just a significant decrease in the number of, or the percentage of 80 that were being used for long term rentals. but certainly we are seeing more housing for relatives that helps. So housing. For do you consider that a housing unit. regardless of whether it's 0 rent or market for that relative. That is a housing unit. Would you would wouldn't you agree?

[93:00] Yeah, I think i'm. I defer to our housing staff to see if they have different opinions. I can ask them. But if that relative is living there long term, then obviously they're not taking a housing unit anywhere else. So that is their housing unit. and a to use are often in many of the documents about them, and research done about them. There's a lot about aging in place and multi-generational living that a to use can do so that's why one of the common names is mother in law suite. So. yeah, I think the housing for relatives that's still a housing unit. It's just not a You just might not have rent. If you're nice to your mother in. Okay, thanks. I'm: sorry, Lisa, before someone. I just just to clarify housing for relative when that's put in like to to Laura's point about how questions are asked? Does housing for relative means someone's living there? Or does that mean that that could also be a unit where a relative might come to visit, and they might stay when they come there.

[94:02] Yeah, we don't parse that out. So we just ask, how do you currently use your eightyu and then housing for relatives is one of the options. Yeah. So a similar I mean, I don't I don't need an epic, but I think if we're trying to nail down what Mark has as referenced, I think, is a really good point. It should be, you know, flagged as like permanent, you know, housing or something like that, because my guess is. If I was answering that if I had people that were coming to say with me, and I was just had an AD you at my house. i'd say, Well, that's housing for my relatives. That's a good point. Thanks. I think Lisa was next not sure. Yeah, No, I I think this is great, because this is actually exactly what I wanted to get into is just kind of a finer-grained understanding of aging in place and of multi-generational families and of relatives using it. I think the point about. you know, maybe people who have relatives overseas who tend to come and visit not retired, and stay for 3 months at a time, or something, you know and and that becomes

[95:03] perhaps more pleasant, livable for everybody. If If there's a little more division in the in the space depending on on the relationship. But, I I would love to understand that because I I do I? That that's what I've seen in a lot of the research. And the data is that it can allow. And I think we saw some emails from community members about that. You know where they would actually build an AD on the property. The primary owners who had lived in Boulder for a long time moved into the accessory dwelling in which might have been designed to be universally accessible. And then a child. you know, and their family moved into the main house that was now in place. I also think of it in terms of, you know, because I have a a little one, but in terms of child care, and so on. When When I was there were no daycare spots to be had, you know. Covid closed everything. Nobody could staff and so I briefly had a nanny, and so many of the people responding, we're like, are you? Can you offer housing, you know, for housing, you know for housing. and I imagine that's also true for home health aids, you know. So as people are aging in place in their home. you know if they're able to provide one that that would make it easier for someone to take care of them. Perhaps the hours that they needed but but 2. It might be easier to attract someone and and have someone who doesn't have a crazy commute and can actually work the next morning when it's a snow day like we're about to have tomorrow.

[96:15] you know. So anyway, I I I don't I don't know I I haven't dug a ds because I shouldn't to some of the metrics, but those are some of the things i'd be curious about is, you know, live in. Aids live in child care. family members, and so on, because although those maybe don't increase they they may in a tertiary way increase units available if that's someone who would have otherwise rented something else in boulder, and could afford that would have chosen to do that which maybe they will. Maybe they couldn't but I think it does improve the livability potentially of you know, certain housing stock for certain members of the community. I mean that they can actually stay in their home. instead of having to move East or move into assisted living or something similar. Yeah, thanks for that. I think care taking is another one that comes up a lot with ads. We did ask in that same graph on page 35 long-term rental and return for other services like childcare, and only 1% of people each year said that they were using it for that. but

[97:16] so, just from a childcare perspective is that you typically do pay wages in addition to potentially providing like it, it might be factored in. But usually that person would also be paid in the same for home like it's not really an exchange. It's just like a yeah, that might be down to the wording of the question again. Okay, thanks. Sarah. You are next all right. So if I if this was not in the I I can't remember now where the the questions about some of the administrativeia problems and process problems. Were Were they in the survey, or were they in a separate part? I just can't remember which question like

[98:03] the Llc. Issue? And I had questions about the declarations of use and enforcement issues. but if they're not part of the evaluation, I will put those aside until we get to that they were part of the evaluation. But we do talk. We'll talk about them in the simplification and clarification changes so we could just wait tell a question for. But yeah, thanks. I think, John, I don't know you guys bounce around so if i'm putting you out of order, I'm: sorry comments. Have you had any contact with the developers to see how they regard the impact of a to use on on their projects and valuations. We haven't done that yet. But I think, based on this conversation. We definitely want to dig in more about the the evaluation. So I think that's something we'll do over the next couple of weeks make sure to do

[99:00] right. I I think that's particularly relevant with respect to what the impact is on, you know, affordable small houses that wind up having an AD you built, and the then they made long, no longer be so affordable. So I think it's very often. Thanks, John. all right. Thank you. So like Sarah. I think I probably have some questions that might not fall into any of your sections. So I think there's like a catch-all section at the end. Okay, all right, Thank you. I'll put my hand down then. Thank you. Any other questions on the evaluation. Okay. I think also your comments if you're prepared to make any on this on this report. this is the time to to make them. You know we. I guess just one thing you know, in the packet you have a section on page. I think it's on page 20 where you talk about

[100:06] who would be impacted by the change in regulations. I'm trying to pull that up. I'm: assuming those are people that you made an effort to do outreach to because they would be impacted. And you talk about residents and neighborhoods under represented groups that might have an interest in a to use. But maybe i'm familiar with the methods to offer Input City staff, City boards and City Council who are going to have to administer all of this. But I don't. I don't see anything on here just about, you know, renters, people who rent in the city of Boulder, and whether they would be interested in adu versus a condo versus an ALU versus any other kind of living option. So I guess I just was wondering if there's any effort made or any I don't. I'm not sure I saw anything in the evaluation report where there was outreach specifically to people who live outside of boulder, but would like to live in Boulder, and how attractive an adu option might be.

[101:00] I know we did something similar to that for the East Boulder Subcommittee plan in terms of trying to reach out to in commuters to see if this is even an attractive, attractive housing option. Yeah, that's a good point, I think. Generally the thought is that the residents and neighborhoods would include Renters owners Everybody? but that outside of the like people that are currently living outside of boulder is an interesting addition. I think that we are also looking back at a Boulder Valley Comp Plan Community Survey. That was done in 2,016. That had some questions about 80 use, which I think can be it's helping to inform as well, because that was a large, statistically valid survey. So we'd be looking at that, too. But we'll think through how we could reach out. We do have to be her boulder page. but if we could maybe do some promotion to place to next door, or something that would gather those people that might live outside of boulder. Now that housing choice survey that was done several years ago. Also, we we could look back at that and see if there were any questions specific to a to use. Yeah, I think those are all great sources, and also maybe touching base with Kathleen King or others who worked on the East Boulder Subcommittee plan and making sure you have that input that they gathered.

[102:10] Yeah, great. Thank you. Lisa. Oh, you're muted. I was just going to say that I appreciate all the work that you put into it, and that it's kind of in that tricky area where we really want the information on use case. when what we can most easily regulate is built, form, you know. And so you know, and maybe to some extent occupancy, but not even that. Very well, perhaps. so. yeah. So just I just appreciate all the work that's already gone into this, and I think it's very in depth. And you know we're we're adding, you know, additional potential context and information and other sources of data that I think well matter as we, you know, as this comes back to us when we look at it. But mostly I just want to compliment. You guys on doing a deep dive and kind of anticipating a lot of what you're gonna

[103:01] get from. Not just planning board, but a lot of folks so good job. I know it's tricky. They they're little semantic questions. So no, yeah, this is great. This is all all been really helpful. So thank you. Sara? I These are sort of for comments about the evaluation, but they're also sort of comments. So I I have to say that in the data. I did not. I did not take from the data that eliminating merely eliminating the saturation limit is the solution to the problem or to the challenge that we're trying to address, which is more affordable housing. options and housing diversity. I I I totally understand that the saturation limit issue makes life way more difficult for staff and for applicants, because the number keeps changing.

[104:01] But i'm not sure that just lifting the saturation limit is the solution to that challenge and and and because every neighborhoods and zoning districts are not the same thing. But obviously there are some neighborhoods that are really worried about just lifting the saturation limits, and I think we have to figure out how to how to manage the how to address those concerns. Not manage them. Address them. so that's a comment. And then it's sync, I mean. I I looked at the matrix of the other cities that you evaluated, and some of them have literally no saturation limits. But some of them do they? They don't, call them saturation limits. There are some zones that are off limits. There are some neighborhoods that are off limits. So I just I just think it's a mistake to convey this idea

[105:03] that we are unique in. We may be unique in using saturation limits at the moment as our as our as a tool. but we are not unique in trying to manage the expansion of of this particular housing unit, in order to give ourselves a constant opportunity to rejigger and revise as we need to. the other thing that's not mentioned in here at all, even though it's one of the key. It's not a key question, but one of the proposals is increasing the size of a to use and there's no there's no number on the table as to what that increase might be. and so that's just missing, and maybe that'll come. I'm sure it'll come back when we get to the actual ordinance. But it would have been helpful in this discussion to know what you guys are thinking about? and there's also no clarification. This is just the question.

[106:02] we have these: this great lever for getting permanently affordable units in a to use, which is that you get a bigger size, and you don't have to park. You have a parking space. and I think that's The fact that we got so many permanently affordable units built is really, I think, quite an impressive outcome from that. But there I just not clear whether the proposed change or the areas that you're proposing. Change eliminates that I just there's some lack of clarity in some of them that that I think would be helpful for other other boards for ourselves and for counsel as we move forward in this discussion. so I I have other things, but because I organized my thinking in a different way. I'm having trouble finding it also. Yeah, and I think we have. I have a few more slides on both the saturation limit and the size limits as we get to number 2 and 3. So I think that hopefully that will help to find those questions that you're having as well with those

[107:05] Georgie. Yeah. This is this is more of a comment doing the math on that survey, assuming that it's correct, and it's percentages relative to the absolute numbers of a to use in older. So, as you mentioned in 2,012, there were 125 and 2,017. There were 230, 2,022. There were 439. If you look at the percentages of the survey between 2,017 let's assuming that they're correct that 64% were rented to long-term rentals that met it 147 units. verse in 2,022, when we nearly doubled the amount of units we netted 201 long term rentals so a net total gain over 5 years

[108:03] of 50 units that were rented. I it gives me a lot of pause. because I think I know there are a lot of people in town that think that adding a to use is a a solution or a partial solution to rental housing that may be affordable. but I go back to my example. in this case 2856 Fourth Street. That was a roughly 2,000 square foot house that now is a 5, 4, 800 square foot house with a legal 80, you and all it looks to me like is an alternative way to get a bigger house and And so I I really appreciate the affordable, the the differences between the affordable eightyu program and not

[109:02] My only concern about the affordable a to program. Is that? it's interesting. A conversation with someone else that lives in our neighborhood. Who said they built their affordable Edu again, just to add Guest House, and they were willing to do the deed restriction because they could eliminate parking and regain more space for entertainment. and again I so devil's in the details, because even though we doubled the number of eighty-s, over 5 years between 17 and 22, we may have only gained 50 rental units. that may or may not be affordable, and I I think we need to really think as a board on how this is structured. So because I I know a number of board numbers that are pro e to you, but against larger homes. and

[110:00] my my general senses is that we're getting larger homes in a different capacity because of the dynamics and boulder. And we really need to think about if we're trying to achieve affordable rental housing. Ha! How we do that! So that we don't end up with that kind of outcome that I think we're getting more of them. We probably are admitting to ourselves. So just my on it. Yeah, thanks for those thoughts. I i'll double check those numbers and talk with our housing folks to see what that net gain of what we think that is. Obviously it's a survey of only half of the owners. That's a really good sample size. So we can kind of take some conclusions from that. But half is statistically significant. I think i'm pretty sure. Yeah, I know. but yeah, i'll look into that to figure that out, and just one clarification that I wanted to make is that when you have an 80 you don't get additional floor area on the site so they could have had just it's the same amount of floor area, whether they put it in an AD you or a house, so you know, if it's 500 square feet in the 80, you it's not like they're getting 500 extra square feet of what they could build in just the house, so just want to clarify that

[111:12] I might also just add that I we don't. I don't have the numbers in front of me. I don't know if Lisa does. But just the vast majority of ads are not typically in new builds. They're typically, you know, part of existing homes. It's I think the the exception more than the rule to see a house scraped and and a new house built with an AD. But i'm not to say that that's not a, you know, growing trend. Yeah, thanks, girl. I think Mark was next this is a procedural question for our chair. We have 4 questions here before us. The staff has put forward. and as a board. we think broadly, and

[112:01] sometimes the questions the narrowness of the questions can be frustrating. but i'm going to. I want to ask. are we doing our general thoughts? At the end of these 4 questions. You know the 4 questions, and respond to the 4 questions, and then add our thoughts, or are we doing this on kind of an AD hoc base, and if so great, I have lots of thoughts I can share that are not necessarily restricted to these 4 questions, although so my suggestion is, I think. the most helpful thing to do would be to go through the questions. and they have a period for additional comment about aid user Board members thought I would like to see us address these questions and then address additional items.

[113:06] Yeah, that's what we're doing. I well, I I guess I guess i'm i'm hearing a lot of things that are not addressing the question at hand which the current question is number one and so, anyway, i'm, i'm my first. Maybe I'm miss perceiving it. But a little, some more structure here to our Q. A. I think it might be helpful. Yeah, thanks for that, Mark. I think that the intent for this question is really things that are related to the evaluation report and the evaluation report was so comprehensive that it co covers all the eightyu topics. So I think that's where we've kind of muddied the lines. But yeah, it's it was intended to be more of just clarification about the evaluation report at this point, and then.

[114:02] after we get through saturation, limit, size, limits, clarifications. Then, if there's remaining questions that Don't relate to those we can get to those or comments great. Thank you. Thanks. Laura. Laura. You I support Mark's push to move on, but I do just want to make sure I understood the exchange between George and Lisa and Carl about whether having an AD, you gives you additional floor area. So my understanding and this is part of why I'm sorry Ml. Is not here tonight to contribute, but from talking to Ml. She is very insistent that the when you build an the the regulations that govern what can be built on a site, don't change in terms of the square footage that's allowed the height that's allowed all of that. The open space that's required per zoning district. None of that changes, and the adu plus the primary structure added together have to still stay within that limit, so somebody could build one gigantic, single-family home.

[115:04] They could build a modest single family home with a luxury, adu, or a small AD, they still have to stay within those same limits. And my understanding that correctly. Yep, you're 100% correct. I have a graphic in a couple of slides. That shows that, too. Okay. Then I will shut up and let you move on. Oh, John, you're muted. Sorry I trying to focus my comments specifically on the report. I I I would say that I think this is extremely useful. You've done a beautiful job, but the surveys are a source of concern to me, because basically, in if I understand correctly, you've reached out to contact as many people who who ultimately have or would like to in some at some point build an AD. You, you know people who inquired, but were turned down or didn't pursue or

[116:05] or something like that. But we haven't heard from the people who are concerned, and resisting the addition of a to use in their specific neighborhood. And so what i'm wondering about is the degree to which inquiring learning about why people are resisting them. Trying to figure out Why, why the resistance is. There is not a part of this report, and it seems to me that for the for the sake of objectivity and political amity of nothing else. that's that's a very important element that people need to be aware of. and it's not obvious to me how one obtains that sort of feedback.

[117:02] But it is important. Yeah, I think that's a important point to make, and I think the in distinction to think of is that this evaluation report was really intended to look back at the last 3 years and the previous code change, and what impact that that had. So that's why we were looking at the You know the 80 owners, people that had applied people that had inquired the objective of that evaluation Report was looking back at those changes. And so I think that's why that focus was that there? But I think, moving forward from this point on the public engagement focus. Obviously, we heard we. You all got several letters, and we heard from people earlier tonight. so, moving forward, we'll be talking more about the impacts of 80. You regulations, and what those concerns might be in concert with what these proposed changes might be. Okay, thanks the the the other point, and it's related. pertains to the saturation limits, and we'll talk about it later. But I think the the interesting element is that other cities that you've identified. They are trying to deal with the same concerns.

[118:10] That Boulder is with the saturation limits, but in different ways. And so I It's important to to make that very clear. rather than pointing out just eliminating saturation limits without trying to address the reason that they were put into place. understood. Thanks no more. I just want to say, You know I completely understand and support John's concern that we need to hear from everybody across the range of opinions on this. I really did appreciate that in the packet, you know, in one of the appendices. There we had the results of the previous be heard boulder, survey, and engagement that was done in 2,016 to 2,018, including many, many pages of verbatim comments, both from people who supported things like.

[119:06] increasing saturation limits, or eliminating them entirely, or or who did not support such, you know, change to the saturation limits increases to the size limits. So I think, and I found all of those comments, both pro and con, to be very personal and very enlightening. So I wanted to thank Staff. including all of those bullet points. So I think I think we do have. I I imagine a lot of the concerns are the same. A lot of the people who would respond are the same. I do think. Probably some things have changed. So updating, some of that data would be good. But I I do appreciate that the wealth of comments that were already collected, and that we have access to that. Thanks. So okay, Thank you. I actually have just 2 questions about the data. or whether 2 questions about whether there's more in that you can report. That explains the data.

[120:00] the first is, do you? Did the survey ask or try to evaluate why the percentage of long-term rentals has gone down like Is there any additional information that was asked in the in the survey that might explain that I wasn't like a follow up question specifically about that. But I know that we'll make sure to have our housing staff next time. but I know that they dug through like the the written comments for the survey. So there might have been some additional information there. But we didn't necessarily ask like, why did that change, or how did that change? It might be interesting because if we're trying to divide design. an ordinance that increases affordable housing units that are affordable and that are rented rented. We would like to know what the motivation. I think we'd want to know the motivation. And then the second question is also about the data. And it just was prompted by something. George said.

[121:02] If someone gets a permit to build a permanently affordable AD you are they required to actually rent it out. Not necessarily. They just have. If they were to rent it, They have to stay under that limit, the area median income limit. And so is there. But maybe this is a legal question. Can't is, or we don't have to ask a lawyer. But can we think about figuring out a way to make that a requirement, so that we're actually getting the benefit that we wanted out of that type of unit with the extra space and the parking requirement a limit, the elimination of a parking requirement. Yeah, I think that's a really good point. I I mean, some things come to mind like enforcement, and or also requiring a rental or rental license. So I think there's options there. we don't have hella tonight, but we will. We'll talk through what those options might be

[122:06] all right. Those were just my follow up questions. I am zip in my lip. Tell the next set of questions. Okay, I'll just jump in here. We've been going for a couple hours. This do we need a break? Okay, let's let's take a 10 min break back at 8, 19 Pm.

[131:24] it's mark. Hey? Where are you? Okay. hey? John? so I have a hard stop to power Internet the the staff's room I'm. Using to to attend this meeting That for you locally would be 9 o'clock. So in 40 min and I have a few comments, and I don't want to.

[132:02] I I i'll brief as I can, but i'm going to ask you as we get close to 9 o'clock for time. if I would be able to. if I haven't been able to conclude my comments. If you give me a few minutes to do that, and then i'd have to leave the meeting. That's fine. Just Just let me know when you're ready to when the time is right for you to do that. Okay, All right. Great. Thank you. Sounds like you're someplace very glamorous. Well. it's it's it's it's it's not super glamorous. It's it's a British Columbian back country skiing cabin. It is catered with the most delicious food. and I happen to be in the chefs quarters where the Internet is the best. and so, but

[133:01] because she cooks breakfast, lunch and dinner. including baking she goes to bed at 8 BC. Time 9, your time. and so that's my best. My, that's my She is generously. She's been very generous with letting me sit in her cabin to. attend the meeting. Okay? Well, that's my definition of glamorous. What your experience there? Okay. Anyway, i'm certainly enjoying it. Just say when it's time. Okay, All right. Thank you. Okay, I think we can start moving ahead again. so shall we move to? the second question. Lisa, You can take it from here. So the remainder of the presentation is focused on these upcoming updates to the 80 regulations. So what we'll be working on over the next couple of months.

[134:10] Just a reminder. This is the same slide we saw earlier, but the eightyu project scope of work is focused on considering eliminating the saturation limit, modifying the size limits, or updating the method of measurement, clarifying and simplifying the regulations and improving the approval process. So we'll start off with the saturation limit. we talked. We've already talked a bit about it, but in the Rl. One and Rl. 2 zoning districts there is a limit to the number of eighty-s that can exist within a 300 foot radius. So this overly simplistic graphic gives you an idea of say, there were 10 houses, 10 properties within 300 feet. Only 2 of those properties can have an eightyu. Importantly, we also include legal nonconforming structures in that. So if one of those yellow ones was already a legal nonconforming.

[135:07] like a duplex in a single family zone. That would count in the calculation. Too, so if you already have 2 legal non-performing, you can have any ads essentially in this 10 property scenario. so that's how the saturation limit works. It's a part of the code that has been in place since 1983, and so from the onset of the initial 80 you regulations in Boulder as I mentioned, that was 40 years ago. Boulder was really on the forefront of re legalizing accessory dwelling units. If you go to most historic cities, you'll find accessory dwelling units and carriage houses or things like that. Historically, before single family zoning, there would have been accessory units on these properties. We had single family zoning come into place in about Post World War Ii Which prohibited a second unit in single family housing. But in the eighties many cities or several cities started to bring that back and re legalize that. So Boulder was on the forefront of that. And understandably, there were questions or concerns about how bringing those additional units would impact

[136:14] the city. And so now it's been 40 years of having accessory dwelling units in the community. we've also seen the impacts of a to use through other communities as well, because this is something that's become much more popular around the country as other cities have caught up to boulder but for the most part most cities. Instead of using a saturation limit, I know we've talked about different kinds of limits that cities will use, whether that's which zoning districts they're allowed in things like that, and various design standards and whatnot in order to mitigate the impacts of a to use rather than have a saturation limit. They rely on existing zoning standards, so things that we already have in the zoning code related to compatibility and form and bulk. the size of structures. Things like that.

[137:05] or how most cities mitigate. They choose to mitigate the impacts of a to use rather than having this formula of a saturation limit. So, Laura, I mentioned that I would have a graphic for you. This is a graphic that puts together all of the regulations that impact the design and location of an eightyu. So in the blue is everything that impacts the principal structure, the main house. So the maximum height of the structure, the front yard Step back things like that. There's also we have our compatible design standard, so that's like the set length of a wall that you can actually like a single wall that you can have without having to move the design back. Things like that. The book plane, which is how much you can. There's like an angle that comes up from your setback that. That's how much the building can go into that bulk plane. We have maximum number of stories. We have a maximum floor area ratio, which again, which we talked about doesn't change, whether you have an 80 or not a maximum building coverage, which is how much

[138:04] of the land can be taken up by a building. We have our typical setbacks in all of the different districts. So this example is an Rl. One hypothetical example. 7,000 square foot lot for a market rate, 80, you and then in the yellow or all the all the standards that really specifically apply to accessory units. So there's a minimum separation. There's a maximum building coverage that you can have within that rear yard, Setback and then specific. There's other period setbacks for accessory units for the actual, a to use. Obviously there's maximum size. We've talked about that we require owner occupancy. So the property owner has to live on site which is intended to mitigate impacts. If the property owner is living on site. We have occupancy limits that limit the number of people that can be on the site. The occupancy limit, whether you have an 80 or not is the same. 80 use have their own maximum height. there's related but related standards about building coverage. There's a minimum lot size. We have a parking requirement. often a concern is the increased parking, but we do have the parking requirement.

[139:15] and there's even more if it even gets drills down into more details or attached to a, to use how they have to screen if they have a sign, entrance and detached to use, have to have a specific amount of open space for the detached to you, and how the attached to you has to maintain an interior connection. So all of this to say that there are a number of regulations that apply, whether you have an 80 or not, or that apply to the edu that dictate the design and location of that adu. and which most cities would rely on to mitigate the impact of those 80 Us. So I just wanted to lay that out there. I know, throughout our zoning code it can get kind of complex. So I thought, looking at it kind of graphically on how that really affects where an 80 you can be placed in the impact that it can have on neighbors.

[140:04] and as well as the relation to what you know. If a a neighbor wants to build a garage what they're subject to as well. So those are kind of the background slides that I wanted to give on the saturation limit. to some of the history, and also those form and design standards that most cities would rely on to mitigate eightyu impacts. And the question I have for you. So whether you have comments related to the proposed elimination of that 20 saturation limit in the Rl. One and Rl: 2 districts. I think Georgie was first. Yeah, I just have a question on the previous slide, and then I have a question of a comment on the saturation limit. So the question was this owner occupancy required? So if someone that's at at that time of construction, is that right? How does that enforced after the fact? So if they apply for a rental license. We also check the owner occupancy, but at the time of 80 you application, and also the building permit, we we require a

[141:09] form of proof that they are occupying the property. So if if I built a if I built a an 80, you on my property, then sold my property to an investor. They couldn't rent the to use separately. No, they cannot, so there always has to be a part of one of the owners on site, whether the and the owner can live either in the Edu or the the principal structure. But that's a but yeah, that's how I did. I was. I wanted to understand how that worked. Okay, onto the saturation limit question. We go back to that slide. So I had a question more of an informational question, because I think in the previous set of slides. you said there was 39 comments. Of Okay. 4,000 inquiries, or whatever the the number 400 inquiries They were put in that were related to the saturation limit.

[142:02] I don't know if you can find that one to look at that real quick. this one there. Yeah, the one after that. which was some of the excerpts. Yeah. So I guess my question is like you. You said that one in the upper right encapsulated people's concerns confirming that the location is not saturated. First the $420 fee the administrative burden. I guess my question is. It may not be a question that you can answer, but this seems like a dynamic tool could be pretty easily developed to give people an answer pretty quickly. Is there a tool like that that exists that's administered by the city? And if not could I mean cause because all of this seems like it's seems like it's just like a you know. It's a question mark, and it's a process to get the answer. But I got to imagine, if we know every a to you that's going up, there should be something that's dynamically updated that tells us whether or not they're in a saturation line.

[143:09] Yeah, I I'll ask Charles and Carl to speak to some of the non-conforming things related to this. But we do have a tool, but only staff can look at it so. and the public can see where all of the ads are in our public mapping. but because there is that what I mentioned that non-conforming structures and co-ops and other things play into the saturation limit. that is not public information. And so that is why the saturation limit that someone would look at just based on a to use would not be accurate. And one of the is other issues is also with timing. you know, if you look it up in April, what your saturation limit is, and then 2 of your neighbors apply for a to use. After that your saturation limit is completely different. and it's totally unique, based on each property. So I don't know. Sorry when you say when you say

[144:00] the non-conforming zoning is not public, what does that mean? It means it's not available to the public. Yeah, that I, Carl and, Charles, I feel like you could answer this one better. Yeah. The the saturation of it includes any kind of non conforming duplexes or other nonconforming type units in that calculation. it treats them like they're a to use. So Staff would have to research. You know where those are to factor that into the calculation. I I think, either way, I mean, we we don't know where those are like. We can't just add that into a dynamic tool. I mean, I think obviously there there would have to be some time and money, you know, put into a a new tool or mapping to there's also the administrative burden of constantly having to update that. that that's something that's difficult, you know, under the circumstances of how many applications we have, and and and and George, it's a great question. I don't know that we actually do know where all of them are at this point. I mean some of them have been.

[145:00] you know, kind of historically grandfathered in for for decades. So it. It would certainly be a lift to to try and maintain something like that. Okay, thanks. sir. that you, Lisa, whispering. i'll. I'll let Mark go first, because I know he has a a time out at 9 o'clock. Okay, thanks. Thank you, sir. And so the the. The question is, what are our thoughts on the on the saturation limit? And my thoughts are that rules and regulations are a fundamental part of American society, but they they only really work well when they are comprehensible by your general citizenry.

[146:01] and they're enforceable for understandable. and when they're not, you breed an or towards government. you breed non-compliance. and I think of in John. I'll probably be able to correct me because I I might be wrong. But I think about water use and you know, first in the right. and where that has landed us today in our situation, I think, about our tax code. and I think that and the unfairness of our tax code, the it it treats rich people better than poor people so, and I look at this, and I think about put myself in a situation where gee! Suddenly. after an elderly parent, takes a fault or a a child, or whatever it might be, ends up in a situation

[147:02] where an AD you would help someone stay out of an institution, or help them move forward in life under difficult circumstances or an illness. And I think, gee, if I walk into the City of Boulders planning department. And I say, hey. how can I do this? And the answer is, Well, let me check it out for you. and and it comes back with No, you can't. because your neighbor got there first. That is one of those things where land use code should be applied equitably. reasonably. with some sense of flexibility. but it it needs to be applied in a way that doesn't breed anger, contempt. or just misunderstanding and sadness. So when we when we have a a code

[148:02] that encourages people to to. you know. Gee, I have the ability, because my neighbors haven't built an AD you. I have the ability to do it, and I have the wherewithal of to do it. I have cash on hand, so i'm going to do it, because that's the smart thing to do for me financially. That is, that is the kind of piece of that we don't want. So if you're asking from High End, but on the the saturation limit, and Rl. One and R. L. 2 districts. I I think they should be eliminated. and you know. And and Lisa, you've mentioned many times the impacts of a to use. And and you know, impact, I think. for the most part is perceived by people as a pejorative.

[149:00] that. Wow! This an impact is short for negative impact. Because. that's that's just the way we we generally speak about impacts. And I think that when we talk about negative impacts, and I read all the emails and all the correspondence from all the people that wrote in. and when people have concerns, and I want to respect the concerns about the parking. about traffic, about noise. about any number of things. Those are respectable concerns. Those concerns need to be addressed directly. I consider our parking policy, as you all know. to be a essentially a failed policy. We. We. We have gone through years of attempting to reform our parking code.

[150:00] and we have done so insufficiently and incorrectly and so. and so trying to address parking through a housing and land use. Policy is is backwards and and wrong, and and affected. same with traffic. same with noise. The city of boulder. I think. Many times I I I sympathize with the people in Martin Acres and on the hill who have written to us about noise we have ineffective. ineffective code enforcement on, on, on real impact on those people. but but limiting, housing, or restricting housing for the people that that want to live you know, Grad student

[151:00] want to live in a 500 square foot pay space on the hill. You know what it is. It is the wrong way to go about having a noise code enforcement, or a parking code. Enforcement is to to limit a to. So I I just want to say that I think that there are positive impacts to a to use for a to our community those would be housing affordability, a variety of housing. multi-generational living. These are things that that do have positive impacts and they're not. They're not well measured in in the evaluation report. I think the evaluation report is great. I understand the need for data consistency year over year, and you can't just always change the questions or the data becomes invalid. But I I I just want to say that that the use of of impacts as a pejorative without inclusion of impacts.

[152:03] a positive impact on our community is a deficiency. And we need to deal with our other problems directly and rather than through rather than through a land use code. Thanks. Thanks, Mark. Just a couple of follow ups. One thing I didn't mention about the saturation limit is that we also administer a waiting list for people that don't meet the saturation limit. just in case someone one of their neighbors is ever to remove themselves to remove their eightyu, and we do have 12 properties that are currently on that waiting list. but there's little to been little to no movement in the last 4 years of that waiting list, so I just realized I had forgotten to save that but also Laura mentioned the public engagement summary from 2,018, and all of those verbatim comments, and several of the comments related to the saturation limit had the same point that you did of You know.

[153:05] if your 2 neighbors skip a, do you First, how is that equitable for the remaining neighbors? who never will get the chance, or will stay on a waiting list for decades. So thanks for that. Yeah. And the only thing i'll follow up to that is. if if i'm on a list. and I realized my neighbor also is behind me on the list. and I'm trying to decide. Gee! Do I really need to say to you or not well if I know that my ability in the future I have a I have a good spot in line now, but if I jump out of line. I'm going to lose my spot, and I know that my neighbor will get my spot again. It's a perverse incentive to just stay the course. build the Edu and figure it' all come out in the wash financially, anyway, thereby

[154:01] kind of screwing my neighbor. So that was, I wanted to add on to that. Thanks. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, certainly, adds complexity. And the fact that the the limit is constantly changing and can change it any minute. it's pretty much unlike any other zoning standard we have. Sarah. Okay, I will agree with Mark on one thing which is, we have inadequate enforcement of almost everything in town. I think the 2 people or the one and a half staff people we have doing enforcement is not adequate. Okay. I am opposed to a uniform lifting of the saturation limits, and I will. I come at it from 2 different way 2 different paths. The first is, I think it's been made clear today in this discussion that we aren't actually getting a lot of housing out of out of our AD you our current eightyu regulations.

[155:03] So it isn't clear to me that just lifting the saturation limits will get us more will get us a lot more. I'll try it. diversity of housing types or actual additional housing. since what we're seeing is a pretty significant decline in the use of a to use to as rental units and some percentage of the permanently affordable units not being actually used as rental units at all. So I I I think we're which we're trying to. We're trying to. We want to address housing, but the lifting of the saturation limits it seems to me more of a slash and burn solution to a process problem that the that the city has

[156:00] in terms of the constantly moving. Where's the 300 foot radius and all that kind of stuff. So I just I don't. I don't have an alternative. but I just don't think lifting the saturation limit is the solution to the problem you're trying to. Solve. I think if you can come up with a series of regulations that adequately that guarantee that the units being built are used for housing. that then can have a conversation about saturation limits, but until you do that, it seems to me that we are your You put the cart. The card has been put before the horse on this one. And then also, I do think the neighborhoods that are surrounding the university are are really challenged here with this in part, because so many of them have. And this goes to the question. George brought up about the

[157:02] non-conforming units so the the presence of those non-conforming units included in the saturation limits is is very, very important, because it has a lot to do with population density like. Look on the hill where you might have 3 houses in a row, and then on the corner is an apartment building, or a sorority that has dozens and dozens and dozens of residents. and that has to be included in how the city and i'll put aside the use of the saturation limit, because I I just think it's. I think we're going down the wrong path. I don't think that's the question we should be asking. But, you do want neighborhoods to be neighborhoods and not to be overwhelmed, and I think the university area neighborhoods are just finding themselves totally overwhelmed. and in some ways I feel like the city keeps trying to solve. The University's problem, which is at the University, keeps growing, but does not provide enough housing for its students. And so our neighborhoods, especially the ones around the the university

[158:10] have to absorb all of absorb that population, and that to me is a problem. And then let's see my my mom. I do think it's worth looking at. what I mean. I appreciate that you've done the city comparison. but it would be helpful to maybe dig down into some of the cities that are university towns and sort of. Is that not just the data they do have. This they don't have this. This is the size, whatever like what was their rationale? And what have they changed over time? What have they learned through their processes? I think that would help us as well. but specifically university towns of approximately the same size. Because I in many ways this is the

[159:03] This is. This is a huge part of our challenge. so I will leave it at that. But again I I think we may be asked where I think the saturation question can't be even discussed until we have figured out how to guarantee what gets built is actually used for rental housing or for housing. Yeah, thanks for all those comments there that's really helpful. Just 1 point of clarification those. But comparison cities, with the exception of looking at the other cities in Colorado that might not have universities. All of them have similarly sized universities. because I do. I agree that having universities just create a unique housing condition in any city. So that's why we we did try to make sure that those were looking at University towns as well. Thanks. I think Laura is next. I have a lot to say about this, or at least a fair amount. But I want to note that we're going to lose mark in 14 min or less. And so I was wondering if this is an appropriate time to invite Mark to give the rest of his comments on all of the questions.

[160:06] Fair enough Mark and I had talked about that. And he had said he was gonna let us know when he's ready, but it's almost time. Well, you know I I was like. Do I raise my hand now? So thank you, Laura and and I I will drop off the call the meeting in in 12 min. So I'll take this opportunity, and i'll try to be brief. the regarding the allowable size of a user clarifying the floor area measurement spray to you again, parking back to my earlier comments. clarity. simplicity. understandability and fairness in the size, determination versus an arbitrary maximum

[161:00] seen. I I would like greater flexibility to be shown in the size of a to you based on what size, based on the size of the current building, which you know, if if anyway, I I would like more flexibility there. And again, there's some. There's some nuance there between an internal 80, you and an external edu and So I would like to see greater flexibility and the potential for larger ads. So that's my answer on that one. And of course, simplification and clarification. is always a an excellent goal in city governance in any sort of governance, but especially in in city governance, where regular folk need to, encounter their planning department and and have some understandable results from them. So i'm in support of

[162:05] all your attempts to simplify, clarify, and make more fair the changes. I have a final comment, I I I and I had a question, and since I was not here tonight I don't know Elliot is on the call, but I am sorely missing the contribution of Ml. And I am not fully aware of everything that went into Ml's. not being with us tonight. but my understanding that serving on several boards and commissions, and so forth. is that this is a staff informational item. There is not a public hearing. There is not a vote.

[163:02] there is not a This is not quasi-judicial. and I think it if there has been any attempt by any Board members to try to keep someone with expertise in a subject that an Advisory Board is advising upon. I think that's inappropriate. So I again. I I just I make that comment. and i'll leave it to staff and our legal department and other board members. But I know that I am missing the input from someone who I think their their information, their thoughts, would benefit us all on the board and benefit the community.

[164:02] So that concludes my remarks. Thank you. Have fun skiing, and we'll look forward to some good stories when you get back. All right. Thank you. All right. Lisa. Why, don't you carry on with okay, I think, Laura Laura, you are next since you seated your time. Thank you. So we're on the question about the saturation limit, and you want to know if we have questions or comments related to this. So first, I have a question which is that we did get emails, letters from several folks who live in neighborhoods near the University that we're concerned about overcrowding basically in their neighborhoods, because their small lots. There are already problems with parking and some of these non-conforming uses that create you know that more occupancy than would normally be in a neighborhood with that zoning.

[165:04] And my question is, you know the staff have any thoughts about you know. How would you respond to that or any of those arguments compelling to you? You know what is Staff's response to those concerns? Sure, I think obviously they're valid concerns, and there's unique situations. with those non-conforming uses due to zoning history over time and folder. however, I would point out that there are higher density districts that allow a to use. So where you could build apartments and duplexes and conforming multi-family. Those don't have a saturation limit so the saturation limit is really intended to preserve existing single family neighborhoods. And if those neighborhoods you know because of zoning over time. maybe went to multi-family then back to single family. They obviously have a different zoning history and different character. But I think that that saturation limit the fact that it doesn't apply to our higher density districts.

[166:04] perhaps, is a a that analogous to the situation, despite it being an an Rl. Or a lower density residential district. And Another point that I would make is that. you know the nonconforming uses. They would not be permitted to have an 80, so that would not be exacerbated on those particular lots, it would be where there might be a single family house would be able to have an accessory dwelling unit. But again, we have these other standards like design and regulation design and location regulations that would limit the impacts positive and negative impacts of a to use in a way that most other cities do without having to have the saturation limit. and then, Carl, I know Karl knows, like all of the zoning history of everything. So I don't know if you have anything specific to add that you might add.

[167:00] I I don't know where we land on the topic. I mean, like I like, Lisa, said I. I think we certainly hear the concerns from from neighbors that already experience a neighborhood that has more intensity than they've like, and potentially adding more a to use, could add to that intensity. what i'm thinking about is like tools that we could use, you know to mitigate that. I mean, I I think maybe it might be helpful to hear from board members and ultimately council there. There are some other communities that we researched that have different AD regulations by neighborhood. And obviously we're trying to keep things simple and not add to the complexity. but there there would be mechanisms for maybe not applying it in certain neighborhoods and allowing it in other areas. but again, we'd want to hear from the board on that. Whether that's something we should look into as we move into topics like occupancy. There are other cities that have overlays that they put over certain areas of their cities

[168:06] that have that freeze the occupancy and allow a higher occupancy elsewhere. That's something we could do here for occupancy, and or 80. So I think we'd want to hear from the Board if that were a concern that we should treat neighborhoods that are around the university differently because of their history. that's just we'd we'd be looking at some tools like that. I also think it would be helpful to understand which impacts are most negative or like what? What are the potential impacts that are most negative? Whether that's parking like a parking is the main problem. you know, maybe there's a different parking requirement in those neighborhoods, or something, or if it gets down to noise or other, or occupancy related things. maybe that's just something that's an enforcement issue or things like that. you know, really getting down to instead of the broad

[169:01] 80, you potential impacts what those might actually be, and how we could address those. Thank you. Another clarification question. we heard a a bunch of folks on the public comment period talk about allowing to a to use on one property, and I know that that was something that city Council had asked you to look at. Is that something that fell out when you re-scoped it, having more than 180. You want a property correct. So once we went through the evaluation report, we just didn't see that that would have a major impact in reaching Councils objective, which is to allow more or to increase the number of a to use in the community. So, And seeing that almost every or I think every other city that we looked at limited it to 1 80, you per lot. And so that's pretty common. and the survey results that indicated that not many of the owners would would want to move forward with that. And and Also, we have never received an inquiry for a second 80. You on a lot. So

[170:05] there just didn't seem like that would in terms of, I think, I said earlier, getting the most bang for your buck. That change we didn't feel like would make much of an impact. So that's the point we made to counsel and focusing more on saturation limits and size limits. And those clarification issues, we thought, would have more of an impact than focusing on that one. Okay, so if i'm understanding correctly. Currently, only one eightyu is allowed per property, whether it's attached like somebody's basement, or like a mother-in-law unit built directly on the back of your house or detached one per property correct, and that's not proposed to change. Correct? Okay, all right. I just I think that there are a lot of people that have the impression that you could have 3 separate buildings with these changes, and that sounds like that's not what's being considered. Okay, all right. So then, you know, I I heard you talking about. I I think this is really important, because I think there's some misperception in the community that, allowing a to use, would allow you to cover more square footage on the lot, decreasing the permeability, adding intensity

[171:11] that it would allow for greater height than the original structure that it would allow for more occupants. And I think that what I have heard is that the way our ads are regulated. You're not so. So. If a person could rebuild or expand their structure right? there are regulations that govern that, and the ads would not exceed that right? So if a person wanted mit ctl, and to have a renter, they currently have the option of having an AD, or they could just expand their square footage in their house and have a renter in their house, and that is currently legal. Is that correct? If they get a rental license 250, they would. Yeah, but they would not have like a separate kitchen or a separate space. But yeah, having a a roommate, would be allowed. Okay. So it seems to me that

[172:00] what we're proposing here does not result in more square footage for the property than what is currently allowed. If they just wanted to expand their house. It doesn't result in more lot coverage, because you know, than what they could get if they expand their house and it doesn't result in more occupancy than what a person could get if they just rented a room in their house. So i'm not seeing a lot of impacts to neighborhoods from allowing people to have a separate unit with the kitchen and a bathroom that still stays within the building, constraints that they already have if they wanted to just expand their house 150. So I don't personally have you know, a lot of I have no objection to removing the saturation limit unless I'm not an expert on the neighborhoods around the university so that could potentially be an exception. It sounds like Staff Don't currently see it. As an exception. I would be open to more conversation around that I wouldn't say that i'm going to be the driving force behind it. But

[173:02] My comment is, I don't have a problem with eliminating the saturation limit given that the constraints remain the same around building size. What's possible to build on your lot and occupancy limits. Sorry. please, those next. Yeah, I I think i'm. I'm somewhere similar. So I I don't want to ignore the potential externalities, and i'll talk about those in a moment. but I've always thought this was a bit of them blunt force instrument that was trying to do something, and that was just kind of sloppy. Sorry to whoever eventually designed it. I don't think I hope they're not here. Sorry, but but yeah, I I just It's so weird it's it's just a weird thing to think like. Oh, I want to turn my basement into the separate unit for my dad and he's getting older and need somewhere to live. But I have to like. Go pay $240 to plan it. It's it's it's bizarre like it's so weird and like, oh, other people got their first, and maybe they're using it. Maybe they are. But now you can't have one. It's. It's so strange.

[174:08] so I am pro-lifting. I have no problem with looking at an R. L. One and r L. 2. However, I think the concerns about externalities are so are meaningful and matter you know. And so i'm thinking about particularly, and I realize that this is a such a district. I think, around University Hills interesting potentially Ron Gospel, which I guess is around University, that there's certain areas where specifically i'm thinking of parking or specifically units that might be more likely. and not that we can discriminate based on age. But might be more likely to be rented to people who might have like a greater impact within the neighborhood. or where there's already quite an intensity of use, and when you start adding other units. and maybe this is a good thing. There may be more likely to be a rental unit than to be used by a family member or or someone else. anyway, so I I don't want to ignore the externalities. I just really am not a fan of this saturation limit policy as the tool I would be open, and I actually I'm, i'm glad that you

[175:12] brought it up, Karl. But I would be open to like additional overlays, or like specific roles for specific areas. I realized that it in some ways may increase complexity, but as long as it's a straight list of like this is what you shall comply with, or you cannot. If I think that's much more straightforward than maybe a certain number of mysterious people around you do, or don't have it. It's I I I really just like it. so yeah. So I i'm not necessarily opposed to other ways of dealing with what I think the saturation limit is trying to do but I I I don't think it was ever a good policy control mechanism, and i'm all for lifting it. And then we'll have more to talk about with other things. You know that that might influence how that's going to impact neighborhoods and impact immediate neighbors. But

[176:01] it's it's a weird tool. Thanks. Georgie. I I I find myself agreeing with Lisa now most of the time, because I I I tend to agree with exactly what you said. The the I think the only difference. so that keep it shorthand is i'm i'm opposed to lifting the saturation limits absent another tool to deal with the externalities that Lisa mentioned. because I agree with her and with Mark, for that matter. that there is a certain inequity in the way that structure on how people get these things, and that my neighbor can, and I then I can't. I I think that that it was probably a blunt force instrument put in place because they were trying to deal with some kind of other externalities.

[177:06] And I guess what i'm struggling with tonight is. we're not given an alternative to say, okay, we recognize what's happening on University Hill and some other places. We want to. you know. Relieve the administrative Bourbon with the saturation limits. But where is the tool to address those concerns? and so I don't want to be a roadblock on it. But at the same time, like we need some alternatives beyond. Just let it be a free for all especially in those in and specifically I understand that there are lots of other things related to the code, and how those things work. but mostly to do with neighborhoods. They've got extreme externalities around that in addition. I I i'm going to voice the same concern that I had before, which is

[178:03] just because you remove these saturation limits doesn't mean you're going to get affordable rental housing from 80 years. And so i'd also like to see that addressed in a different way, You know. Maybe maybe in a cross folder you remove the saturation limits. Except for these areas of externality, for affordable housing affordable units. because we haven't we haven't really dissected the difference between those and these presentations much. but you know, maybe it makes sense that that's another carrot for You know the neighborhoods across Boulder. Assuming that you could actually mandate that these things get rented, and that it just doesn't become a loophole for for for residents. But those are some initial thoughts. I don't know what the mechanism. I'm hopeful that actually Staff can bring forward some mechanisms that can address those things, because I don't think that we as a board probably can't apply on that nearly as well as what you are aware of as far as the tools that are out there. So thank you.

[179:15] Yeah, thanks for that, Georgie. I just want to draw out, maybe just a little bit more. Just so I can understand moving forward. What? When you think of externalities which what are the ones that we are trying to mitigate like in your mind, and maybe for the rest of the not just for you, Georgie. But what are the externalities? Is it parking? Is it size what I I could put forth? A few and then i'm sure other people could chime in but to to echo Lisa right? And and and myself, I think Uni Hill is an example where you've got Wall to wall parking. and you've got You've got issues around around that. You've got issues around Just general occupancy up there, and how that affects the single family neighborhood that was there, and that partially still is there. How do we keep

[180:04] them in tax to the extent that we can? So those are the those are the externalities that I'm focused on, as it relates to those those areas. Specifically, i'm sure others have other things. Thanks. For. Yeah, I'll. I'll add in 2 other thoughts, so like a parking is a big one just in certain areas of parking intensity is very severe, so I don't know that you can make it a that they can only rent to some without a car or something. But that's something to think about. trash noise, I mean all the usual things we talk about with rentals and and to just mention, and I can't remember what it was called Sara Weibenson would know. I know she's not with the city, but she talked about the potential to do like an overlay in general for landlords on University Hill basically requiring them to pay for a trash service or requiring them for them to pay for. You know, some kind of like noise, management plan, or something. or to pay into a fund that then specifically funded code enforcement for the hill. You know you something like that? I don't know the legalities of that and then I just wanted to mention it.

[181:08] because I meant to mention earlier. I have not looked into the galley of this talk to the lawyers. But but one thing that I think is really interesting up in mount communities is that you'll have a lot of vacation rentals. There's concern that that's cutting into housing stock for people living up there, so on and so forth. and one of the things I wondered about as well. What if you put in place a rule that said every X years 3 years 7 years, I don't know if it's on the sabbatical term, or what you shall rent out your property, you know, to somebody for a term of no less than 6, 9, 12 months whatever, who is locally employed, and if you choose not to. That's fine. And here's how much you're going to pay you know, and and something like that might be interesting. I I think i'm not quite as concerned about housing as some other people are, because I also see it as an equity issue. I see them as a multi generational family issue. I see them

[182:00] as a disability issue. I see them as a child care, issue, and like keeping women employed issue. you know. So housing is one of the 2, one of the outcomes I think we can get from it. But i'm not so concerned about that. I think it provides diversity of housing, and allows people to stay in boulder and families to stay and boulder who couldn't otherwise. you know, and maybe not to end up in understanding him on medicaid quite as quick. So you know I I I think there's other uses for them. But but back to externalities. I think it's just kind of the common list of things that we talk about when when we talk about over occupants, and we talk about heavy rental, intensive intensiveity use, and so on. And the things that when they show up in a special special district like around Pearl Street, you know, we have planning Staff does a very in depth. Look at parking and parking impacts, you know. We look at Tdm. And so on, and I realize we don't need like a Cdm. Plan for like a single little thing. But but those are some of the things that come up for me. Yeah, thanks for that. That's very helpful. I appreciate it.

[183:02] John. Yeah, thanks. I I won't. I agree with George and and Lisa and and mark on some of his comments regarding the desirability of a to use. But with with respect to the saturation limit, I think it's a so fundamentally unfair with respect to the race, to the goal of of getting a getting one before your neighbor. that I I can hardly believe that it's completely legal. But, we have no attorney here tonight to weigh in on that. And I presume somebody's thought about that before. But I I find it the reason it's there is because of these externalities that Lisa and George mentioned, and I would like to eliminate the saturation limit. But we need to figure out how to how to deal with these externalities, and that's

[184:02] that's my concern. But i'm i'd be delighted to get rid of that limit, because I think there'll be some litigation over that at some point. I think. For example, zoning overlays and approach, neighborhood approaches like that. Maybe a and a more appropriate way to deal with it. Okay, Thank you all right. I just want to echo and support. I I think i'm hearing a lot of alignment here which is really nice, and I want to echo and support in particular something that Lisa said. Elisa Smith, said Lisa Hood, could you pull back up that chart about what people say? They use their adu, for whether it's long-term rental, or a family member, or in exchange for child care, or other services. there was like a bar chart. no problem with it.

[185:00] One thing I want to say while you're pulling that up is that it sounds like on the survey. People were only given the opportunity to pick one, and I imagine that these things might change over time like somebody might rent out their unit for a few years, and then have an adult child move back for a couple of years. If they are in a you know, a transition situation, or maybe their parents move in for a while as a before. They have intense medical needs, but they can live on site with a child helping as a caretaker. Maybe it's a couple that wants to have a caretaker living there so that they can stay in their home for longer and and have their caretaker have separate quarters. So you know things might change over time in terms of how these things are used even within a single year or a period of a few years. But I also like Lisa. I do think these things Most of these things are housing for somebody, whether it is a Mit. Ctl. And you know people who lived in a large house, and want to downsize as they age, or as their children leave the nest, or whether it's having a family member, come and stay with you 150,

[186:07] or whether it's you know somebody who wants to move to Boulder, and they need a short-term rental before they then move on to something else. Maybe it's a friend. Maybe it's a relative. All of these things might count as housing for somebody who would otherwise be taking up some other piece of housing in boulder, so i'm. I'm not mit ctl and super concerned about. You know people cheating the system or finding loopholes. There will be some people who will do that. There will be some people like like George mentioned, who they want to have an adu basically as a Guest House for visitors, because they are wealthy enough to be able to afford that. And my perspective is people who are wealthy enough to be able to afford to have a guest house that stands empty most of the time. 250. They don't get a separate guest house. They'll simply do it by building a larger house that has guest quarters in it, you know. So I don't think that's a strike against a to use in general. Given that a to use still have to conform with the same building limits as we have talked about.

[187:02] So I guess I just wanted to re-emphasize that point that I. I do think that most of these are housing units of some type, and if there are people who are using them to cheat the system, you know they they would probably do something similar in a different way. Anyway. Sorry I switch back to the All right. Any other comments on saturation limit. Okay. Can move on to size limits. Okay, my slides will move. Okay. So oh, go ahead, Laura. I'm sorry. One last comment, you know, to talking about the externalities issue in certain neighborhoods. If we do go that route, one thought is that

[188:01] It seems like, attached a. To use that take advantage of an existing floor plan are less of an issue potentially than detest units. If what you're concerned about is you know, occupancy or having separate separate units. it might not take care of parking structures, because, of course, you're going to have additional people in those attached units, but it might take care of some of the like single-family neighborhood feel, or if that is a concern. So it's maybe something to think about alright. so with size limit just going back to this graphic and trying to explain what our current size limits are. So for those attached units, whether that's, you know, a basement unit or attached to the house. Currently it is required to be a third the size of the main house, or 1,000 square feet. Whichever is less so. An example of that is, if you have a 1,500 square foot house, you're limited to a third of that. So 500 square feet for the 80, you. So only a house that's over 3,000 square feet would be able to take advantage of the full 1,000

[189:06] square feet for the attached unit, and then the detached unit is 550 square feet maximum for that separate structure, and this these are for the market rate. this next slide will show the difference for affordable. So just going back to kind of that evaluation. I thought it was interesting to see the differences between the sizes that we've got in the last couple of years. So overall average size 6, 40 median, 5, 82 but you can see that it's different, based on detached and attached because those rules are different. So the average size for a detached is 547. Again, Our Max is 550 and then you can see it even broken down by affordable and market rate. So the affordable units that are taking advantage of going larger. The average is 634. So just under 100 square, feet larger than the maximum, and then average market rate for 92.

[190:05] And I did want to explain these kind of exemptions for, or the the differences for affordable. So a detached to you typically it, like I said, is 5 50 square feet. If you are an affordable 80, you it can be 800 square feet, and then, if you are in a historically designated property, it can be a 1,000 square feet Similarly, on the right hand side, the attached to to use average size of 773 there's not as much difference in the size between the affordable and market rate, 7, 60 to 7, 90, and then again, as I mentioned, the lesser of the third, or a 1,000 square feet is the market rate limit, and then, if you're affordable or historic, it's a lesser of half or a 1,000. Georgie, it looks like you have a question. Do thank you. What I I guess I i'd love to know, because I don't. I don't know what the history is all behind this. I mean, you guys must have really good context.

[191:03] Yeah, so it previously for detached it gets a little complicated because we didn't use to call them detached and attached, but just for simplicity sake, detached, used to be limited to 450 square feet. We increased it in 218 to 5, 50 and it's been one-third or a 1,000, I think, since the eighties for attached units and in those 2,018 changes. it had been proposed to change it to a half or a 1,000 for any attached unit. but that was not ultimately adopted by Council. I guess I I understand that. I guess the question is, why why wasn't that adopted by council, then? And what was the reason? There must be a I think. There I I wasn't here at the time, so i'm not sure but I think there were concerns about the size. I don't know, Carl, if you have anything to add the only thing I can think of is that obviously everyone has a different definition of what accessory is. So I think some of these numbers were just kind of chosen to make sure that the unit itself was accessory.

[192:14] so I think at that time the Council, you know, didn't agree that it would be accessory if it was a larger size. But I I know that there's been some change in thinking on that given that, you know, we tend to be on the smaller end of what we allow in Colorado for a to use. what is around the square footage, and the idea of of growing it. What are we trying to accomplish? Yeah, I think that just adding some more flexibility. I have another slide the way that for area is measured for a to use is pretty complex, and it also includes, like the path of egress. So if you're trying to do an 80, you above a garage. You have to include the 80, you, and also the path through the garage and up the stairs, so that uses up floor here that isn't really the use.

[193:11] so it gets pretty tight at 5 50 for those detached units. and then a lot of times the attached units are a basement unit. That's an existing like we talked about with the variances. It's an existing basement, and they would have to do this kind of illogical wall movement to meet that 1,000 square foot limit, or the one-third, or whatever it sounds like. We have. It. But we have a process for that. It sounds like everyone that's asked for a variance because of that has gotten that. The reason necessarily, because yeah, and I think that the I mean the initial. The initial proposal in 2,018 was to increase the detached day to use up to 800 square feet. and then that was brought down to 550. But given that option to 800. If you were an affordable 80, you similar to the affordable option at a half or a 1,000, but for the attached units. One of the issues that came up is that kind of going back to those ideas of inequity that if you have a house that is only

[194:13] 1,500 square feet like that example, you can only have 500, but then it's exponentially larger. If your house is larger, so trying to be the part of the intent at that previous time was to try to be more equitable to people with smaller houses. I I guess one more. It's sort of are we getting? Are we getting it? Are we are. You done with your otherwise all there's I think there's one or 2 more slides, I remember. Go ahead and I'll I'll okay. Okay. So I just wanted to give you an idea of what those sizes are. One of the other things that came up really consistently throughout all avenues of our evaluation. Was that the way that we measure the floor area is really confusing and typically requires multiple back and forth with applicants to make sure that it's measured correctly. and often because we are getting bumped up to that Max limit.

[195:09] it's really important. You might think that this doesn't change anything, but it actually makes a big difference. so when the last 80 you changes were adopted in 2,018, there was a specific floor area measurement just for a to use that was adopted into the code. and my understanding of the intent was trying to be flexible for certain types of construction, like straw bail houses. so there's this unique quirk that 80 user measured to 6 inches from the exterior wall. where we don't do that for any other building in the city. And so it gets really confusing about where I'm. Measuring to. And when you're at these kind of smaller and square footages. it makes a big difference whether you're drawing You're drawing a line on the interior wall 6 inches outside of that wall or on the exterior wall. so the more that we can have the code be consistent for all of the buildings, and not like a a different kind of measurement for a to use the faster and more efficient the processes for everybody.

[196:11] and again I already talked about the the egress issue that this example is a eightyu unit, exactly 550 square feet at the limit. but they have to include that stairway up so that takes away from the size of the actual unit, but technically count. As for area. so this is something that we wanted to, even if we do not change the size limits. We want to clarify this floor area measurement with these changes, because it is such a common issue that comes up with our applicants. and making sure that that's consistent with the way we do it in the rest of the city. But on the discussion on how you account for floor area, would that stairway in that landing be accounted for if it was in a single family home. Yeah. So well, so that would be the same if we were to have that measured the same it would be. Yes, it's a different.

[197:07] That's why it's included in the 80 a floor area. Because it's it would be. It's part of the envelope right? Right? The floor area. Yeah. So those are the I I realize. I think Sara already brought this up. We we're not proposing a specific limit. the I mean the idea from the previous code changes were 800 square feet for detached units, and then going up to a a half or a 1,000, so those would potentially, and those are very much in line with the comparable cities that we looked at. So that would be kind of an initial idea of what the increase would be. But, we are curious to hear your thoughts on increasing the size limit, changing that area, or the way that we measure floor area. or whether just keep the side limits as is just really open to any comments.

[198:02] Yeah, Lisa. Yeah, I think this is fascinating. my overall take, and i'll get more fine-grained in a moment is is that it's so specific to each unit? And that makes it sort of hard to make useful rules overall. I definitely think clarifying floor area measurements would be good, you know, just making it more transparent and making sure people understand how it works. I think in many cases I would be open to increasing allowable size of a to use. But I can think of other use cases where I wouldn't, you know. I think about Georgie's example of, you know, a a full scrape, and then a very large home being built. and then, you know, if it's calculated as a percentage of the total score footage of a house, you basically end up with like 2 houses on one lot where it's almost a subdivision. you know. Or, similarly, if you increase the the sizing too much, and it's a very small house. you almost end up with a duplex situation, and i'm not necessarily opposed in certain circumstances to subdivision or duplex. But I don't think that's what we're trying to do with 86

[199:04] you know, so I I think we want to be careful about kind of how that works. At the same time. I remember this was years ago, but I toured a bunch of remodels and Martin acres, and and some of those folks had put in a to use the and some of those 86 were so microscopic as to be nearly useless, you know, and and I think they would have been happy to have carved out a bit more square footage to make it, so that it was actually large enough. you know, for a couple to be in instead of a single person, you know, or or large enough to be used, and and I I realize we're kind of spoiled with space. We live out in the West, you know. Anyone who's ever tried to rent an apartment in New York City or London, or somewhere else, is probably laughing at us right now. But but I also just wanna you know, acknowledge that. you know, if you're trying to, for example, get an accessible, you know, wheelchair, accessible role in shower into a space, and also a kitchen that someone can move around, and then so on, and so forth. And again, I think that's one of the reasons why people look to you to use the square footage can really constrain that. So?

[200:02] I I think I am open to increasing the allowable sides of a to use, but I would want to do it in a really thoughtful way, and be thinking about how that's going to impact. You know, specific areas and like, for example, i'm not super troubled by the basements that were converted that got a little extra square footage, so they didn't have to put a random wall in, You know that's within an existing house footprint. I you know there may be other external that happen from if that is a rental, or whoever is living in it. But I I think that seems fine. We have a lot of existing cultural code and regulation that to my understanding would control things like setbacks and view sheds and solar. you know, and so on, and so to some extent that's controlled for but yeah, I I I think i'm open to increasing allowable sides of you to use. and I think the used case really matters. And again, I wonder if it's gets back to an overlay, you know, if we're trying to keep whatever we mean by a single family personality and is in the area. If that's something we care about, you know. Does that mean that if you're gonna have over this amount of square footage. It has to be attached, you know, and part of the overall footprint. You can't, you know, build and help building

[201:12] or that it has to be over the garage or something. I don't know. I'm okay with it. I think it has to be done very carefully, and it's gonna really very depending on the location. but also some of the limits that we currently have means that you build very, very expensive separate properties, with separate metering and separate everything. And and then there's like these little DVD efficiency of so you can kind of like scoot around, and I was shocked by how tiny some of them are. what? Once you meet all the code requirements. So I want us to be aware of that, and maybe towards them that'd be fun. Thank you. There. What is the rationale for increasing the size? Because in the material there's sort of this implication that

[202:01] increase size will produce more 80 use or something, and I don't really understand where that calculation comes from. That seemed to be an assumption made. So i'm. Still, I don't quite understand. I understand the need to address the the floor area calculations. and i'm not going to try to figure out what those are. That's what you guys do your your area of expertise. But I don't understand, really the argument that what? What's the what are you trying to accomplish by me by proposing larger ads. Yeah. So I think that just looking through that evaluation report that was the the change that seemed to have the biggest impact or the most number of S. Would not have complied prior to it. And so I think that the larger that's allowed you might open it up to different types of people that want to live there. Perhaps if it was 800 square feet, there could even be a family there. But right now. at 550 square feet. That's pretty tight. So I think it's trying to diversify

[203:10] the number or the type of people that might be willing or want to live in an AD you by increasing that size, and we did see that increasing the size just 100 square feet. People did build larger. But your your your your you're assuming causation. It is also equally possible that the reason there was a spike in the number of a to use build was because the opportunity to build more ads became something more Homeowners understood right. I mean it's you're You're making a huge assumption at that extra 100 feet. 100 square feet. What led 72 to an additional 70 to 80 use and I I think that that's a I I i'm not saying I they should not get bigger or should get bigger. I don't really particularly have an opinion, except in so far as it impacts

[204:10] the benefit of permanently affordable units being bigger. but I just think you're making a huge leap in your assumptions about what the size the increased size of a to use is resulted in. I think we're also responding to just some feedback that we've gotten from the community that some folks have indicated that we might get more a to use if we allowed a larger size, and that they were supportive of that, so that it's something that we're exploring. Well, I you know lots of people want bigger, you know. It's just I, you know I and I know the ship has sailed on the eliminating the saturation limits. But I go back to and i'm I don't happen to agree with Laura on the point she made.

[205:02] Our goal here is affordable housing, that is our goal. And if we do not have this, this, the mechanisms in place to ensure that what we are actually getting from this is affordable housing, preferably permanently affordable housing. I just have a I have a problem with us trying to figure all this stuff out before we have resolved, some of these issues of things being built that are not being used for the purpose that we wanted them to be used for. and I I will leave it at that. Yeah, thanks for those points there I, the City Council objective is to increase the number of a to use in the community. So. the increase in the size limit increase the number we I mean it could be debated the causation correlation thing. But the increase in size did lead, or those changes, among other changes, led to a significant number of increased day to use. So that's why we think that if there was a say another increase. Perhaps we'd get more a to use.

[206:03] Perhaps you would. Perhaps you wouldn't. You don't know, and this City council is wanting more 80 users not to have more to a to use. It's that is not their goal. There. The the the new majority wants more housing that is their goal. Ads are a tool to get more housing, so that the you we could have a 1 million more 80. But if 900,000 of those are used for party purposes, you know. So, anyways I just I I just think we need to make sure that what goes into the ordinance does the most that it possibly can to produce housing that is used for housing that is affordable. and that that's what I think is missing. We're so focused on the form that we were. I think we're kind of skating over the the other issue. So

[207:01] thanks so so I will say that I have lived in a to use. That was my preferred form of housing. From the time I graduated from college all through grad school. probably until I was about 30. and I have lived in ads that were 500 square feet, and I have lived in 86. That were well mit ctl and I haven't lived in an eightyu that was 800 square feet, but I lived in a condo that was 850 square feet, so I know what it's like to live in those sizes 150. and those sizes are like 500 square feet is good for a single person. tight for a couple next to impossible for a family, maybe in Japan, or something. People will put up with that. But most Americans won't and 850 square feet was tight for my husband and I and a dog, so I i'll. I'll just say that. you know these are not going to be the most sought after high rent properties in boulder. They're going to be modest compared to most housing in boulder and smaller sizes. People are not going to be willing to pay the same that they would for a larger unit, so they will by nature, even at market rate

[208:12] mit ctl, and be relatively affordable. I know that we want to increase permanently affordable housing. And I think that the incentives that are in this program help to do that, and I'm very supportive of that incentive to have more affordable rentals. I do think that 150, maybe more, needs to be done, that if you get the the bonus area, the bonuses on parking for an affordable rental that you need to actually rent it out rather than simply move into it. because that's the purpose of having that program. So maybe we need to tighten up that program a little bit. But i'm not opposed to having market rate eighty-s. I think that having more of them will by nature increase the stock of the diversity of housing and boulder, and the types of people that will take advantage of that housing in boulder.

[209:00] So i'm I don't have quite the same level of concern about that. I do think that increasing the allowable size of a to use is a good thing. you know. I got a personal communication from someone who said that they built a 442 square foot affordable AD you. and it cost them $380,000. Right? If you're going to put that kind of money into improving your property, most people are going to want more than 442 square feet. You can rent it for more, you know, and it has more potential uses, more people can live there. So if you. I I also think it's a great thing that we might have a to use, that families could actually take advantage of maybe new families. They've got an infant or something, and they don't need one. you know. 3 rooms for 3 children, but a family could live there, and that's possible in 800 square feet. That's dang hard and 500 square feet one. So I am supportive of increasing the allowable size of ads to be more in line with what other communities have done.

[210:00] and I have no problem with Staff's proposal about the changes to how floor area is measured to be more in line with other construction and building standards. Pretty good. So I I kind of fall we're we're a lisa with that where i'm. Not necessarily based on the context that was given by staff, I'm. Not necessarily locked into the existing square footage that exists currently with our a to use, because no one can explain why it's there exactly, except the fact that these things should be accessory units and not a duplex in disguise. If we want to duplex we should be, we should be doing zoning for duplex, which is a separate conversation. But the conversation need to use should be an accessory unit.

[211:10] I don't know that changing the size on the attached to beyond a 1,000 makes sense. because I don't think we need to, because we've we've proven that when those variances have been applied for for good reason they've been given in every single circumstance that's been presented to the city. So to me that makes sense to maintain. because I think beyond 1,000 feet, you start getting outside of an accessory use for a dwelling. as far as a detached owner. Accessory unit. I don't know that 800 square feet is 800 square feet, feels just as arbitrary as 550 square feet. I think. Lisa, who brought up an interesting point around how these things are calculated relative to if they're sitting above a 2 car garage.

[212:09] that the square footage can get very tight in the building can get very tight, especially at cometing for the the circulation that you have to, in addition to the interior square footage. And so i'm not opposed to raising it. I just think it should be done carefully, so that we're not excessive, because I do think that every square foot that you add to these things is one more square foot that can be charged for, and therefore will ultimately be a higher rate to the person that's renting it. And so, if we're trying to create something that's market rate affordable. I would look to what the size constraints need to be to accommodate a unit like that above a 2 car garage, or something to that effect, or whatever examples you might have

[213:01] come up with the right square footage rather than something that might feel maybe a little arbitrary. And then I would ask you you mentioned in, and and you showed that graphic around how square footage is calculated, and it's from the midpoint of the wall. I guess that goes back to sort of Laura, and my understanding that far is calculated for a home and eightyu the exact same way. So I guess that's more of a question just making sure, whatever whatever philosophy we come up with measurement, that those measurements are identical, whether that was considered a single home or an AD you plus at home, and it doesn't sound exactly like that based on what you said, unless i'm missing something. How it's measured from the from the midpoint of the wall. Yeah, it actually gets even more confused. I try to explain it. so the overall f 4 area that's allowed on the lot would use that external line.

[214:05] so that would be the same. But when we're measuring the maximum floor area of the 80, you that's where it can vary based on whether it's the 6 inch out or the full external. It's almost like a how a landlord would measure like an apartment building like you have like units adjacent to each other rather than something that's fully detached. Right? Yeah. They're They're measured differently, but overall the maximum floor area for the overall site is the same. It's just the other. I mean. I think that's just an opportunity right to measure things the same way for everybody, because I just think that makes a whole lot of sense. so yeah, i'll leave my comments that Thank you. John. Yeah, i'll. I'll just say, George's points make a lot of sense to me, and I agree with him, and I also agree that there should be a consistent way of doing the floor area measurement.

[215:05] I don't see why it has to be so much different and confusing with with respect to increasing the allowable size, I'm. I think it would be. I'm open to it, but it needs to be justified. And I think, for example, taking taking the area above a 2, 2 car garage as a standard. That that's a there's a certain logic to that. That makes sense beyond having a just a number of the teams very arbitrary. So I would support that. Thanks. That's helpful. Laura. The staff have a measurement of how many square feet is the typical to to to car garage, because I feel like that's quite small. That might be less than 550 square feet. It's like 400 something. Let me run up. Yeah, it's typically 400 square feet, 20 by 20. Yeah. So I would not recommend going back to. We limit it to the size of a 2 car garage.

[216:09] but I I understand why to have some logic to it. I I have lived above a garage. It was quite small. Well, including the stairs and all that kind of stuff. But anyway. yeah, no, I understand. I understand the point to have a logic to what their number, where the number came from. Thanks. Anything else on this. Okay, let's keep moving. All right. Now. The fun fun stuff. Very specific code clarification. Thanks. Okay. So i'm going to go through. Just give a few sentences on each one of these related to code, clarification and process improvements. These are also explained in the Memo These ones we're hoping more, for if there are any initial red flags, these are really for clarification of issues that came out through that evaluation. But if there's anything that sounds like a red flag to you. or, if we need to discuss further, let me know. Yeah, go ahead, Laura.

[217:11] Could you please explain both for our benefit and for the members of the public who might still be with us. What exactly is meant by flexibility for height of existing structures. Yeah, sorry. I'm going to explain each one. But I that's what I was trying to say. But if there's anything as i'm explaining it, or once I get through it, or whatever that sounds like a red flag, or you want to discuss it. I can add more, but i'll just give a. Okay. So the first one is extending the approval expiration period. So right now you have to establish the 80 within one year. Most of our land use. Reviews have to be established within 3 years, but because then a view is a conditional use, it falls under that which is a one year. establishment we're finding, especially in the last couple of years, that it's really difficult for people to get permits within that time. Obtain a contractor within that time. Build the building within that time. So we're often extending that expiration period. and it's also something that just provides a lot of stress for the applicants. and what people will withdraw their application.

[218:14] just knowing that they can't meet that peer except expiration period. So that's something that we could easily add some flexibility, and maybe align with some of our other land uses that are allowed 3 years to establish. but it is just something that the nature of construction these days is really difficult to get done within one year. Next is the flexibility for exist height of existing structures. So right now all accessory structures have to be there. The height limit is 20 feet, but there is a little bit of flexibility in the code for a to to go up to 25 feet. But there, if you are beyond for an existing structure. if you are beyond 25 feet there is no option. This speaks to what one of our commenters talked about. There is no avenue for flexibility beyond that. So if your existing building is 26 feet, there is no way to convert that building to.

[219:15] and 80 you. So actually another commenter talked about dating the whole to make it need that height. So, because we think that adapting existing structures and the adaptive reuse of historic materials is a beneficial to the city. Likely has it less impact on the neighbor because it's an existing structure. we think that there should be a flexibility, flexibility, mechanism for people, whether that's obtaining a variance through Bosa, or whether that's just a staff level modification based on it being an existing structure. Just to be clear, this is only for existing structure, so it wouldn't be additional height for a new structure. It's just if it's already existing kind of those situations that were brought up in the public comment, but just providing that avenue

[220:01] to that answer, though, Laura, that clarify. Yes, thank you. So you're saying this is only if you're converting a building that already exists, converting part of it to an AD you so you're making your attic into an AD for example, and it happens to be above 25 feet. Correct. Exactly. Thank you. the lockable separation. This one was interesting because it came up in several of the reasons why people withdrew their application. it's just a part of the code that's did deep within the code, and not in the eightyu section where the definition of dwelling unit means that it has to be separated by a lock. and people don't know that. And for some reason people don't want to do that sometimes. but just clarifying that within the 80 regulations, instead of within like 3 steps of looking at definitions. so that wouldn't be a substantive change. It would just be making it easier for people to find that requirement limited accessory units. So I actually didn't even touch on these. But we have detached to use attached to use and unlimited accessory units.

[221:05] we only have one, a single limited accessory unit. It's another avenue for a nonconforming duplex. essentially so that it adds several paragraphs of text and complication to have this separate unit that are the separate type of unit that really doesn't have much utility in the city, and that one property has other avenues. that we could work with them and then clean up that part of the code. So it would wouldn't have much of an impact. it's kind of a left over from previous codes. And then I think, Sarah, you had brought up the owner. Occupancy question earlier related to Llcs. that's something that came up throughout the evaluation about needing clarity about whether Llc's. Because we require a property owner to live on site, whether an Llc. Can have an adu and app how they would prove that a owner of that Llc.

[222:04] Is living on site. So the the Co. Just doesn't is silent on that. And so it's something that we need to clarify and then we'll also be asking City Council policy, direction about whether llc's should own a to use because they are able, an Llc. Is able to own a rental. so it it's just kind of a gray area there that we would need to fix in the code. and also temporary rental exemptions. This gets really into the nitty-gritty but An owner can actually live temporarily outside of Boulder County for up to 12 months, and not have to get a rental license to rent out their property while they're gone. And so there's just not a lot of clarity about whether that property is allowed to have an 80 you at the same time so kind of similar, just adding clarity for how that owner occupancy should work.

[223:00] and then, finally, the public notice requirement. So 80 uss are one of the only administrative applications that require a public notice of the adjacent neighbors. the only other one that we have is solar access, and it really adds several procedural steps to the eightyu approval process. But unfortunately the oftentimes neighbors will reach out because they've gotten this notice. But there is no public hearing or anything that they can give their comment on so it's kind of questionable about whether there's value for that public notice, or whether that's necessary, so that's something else that we wanted to clarify and potentially it would be in blue in the I in the spirit of improving the process and making things more efficient. not having that public notice would take numerous steps in time off of an eightyu application. So those are the code clarification items. Are there any that raise red flags, or we want to talk about more.

[224:10] John. Yeah, thanks. I think several of these are are good. I mean the approval, expiration period, and the flexibility of height for existing structures and walkable separation. I I defer to staff so thoughts on that. With respect to owner, occupancy and the public notice requirement. I I regard those as as fundamental to the whole concept of what we're dealing with, and I would, I think, probably the public notice requirement. I think anything that lets the neighbors be informed about what's happening next door, I think, is to be desired, and I I would resist elimination of that.

[225:00] and the owner. Occupancy, I think, is a very important element as well. and you know, I understand a lot of homes are owned through Llcs and so on. But I think I think owner, occupancy is so important that I would be reluctant to make any changes to that until I see something that is clearly and an improvement. Yeah, thanks for that. Just to clarify it's it wouldn't be changing the requirement for owner occupancy. There would still be a requirement for owner occupancy. It's just clarifying some of these questions that have come up about, whether you know owning an Llc. And living their accounts and or this temporary rental exemption. So the owner occupancy is not on the table for changing it's just adding that clarity for those particular situations that have been coming up nice. Laura.

[226:00] Thank you. Yeah. I agree with John that the owner occupancy is key for a to use. I know, in conversations with Ml. She feels that that way as well, and would be supportive. I I think that I think I understand what you mean by these clarifications that for an Llc they would have to show that somebody who is an owner of the Llc. Permanently resides on site. Right so, for example, my neighbors own their house through a company that they own. But it is. It is a family that lives there, and they are the proprietors of that Llc. That owns the house. So it sounds like it's just clarifying how that works that there would be a pathway to prove that you are a real person that actually lives there, and not a corporation that just rents it out and is an investor. so i'm. Okay, with that and the temporary rental exemption. I think I understand what you're saying. My husband and I looked into this because our house does not meet code. We cannot get a rental license without making significant improvements in the insulation and energy efficiency from our 1,974 house.

[227:05] But we could do a sabbatical where we leave our house for a year and rent it out without having a city of boulder rental license. And it sounds like you're just clarifying that if the owner who lives in the house leaves for a year. They don't have to kick out their tenant that's in their AD that they, if they take their Sabbatical, intending to return to their home. They can keep their AD going while they're on Sabbatical. Is that what you're saying? Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Makes sense. Yeah, I think I think i'm in support of all of these, except that I agree to me. If if there's no meaningful way for people to plug in after receiving a public notice. Requirement? Then that means maybe we need a way for them to be heard. I I I appreciate that it's sort of like. Well, Why are we telling you if we're not gonna do anything like how you respond?

[228:01] you know. But but they might raise something. You don't know you know. So I I don't know I may. But this is created, possibly just creating work for staff. But to me i'm like, okay, then create a Google form, you know. Scan this QR. Code. Go here. Tell us how you feel. B: Look at it when we review this whole thing. you know I I would provide a way to provide public comment if i'm going to provide public notice. and and I agree that even just people knowing like hey? Like that's what that construction project is. Oh, like, why are you building that like what's going on? You know who's my new neighbor? You know those are things that build a community, in my opinion. and then also, yeah, the temporary rental exemption makes total sense to me. I I have friends. One is a Cu. Professor. One is a science teacher at Centaurus. They live in East Boulder. They don't have an edu but they traveled for 4 to 6 months, I think. on sabbatical one enrolled their children in school in France. It was very adorable, you know, and if they had had an AD you. It sure would have a nice to know that. Okay, our our 80. You tenants can stay, you know. We're going to run to this other family, because having a major renovation done on their house in our own neighborhood. and we don't have to kick those people out just because we happen to be

[229:09] doing this cool a broad thing. you know. I I think you'd want to make sure that it wasn't getting abused. That's always the concern whether it's the Ls of the temporary rental. But yeah, some of those things that we bump into with rental restrictions can get kind of silly and actually cause more turnover. And and I don't think are good for the community. yeah. And the rest of it seems pretty straightforward to me. So yeah. Okay. You can just mark me down for what? Lisa said that that was perfect and encapsulated my thoughts. Thanks. That all hand. Okay. All right. Okay? Well, that was really helpful. There's just one more slide related to process changes. So this was also a big thing that came out of the evaluation was trying to understand the process. Changes. These wouldn't be things that you would see in the ordinance, but I just wanted to make you aware of the changes that we're looking to make as well.

[230:14] so process improvements includes a one step review right now it's a 2 step review. You get your 80 you approved, and then you have to go through the building permit, and that just causes a lot of confusion confusion, because people think once they've gotten the 80 you approve. That means that they can build it exactly how they got it approved, but it hasn't gone through a full building, permit review, and often there are hang ups related to that like Laura mentioned meeting code that we haven't done through that eightyu approval. So the idea is to try to combine those approval. So they're happening at the same time, so that people it's kind of one and done. You get the 80 and the building permit at the same time. that will also create a lot more efficiency just in review times and by having multiple reviewers look at it at once.

[231:00] and these are things, you know, looking at the numbers of a to use. We didn't have so many back, you know, 10 years ago. And so this wasn't, maybe as big of an issue. But now that we have more of these coming in each year, it just exacerbates the issue of review times and things like that. addressing this one's kind of silly. But when the 80 was approved we send out a notice that the Edu has to be split into 2 different addresses. Unit a and Unit B. It's caused a lot of problems with people that don't end up doing the AD, and then they've. Their property is split into a unit, a and unit. B, and it's really hard for them to unto. So. that's one just changing to. That's a simple change of making that address announcement happen once they actually get their billing permit declarations of use. So when you get an 80, you approved, you have to sign a declaration of use and record it with the property. And just as we change codes over time it They can become out of date. So we just need to talk with our legal team about how to best update that in the process to use with that.

[232:05] And then the last one is just improving our website and self-service handouts like I mentioned there are over 200 questions about a to use, and I think there's a lot of improvements that could be made in terms, as I've been looking at all of these other cities that have a use that can explain our regulations, especially once we have If we've made some of these changes that improve the clarity and simplicity of the regulations, we'll be able to make some good handouts, and maybe some ex explanatory videos that could help people through the process. and try to improve that for people as well. So. Yeah, John. Oh, you're muted. Yeah, I just wanted to ask the how do ads deal with the utilities and the metering and the tap connections, and so on something our building permit. Folks would have a lot more knowledge than I would. I don't know if Carl and Charles maybe know that's one avenue. I haven't looked deeply into. I think they do have to get a separate meter if they do. Yeah.

[233:13] that's correct. So both separate water meter and for the city and so on, and also for the for excel hour. And yes. that's what I remember. I staff can maybe confirm. But I recall it was pretty intense. Okay, thank you. Correct. I'm sorry I didn't go to the actual question Page. Are there any comments on the simplification and clarification or process improvement. Was it John or Laura? Next? Go ahead, Laura? I don't have any comments on the post clarifications to the process? I do have a couple of other questions. When we get to that part of the agenda.

[234:08] if nobody else has questions or comments about the process, clarifications looks like we can go ahead. Okay, First of all, I just want to clarify. I I simplified too much when I said, My house does not meet code in case anybody is concerned about like, Why is she living in the house? It doesn't need code. It totally meets code for a resident to an owner to live in it. If I were to apply for a rental license for the city of Boulder, there are higher energy efficiency standards. That's the code that it doesn't meet is the energy efficiency standards. If I were to renovate or rent out, we'd have to upgrade that. I just want to clarify that in case anybody is concerned about me living in a non code compliant house. I wanted to ask specifically about the Mit Ctl. And the community connectors in residence meeting that you had, and and maybe these results have not yet been summarized. But our community connectors and residents for folks who aren't aware maybe anybody who's attending 150

[235:02] are the most plugged in to our low income communities. Our communities that are disadvantaged where people speak for their first language, is something other than English. And so I would be very interested to know what kind of input. You got from the community connectors and residents about their thoughts on these 80 you changes. Yeah, thanks for the opportunity to bring that up. So we met with them on Friday. So unfortunately it was after your packet went out, so we weren't able to include the notes from that discussion. But it was great. They were overall very supportive of the the increase to size limits and the elimination of the saturation limit. And then they have some really great ideas for for some additional programs and things that we could look into related to like opening it up for Section 8 voucher to be used for a to use like making sure. And these are things we need to discuss with our housing folks as well. But Just trying to make sure that there are as many opportunities as possible for people to be able to actually rent those ads.

[236:04] looking through my notes to remember everything. So I don't want to miss anything similar concerns about making sure that these are actually used for housing, and not just guest houses or things like that so similar to what you all have been saying and then also, they had some great ideas for programs that could assist homeowners in building a, to use acknowledging the expansive costs or expenses, costs of a to use. So if there was some kind of program for first time, homeowners, or something that would help them to be able to create that revenue source for them. so those are kind of the things that we focused on in the community connectors discussion. Thank you. And could I ask you to elaborate on one of your points if you could, because it was a little bit controversial here about the the appropriate size limits, and you said that there was support for going a little bit bigger. Any background or rationale for why? The community connectors might have felt that way. 101.

[237:03] They actually run up the the fact that you could have a family in a larger unit. So that's what the community connectors we're talking about. Thank you to size. Okay, yeah. Yeah. I I have one question. One one of the people attending here tonight mentioned the peds and the how how they are prevented from participating in the in this game altogether, and I wondered if you had any response to his comments. conundrum and boulder and being part of a ped. Certainly doesn't preclude you from being able to do an AD you there's just additional levels of standards that you needed here to

[238:12] and I think the way that some of the approvals were crafted depending on the vintage of the ped. might not be our finest hour as regulators. So sometimes those puds require a little bit more interpretation, but it doesn't make things impossible. That, said Council has recognized the fact that we regulate puds really consistently across the city as a pretty significant issue, and a pretty significant kind of barrier to the administration of our regulations. particularly when it comes to self-service for some of our customers. that they've allocated some resources for us to actually hire a planner to start rifling through some of these peds and Some are much worse than others, and I think we've identified those to try to figure out a way to either rezone them or amend the standard, so that the puds are easier to administer over time.

[239:10] And have, you know. underlying regulations that are intuitive, but support the original approval intent of the ped. So we did a a job description, and that was advertised at the end of last year. So we should be making a higher to help support that effort. early this year. Okay, thank you. I have one last comment on my list, and that is, you know the scope of this project, and my understanding is that Council intentionally narrowed the scope. To try to get something done quickly, because this is the kind of issue that

[240:00] can kick around for for many years and be quite controversial if certain elements are included. And so I think the idea was to pair it down to things that would be relatively easy to do on a fairly quick timeline. Given a lot of the input that we've already had on a certain subset of issues. I completely support that. And I think that the you know the changes that staff have scoped here. you know, we've we've given our input on that but a lot of the input has focused on sort of pulling back from this kind of narrow scope. and I want to raise the issue of expansion, because, you know, we saw from the public comments, from the 2,016 to 2,018 outreach effort that there is a a very strong ambivalence in Boulder. There are a lot of people who have strong concerns about ads, and there are also a lot of people an equal number, and potentially greater. I think it actually the majority fell down on the side of Wanting more expansion of this and more ambition in in how we make ads more possible.

[241:05] And so a lot of that more ambitious scope was carved out and eliminated for this phase, and I just want to give my support, and I think there may be other planning Board members who would also support returning in the near future. to those elements that were carved out. That might be a little bit more ambitious. I don't want those to to fall off the map. although i'm delighted to see this for limited scope moving forward, and let's get it done. But let's not forget about some of these other elements that we should. We should keep exploring and not say we've closed the door on them. I don't think that we have closed the door. I think we have simply said. Let's get a smaller scope done, and then return to them later. And I want to give my support to that great Thank you. Yeah, that is what Council also said that to keep a list of ideas for future changes to the to use, but focus on these ones. For now. thank you. I very much support incremental change and data driven analysis. And let's see what what these changes do, and then maybe see if we need to go farther. I think this is a good, a a good step.

[242:07] Thanks. Turkey. Yeah, I I I know you took notes on this, but Laura I mentioned data-driven analysis, and I think that's important relative to the transactional values of the homes that have ads on them. What these things are actually worth. how how their being utilized on a go-forward basis. because I I do. I I think a little bit absent from this conversation is the idea that If you've got you know, smaller single family homes and that, and they have more of an opportunity to build on to their homes to add ads, and those ultimately get sold. Are we creating less affordable housing stock going forward? and so I I think

[243:05] what we don't have in any of this analysis is sort of you know how how these things are. You know the the value of what's being created here, and how things are transacting and flowing through our our system. so I appreciate you taking that back and getting us some more information at some point in time on that, especially when this comes up again. as it inevitably will. I think that will be important along with the idea of you know what tools we have to create more rental housing inventory. because I I hear a lot of advocacy in town for a to use for, because to to to Laura's point around the community connectors. But I wonder? You know someone builds a a 1,000 square foot detached to you, or is anyone from the community connector is actually going to be able to afford it.

[244:05] and so it's. It's one thing to ask them the question and to get the answer. Oh, we would love it. We'd love relaxation of of a bigger sizes, because that sounds really nice. But the question is number one. Would it ever be put into rental inventory and number 2, Even if it did, would it be something that someone could actually afford in the group that we're speaking to? That's advocating for it? or are they getting boxed out? and those are the nuances that well, I appreciate the conversation with community connectors. I think we have to have dollars in common sense conversations to to really understand. If these things are pragmatic or solving something else than maybe what they're looking for, and actually, maybe exacerbating a problem. Thanks. It's pretty.

[245:01] yeah, just to embroider a little bit on on what Georgia just was saying. That was, that was my concern also with. And that's why I suggested being in contact with appraisers and the property developers, and so on, about what we're actually doing. Because my concern is that we may be eliminating some of the missing middle type housing that the little bit that remains in boulder by by doing some of these projects and and it we just want to be conscious of of whether we are causing some unintended consequences. But I think I think the point is made. Thanks. Yeah, Thank you. Hey, Lauren. I just want to throw in on this conversation. I think it's really important, and George makes a good point that we. if somebody I i'm going to go beyond what George said, and and the example that he gave is somebody who's in a 5 point, 6 million dollar house, or whatever that number was.

[246:03] builds 1,000 square foot luxury. Adu! It's probably not going to be affordable to anybody of modest means in boulder mit ctl, and that that's absolutely true, and I don't think anybody is trying to pretend that it's not. And John makes a good point that some of these small single-family homes absolutely. When you add an AD to the property, you're going to increase the resale value of that property 150. But then, on the flip side. Have you now, increased the chances that that home will stay standing and not be scraped the next time it is sold, scraped and turned into a 7,000 square foot single family home. Right? So. These are just very, very complicated questions that I don't think it's fair to expect that staff are going to come back with all the answers. i'm glad that we're talking about it. I I don't know what the answers are right, but it it it does seem to me that if you have a modest-sized adu, it is much more likely to serve as housing for a person of modest means

[247:06] than almost any other housing in boulder, and maybe we can get some numbers about the average rental play price for an atu versus condos in a condo building versus single family home rentals. I imagine that those eighty-s are gonna come out looking pretty good across the board on average, but I don't know that. and so I do agree with George that data is important. and we should keep these conversations going. You know, point counterpoint. We we need to keep talking about it, because we all want the same thing, and it's just very, very hard to do here in Boulder is to provide affordable housing stock. and I think ads are part of that puzzle just based on my own personal experience with the rental market, both as a renter and as a landlord in the past. I'm. Not currently a landlord, but have been but but let's keep talking. It's fine.

[248:04] Okay, Lisa, Have you gotten what you wanted absolutely and more. Thank you. No, really. It was a really great discussion and conversation, and I think there's a lot of additional work that can be done related to all of your points, and I think you brought up a lot of really great things that we'll look into and we will come back and continue the conversation with the community over the next month or so. Go to those other boards and city council. Take all of that input as well. And then hopefully be back with an ordinance in the next couple of months. Okay. Thank you. Great for you, Mike. Thank you. Thank you. Very helpful feedback. Thanks for the consideration tonight. Okay. All right. With that, I think we can move to matters. Any matters from staff tonight.

[249:00] Nothing for me, but I would invite Brad. No, I think there's been a lot of good discussion tonight, and that's it's hard to top that, so i'd be happy to entertain any questions, though, that any Board members have. Okay, Well board members all right. And oh, Laura, go ahead. I have one at the last Landmarks Board meeting. It came up that Board members are being offered an equity and inclusion training. and I assume that that's going to be offered for planning board as well. And it just curious if there's anything about that, or or when we will be hearing about that. I do know that we are doing that for our staff that facilitates boards. I am a little less clear on that for board. Members themselves do vaguely remember that discussion. So i'm sure you're quite right about that. We'll we'll look into that

[250:00] devin. Maybe you can that for a discussion with you. unless Charles, you know something. I believe we are offering a training for our elected and appointed officials, although I don't know what the the schedule is. So maybe we could look into that. Yeah. So for landmarks board Brenda written out, I think, was the person who went over, and there basically were like 3 options. It's like you can get a training for your board at one of your regularly scheduled meetings, or a special meeting, or you can like, join with another board at a specially scheduled meeting, or you could join a training for staff, and she was looking for input, on whether Landmarks board wanted to get a training as a board, or if they wanted to do it individually, and there was a whole conversation about it. So we'll we'll have a conversation at some point details. So we will. We will get that in front of you, either by email or at a future meeting. And, I I do know none of the to the best of my understanding. None of that sketch long's happened yet, so we'll. We'll get all good cycling about that. Thanks for playing in that for us.

[251:07] and then it may be that no one Well, I don't see no one but i'm i'm not sure if it's not the answer to this. But is this a different diversity? If we were training the one that we did. what was that year ago and a half ago? Is it like a a just for board members who put on longer. I think we did a couple of different di trainings, which are always good to do, but I just wondering what the difference might be. Okay. Any other matters from board. All right. I think it's time to go home. Have a great night. All right now let's if you're in the meeting. thanks to everybody. Bye, bye.