April 18, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Of great recording of is the date today, the eighteenth, April eighteenth call to order. So the first item on our agenda is actually the rules of meeting management from Vivian. You could talk us through that, please. I sure will thank you, Sarah and Devin, if you can just pull up the slides. So my name is Vivian. My role in planning more meetings is to facilitate the public engagement part of these meetings, and I wanna really appreciate everyone from the public who is with us here tonight. and the rules all read are in place to find a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes disruptions. So there's no public hearing later in today's agenda. But there will be a public open comment.

[1:01] First, I want to know our participants to know that the city is really striving into a vision Co, created by city, staff and community for productive, meaningful, and inclusive to the conversations. And this vision is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue, while also recognizing that we want to make sure everyone who participates feels safe and welcome, and we want to ensure that we make space for different viewpoints. because we believe it leads to more informed decision making next slide, please, Devin. and we have a lot more information on our website about our productive atmospheres vision, if you're interested. But i'll focus on specifics for this meeting tonight. There are a number of rules of decorum that are found in the Boulder revised code, and we have some general guidelines that are advisory in nature to share with all of our participants. Tonight we ask that all remarks and testimony raised be related to city business. We will not allow any participant to make threats, or use any other forms of intimidation. obscenity's, racial epithets. Another speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting, or makes it

[2:06] impossible for us to continue as prohibited. And we do also ask that participants identify themselves by the name they are commonly known by, and to display their first and last name before speaking, so that i'm calling you. And so we know who is providing input. And you're not sure how to do that. You can send me your your full name through the Q. A. And I can update it next slide. So we're in the Zoom Webinar format, and this allows participants from public to speak at designated times, and you can let us know by raising your hand. But we will not be turning on video for community members because of security concerns in this platform. So to raise your hand. There's a couple of different ways to do this. At the very bottom of your screen you should see a horizontal menu that has 3 clickable items. If you click on the hand, icon, it will raise a hand next to your name, and we will know to call on you to speak at the appropriate time

[3:03] next slide. If you have an expanded menu, you can also get the raise hand, Icon, by clicking on reactions. and that concludes the rules. I think most people are. A lot of people are familiar with that. So now I will hand it back over to you. Chair. Thank you all right. So Lisa wrote to me that she's waiting for her computer to update, so she will be joining us as soon. As for technical technical issues are resolved. So we do. As Vivian said, we don't have a a public hearing today, but we still have our public participation or open comments period. So if anyone wants to speak on any topic for 3 min. You are welcome to. You need to raise your hands technologically, and then Vivian will call on you. We'll have a timer, and at 3 min we will ask you to complete whatever sentence you're on, and we'll move on to the next person.

[4:02] Yeah. thanks for that, so i'll just go down the list and again, please watch the timer. Be mindful of that, so we'll start with Rosemary Hickarty, followed by Kim in Herman. I please go ahead, Rosemary. Hi. Thank you very much for letting me speak tonight. I'm assuming you guys can hear me. Yes, we can. Great. So I just wanted to speak to you about the changes in the in. Oh, gosh! Sorry i'm tired at the end of the day at with the occupancy, occupancy limits, and changing that from 3 to either 4 or 5. I have really big concerns about that, and I feel like. you know, there's this huge push to increase density in boulder right now, and I understand there's a lot of housing issues in Boulder, but I I really think and hope that you guys will protect the neighborhoods at least the ones that are closest to see you.

[5:07] I live in a neighborhood that many of the homes are 2. It's 2 bedroom houses yet with the rentals. They're still at this point in time, you know. Occupancy of 3, you know. Generally it's 3 cu students, and they all have cars, and these are homes that have only space for 2 people parked in the front. Many of them Don't, have off street parking, or if they do have our off street parking, you know it's one person in the house might be in their driveway. One person's in front of the house, and the next. you know. See, you student is parking in front of a neighbor's house all the time, and so we already have parking issues with 3 people in the neighbor, you know, being allowed in households in this neighborhood. I can't imagine what it's going to be like if it goes up to 4 or 5. So if you have to increase the

[6:03] occupancy limits. I really really hope you guys will protect the neighborhoods closest to see you, and not allow that to be increased in these close neighborhoods, if it's appropriate to have them in neighborhoods that have plenty of parking, great and big houses great. But this is not a neighborhood that that is, go. You know my neighborhood, and Martin Acres does not fit that bill. I also think, See, the city of Boulder needs to look really closely at the fact that so many other cities that are college towns have these, you know, ordinances of limiting occupancy of non-related people, and it's, and it's for a really good reason, and I don't want to, You know I don't want to see these neighborhoods continue to be destroyed. See? You is never going to stop increasing their student limits. But we keep having to make sacrifices for the quality of our neighborhoods, because, see, you will not limit the amount of students that they're having, you know they keep admitting. And you know then, what's the next solution? We increase occupancy to just free for all.

[7:07] I just think we need to really be mindful of what's best for the city, and not what's best for. See you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Rosemary. Next up we have Kim and Harmon. Please go ahead. You have 3 min. hey? Hey? Can you hear me? Okay, thanks for allowing me to join a meeting for this brief time, but I, too, want to address the accuracy limits. I live in a Martin acres, and we have at least 10 times the amount of student rentals compared to anywhere else in Boulder. In that studio proximity of the ever expanding University of Colorado. I was looking at a map of. I can see that the I think it was planning apartment drew up, and it shows that most of boulder is, I can see, Limit is 3, and there is a relatively small area that a very small dense area that has 4.

[8:14] So I think you know that to to jump it to 5 would be crazy. So I so i'm just saying, You know it's hard enough to live here with 3 UN unrelated people. Our houses are really close together with a tiny little neighborhood, and lot of us go to bed early. People have kids. There's families moving in here, so it just would change the whole dynamic of the neighborhood. and, as you know about Austin Texas, they resend it as high. I can see law, because it caused so many problems. And you know if you're truly doing this to help affordability. It won't happen because the landlord will just charge per person not a fixed price for the house like the old days. So you have to look at Why, you're really doing this.

[9:03] and and who it's going to help. And I think the ones that are getting help. Here are the landlords, so you know. I mean, if you you like. Rosemary just said about the there's others like pure cities that we have, and it turns out that 60 of them allow 3 or fewer unrelated people, and 23 of the 60 only allow 2 unrelated. So we're right within the norm for a college town, so obviously without accuracy, limits, or even higher limits, it would be total chaos and neighborhood like ours. So the the argument that boulder's, occupancy, limits, limits of 3 unrelated people is somehow unusual or extreme is is false. so I would just really encourage you. If you must, raise the I can see, limit to please exempt. The see. You adjacent neighborhoods from occupancy increases, and that's Martin acres you any hill fast grove in East Aurora. We've all. We're taking the front of it. If you look at that over I, or if you look at the active C map, you can see how you could spread it out to other areas around the city. But but please spare us our neighborhood.

[10:12] and if it happened to you, I think you'd be saying the same thing. So thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you so much. Next up we have Lisa Spalding, followed by Valerie Stova. Lisa. Please go ahead. You have 3 min. Lisa. I think you're still muted. Sorry. Okay, now. Yes, we can hear you. It's extremely difficult to explain the physical, social, and economic dynamics of a neighborhood adjacent to the university. to who people who live in other parts of the city. Some say they lived on the hill when they were to see you, and it was fine. Others simply don't believe you when you tell them you were up until 3 am. Why, you waited for the police to shut down 2 very loud parties on your block. and then spent the next morning cleaning up. Trash dropped in your yard.

[11:10] Please do not exacerbate these problems by supporting an occupancy increase in these vulnerable neighborhoods. The Hill Revitalization working group conducted a chronic nuisance data project last year that found one third of Nuisances citywide occurred on University Hill. The Hill had 44 of the City's noise issues and 58 of the exterior property code issues These chronic nuisance problems STEM from the very high population density that currently exists on the hill. We've heard the ludicrous claim that an increase in occupancy won't further harm. The Hill, because the problem isn't the number of people on a block. It's the noise, trash, and parking problems caused by these people which can be taken care of by code enforcement. The city will never solve these problems through code enforcement, because it will never have the budget for a large enough enforcement staff

[12:07] every year, and new group of sophomores moved from the dorms to the hill, feeding the endless cycle of chronic nuisance issues. Young people are safer when they live around adults than they are in the blocks north of college. The constitute a student Ghetto. but adults are overwhelmed when occupancy spikes in the impacts become unbearable duplexes that were owned by permanent residents who run it at their basement are now purchased by out of state investors. Blocks, collapse as investors renting to wealthy students take over more and more homes. The block of Tenth Street, between College and Euclid was largely homeowners, and long-term renters as investors paying cash, bought up homes. The stable block became over 70% student. Reynolds. In less than 5 years raising occupancy limits would entice even more investors who could legally increase the occupancy and raise rents per head.

[13:00] An increase in occupancy would force the student Ghetto to continue to creep up the hill. One size fits all planned a race occupancy before you this evening will cripple the hill and other neighborhoods around the University and overlay that excludes these neighborhoods from an increase in occupancy is the only way to save them. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. I'm. Next up we have Valerie Stova. Please go ahead! And followed by Lisa Nelson. Hi! Can you hear me? Yes, you sure can. Okay, Thank you. So I, too. I'm speaking for the hill. and we see you adjacent neighborhoods. I oppose increasing occupancy on the hill this city passed a revised ordinance and new trash policy. Perhaps it believes the hill is fixed.

[14:03] On the contrary, I feel that I i'm fighting for this neighborhood. I still call the police over noise, and in losing neighbors at an appalling rate. Most people that I know plan to move away if things don't get better quieter, it's the traffic doesn't slow down Less than 10 years ago Tenth street which Lisa just mentioned between college and Euclid was comprised, mostly of owner-occupied homes and long-term rentals. Today it has 2 fraternity annexes and many party homes. Most distressing we have for sales fine just went up in front of a family home. So, to my knowledge, only 2 houses our owner occupied on that street.

[15:02] It would be nice if you could increase enforcement rather than occupancy. My mother joined forces with others in the seventies to limit occupancy. She was a social worker. Her patients were cu students. She acted out of concern for the welfare of the entire community. and I certainly share that concern today. The hill can be fixed, but it most certainly isn't. Please exclude it, and others see you Adjacent neighborhoods from the occupancy increases. Thank you so much. and thank you, Valerie Lisa Nelson. You have the floor followed by Cecilia gears. Hello! Am I off mute? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you for your time tonight. I appreciate having a few moments here to just share some thoughts with you.

[16:01] I'm also commenting today about the proposed limit raising the occupancy limits. Some of you might have seen my guest opinion in the camera last Thursday on the same topic. I did reside on the 1,000 block of Tenth Street for 30 years, so I know a lot about what happens there. The reason I moved away. Just so, you know, is the day I decided to move away was the day that city council approved the Martha House Conversion into luxury student rentals, because that was the moment in time where I lost any hope at all, that the city would do anything to prevent the complete demise and destruction of the neighborhood that I live. My entire adult life in my heart still belongs to, even though I cannot live there any longer. I serve on every committee possible under the sun to try to get someone to care about this and do something, and i'm asking you. Now this is it's you have the power to say, No, we cannot fit more students into this neighborhood. It is detrimental, it is detrimental to the residents. It's detrimental to the community. It is detrimental and harmful to the students to be given the free rain in the environment that they have created in that neighborhood.

[17:11] and it is shocking to me that people would just turn aside and let a one of our most treasured neighborhoods, full of architecturally and historically beautiful structures, just be abandoned to the profit, making motive of investors. I don't blame the investors. It's a smart investment because the city has never done anything to protect the neighborhood echoing our previous speakers. Yeah, college towns have limits, occupancy, limits for reason, for a very good reason. And I just have a quick story to share about this idea that somehow the new, these, the ordinances, are going to fix this problem. I got a text on Saturday from a friend of mine who still lives on that block who was at her wit's end, and asking me if I could help her. The students next door to her we're occupying a house that previously been lived in for 23 years by a friend of mine who had an artist studio in the backyard

[18:04] the students who live there now it's now a fraternity house. and they've been lasting music day and night for the entire year. Well, it turns out that they are actually illegally operating a private gym with staff and paying members to come to their backyard and work out all the time, and they blast the music all the time. And these neighbors have spent the entire year feeding with these students to change their behavior, and they get nothing but verbal abuse in return. And guess what has the city ever once have they gotten a single ticket? Has the city ever even cared about this activity? You cannot say these ordinances are going to fix the problems on the hill. They're only going to get worse if you hand it over to investors and students. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Lisa. Next up we have Cecilia who's joining us by phone. So I think you push Star 9, Cecilia, Try that to unmute yourself.

[19:04] Actually, i'm joining you via zoom on my phone, and I just found out where the unmute button is. Thank you, though I am. Thanks for taking my comments. I'm here to ask that the Planning board recommend an exemption to increasing the occupancy limits to the neighborhoods that we've just heard enumerated. I live on the eastern end of Martin Acres I'm. A an eighth of a mile from table. Mesa drive i'm in a court that has 24 houses. 18 of These houses are rentals. 6 houses are owner occupied many rentals already have more than 3 unrelated persons in them. My concerns are that increasing the aus occupancy limits will increase the rentals here. The rent that the landlords are asking here. That's increasing more than for if that it goes to 4 or 5. If it goes to 5 in these houses there's a bit of a litter problem i'm continually picking up.

[20:07] Crash it's blown from my neighbors on the western edge into my yard on on trash day or other days i'm picking up beer cans and other kinds of stuff that's thrown into my landscaping along the side of my sidewalk. It's kind of annoying actually more than annoying. I'm. I'm afraid that the intensely tight parking will just become impossible. I mean when I have my friends over. If I have more than one friend over. I'm always concerned that they'll have to park God knows where, because Moorhead is is completely full of cars, as is my court anyway. Lastly, my concern is that an increased occupancy in these 4? See you adjacent neighborhoods will continue to make them less of neighborhoods and more of locals for one to 2 year residents.

[21:06] Thank you for checking my comments. Thank you for being here so. Last call. I don't see any other hands from the public raised. All right. Lit up. Lynn Siegel just raised your hand. Please go ahead. Then you have 3 min. Yeah. This this situation is, you know it's distinction between this, the State and the city, and we already have enough problems between the State and the city with See you South. This is takes us over the limit. Jared has gone too far. This is outrageous. We had bedrooms are for people, and I've had up to 17 people at my house at one time. living here, staying here in years past, before Airbnb dumped me so I I can appreciate it. having an and I've always lived communally. I'd like to live that way. But this is outrageous. We already had.

[22:07] The bedrooms are for people. We had a ballot measure. Where does the city of Boulder we have. We have Home Rule. and you know Jared says no limit to the city of Boulder. Didn't Carl Castillo from every intergovernmental affairs put some limit on it. You know it, I mean I don't think it's even relevant. I don't think it'll make a difference. But you definitely need to do something on the hill. This cu is insidious in their in their constraints on, and their their abuses in this city; and it's outrageous that it should even be proposed that they can have no limit on University Hill. You've got to be bonkers. This is nuts, and yet you know what we don't have the choice, because Jared can do whatever he wants. And who who's this in in in a governmental affairs group this making these amendments? Where did they come from? Where's this public? Input.

[23:03] There isn't any. because guess what it's a democracy void when it comes to the city of Boulder and the State of Colorado prompt us. It's stunning this this whole package. I was just down there today, talking to the folks from 3 30 to 5. It's it, and I've got to see the summary. Still, it's been shoved on us instantly. There's no public process. There's no public hearings there's there's nothing and you know, Jared. Maybe he wants to go to Washington, DC. And run for president or something. but you know he's not going to get my vote from Boulder. Not that that matters to him. He's got higher aspirations. These people. Just you know we'll sacrifice anything to get a little bit better. Foreign policy in Ukraine, you know, or what have you? It's it's it's gotta be a radical change. And this is just horrific. This land use changes, I mean, but no limit.

[24:08] Residents no limit for 4 plexes. and nobody's going to build them. Anyone occupancy limit probably doesn't matter that much, but it does on the hill. So you've got it. Stand up for the City of Boulder, and it's Home Rule, and it's right to have a public process on this. Thank you, Lynn, very much. Thank you. Vivian. Is there anyone else last? Call no no other hands. All right, thank you all. Lisa has been able to join us all right. So our next topic, our approval of minutes. Did everyone get a chance to read and send Devin any revisions. Okay, Does someone want to make a motion to approve the February seventh meeting minutes?

[25:04] I will move to approve the February 7 meeting minutes just reminded. Do we need to have a voice vote or just a hand vote? Hell is a hand about. Okay. I think I would have to quick. You could, if you could just do a a voicemail, just in case because I don't remember, if it only applied to the public hearings, but I look it up for the next one. I'm not the only one who doesn't remember. Okay, Mark. Yes. Lisa, hi. ml. Hi and Sarah. Yes, and Kurt. I'm not skipping you, but you weren't here for those meetings. So Don't, take that for personally. Okay. So the meeting minutes from February seventh are set for approval. meeting minutes for February 20 first, with someone like to make a motion. I'll move to approve the minutes from February 20 first. Thank you a second

[26:08] second. Thank you. All right, Mark. Yes. Ml. Yes, all right. So 5 0 I wasn't there, and nor was Mark no when I was Kurt. I'm: Sorry. Correct. All right. So both sets of minutes are set for approval. We have no discussions of dispositions, or call ups or continuations, and no public hearing items very exciting. So what we have today are for matters issues. Thank you all for your flexibility. Yesterday, in the agenda setting meeting, we decided to flip the agenda item so that we could quickly move through the nomination and appointments. and then spend a little time digging into the the matters that most of our the public spoke about today, which is occupancy, reform, and the separate matter of zoning for affordable housing.

[27:06] Just so, you all know, we set aside 90 min for that conversation. If we need to go longer, we can but just in the interest of time management. So the first matter I think we need to hear from Brad to talk to us through what this multi-board working group is, and then see if we can find someone who wants to be appointed to it. Evening members of the planning board. Thank you for that preface. The multi-group working multi-board working group is a pilot project. It's an effort to bring a liaison from each of the various identified boards. I think there were 12 or so together

[28:00] to have a single point person be able to represent in both directions information from that working group to the planning board and from the planning board to that working group as a matter of efficiency, so that these projects in this case Filter Junction. 2 are not mired down in terms of the overall time length for for managing them by him to visit many multiple board. so this person would be responsible for a meeting about every 6 to 8 weeks. It's envision that this group would meet, possibly for up to 18 months. although let me double check that. and again would be providing feedback to and from the planning board regarding the Folder junction to planning process as as it continues through in the next several months.

[29:04] So. hey, Brad, can you just a little bit more about the this? You know, clarifying that it's not an advocacy role or a but but a liaisoning role, just like what are the what are the boundaries for that? Looking to advocate any one position or another, but rather to share information to the degree that the planning board wants to share feedback. Of course this person would bring that back to the working group. and it would be deliberated, you know, among that working group. But it is true not to necessarily set this person up for either individual advocacy or or particularly philosophical positions, and and just stepping back to a little bit Boulder Junction.

[30:02] Many of you will know already, has been through a planning process some 15 years ago. It's known as TV at the time. with the build out of the western portion of the somebody's gonna have to help you with that acronym. I think it's transit village area. That sounds right with the build out of the first phase on the western side, which eventually became known as Boulder Junction Folder Junction. It made sense to change this. Now we plate you in a Bulger junction, too. But fundamentally it's an area that has already been planned. And the question that staff is working through is, Are there areas of that plan that need to be re-examined, given 15 years of time passing and also just lived realities in the area in terms of infrastructure and some of the larger city goals. It is not a complete re-planning of that area.

[31:04] but rather a a step back, and potentially tweaking or potentially just affirming. There is an intent to have the first part of this effort done by the fall which would be to affirm whether there any plan planning areas or to to me the plan. And then the second part of this would be to implement the plan through freezonings, potentially through engage, You know, additional engagement with property owners on specific design. That type of thing similar to what happened with Keep app for Boulder Junction, one the folks, If anyone has questions for Brad about this, that would be the right time to ask, and then we'll all right, George. So sorry I I I think I just may need a little bit more clarity more than anything else, because it

[32:01] it sounds like 2 things to me. So in the case that there was so so these liaison from these boards are going to go into this super board. and they're going to be talking with the city staff, and either affirming or not affirming certain directions. And then you know what happens. Let's say, if there are replanning, rezoning those types of aspects. This would still, at that point come back to the planning board. Is that that correct? Yes, the plan itself will come back to the planning board as well. So all of the mechanisms that are prescribed by code. This does not supersede this. It is simply a way to facilitate what is, you know by definition across interest. type of planning effort. But the actual. Any plan amendment would come to the planning board, and that's is currently scheduled for late late summer early fall, and that any rezoning subsequently would be separate matters as well. So i'm i'm curious, and not to put you on the spot. I but just trying to understand.

[33:12] It just seems like it. It comes across to me as another layer when everyone's going to have to go through all these boards anyways. So I guess my question is, what are we hoping to achieve by something like this? And if if it is achieved, then would it be layered on to other things. I I I just i'm having a hard time sort of computing what the benefit is. Well, for first of all. this would not need to go to all those boards. So, for example, the Advice Environmental Advisory Board would not necessarily see a plan amendment, for example, and and they wouldn't necessarily see a rezoning. So planning boards a little unique in that regard. The goal is to prevent the

[34:00] the the tendency for those boards to be interested in this planning process and ask for an overview or an update. and thereby having to go to and i'm just looking at the list, you know, 12 different groups. and the sheer mechanics of doing that stretches out the process in a way that really is both inefficient, and ultimately frustrates the overall process goals which is to try to do a tweaking in this case of the plan. but not to make it a a a project, and certainly not one that takes 3 or 4 years. maybe having sat there there. But you know, 2 or 3 years because of just the mechanics of of needing to schedule multiple ports who have have curiosity about that, and when an update. But but aren't necessarily formally part of the process. so this multi-board working group is seen as a coalition of the willing, if you will, to be informed and to inform their their source board.

[35:08] Okay. thanks, Brad. Appreciate it. Alright, thanks, George Laura. You are next. Then, Ml: then Mark. thanks to a couple that will hopefully be quick, Brad. Thank you for that. Update, and for briefing us on what we're here to decide the Boulder Junction. Am I correct in in thinking that there is already a working group that it's like a citizen advisory working group for Boulder Junction. That would be different from this kind of super Board group. Yeah. So I don't. I don't have the status of that at my fingertips. But Yes, there, there's I, I think I think honestly, there are 3 different groups, and i'm sorry I don't have that memorized, but I think one is general citizens. Some are targeted populations. I think there's a group of business owners. So there are technical advisory committees. Yes.

[36:04] okay. and I'll. I'll just jump in and just clarify their their focus. Yeah, no worries, their their focus groups actually so so quite targeted and seeking feedback at a couple of different milestones, so very different from, like the East Boulder working group, for example. And so would the Board member liaison also attend any of those focus groups, or they are just attending. It sounds like maybe 3 or 4 meetings over the course of the next 18 months. if it's every 6 to 8 weeks, and it's 18 months. If my math is right. so bear in mind this is the first time we've done it, so I can't say anything in absolute, but it is not envisioned that there would be an expectation. They'd go to these focus groups. I don't know that they'd be excluded, and

[37:01] I imagine anybody from the public could be at some level, but and thank you for chiming. And Vivian has been involved in some of the design of this and outreach, so I I'll turn it for, and ask her to keep me honest on any of my answers here. So thank you. So it sounds like the commitment you're asking for is 3 to 4 meetings over 18 months for this Board super group. Does that sound about right? Yeah, it's as as envisioned. I I it it may be a couple of more, you know, as we actually put it in the practice. Okay. And I i'm looking at the memo that you put together, which is very helpful. Thank you. And it says the Board members will attend meetings and represent the Board's Mission at the working group. Can you help me understand how representing the Board's mission is different from advocacy. What I just want to hear how you think about that. Well, it it! It's true. That might be a difference without a distinction. If advocacy is a focus on

[38:04] a. you know, on the subject or on a discipline. I think sometimes when Admin Casey is used, it. It means representing a a very specific point of view that maybe is set on with other points of view, and this by its very nature being a planning process. It's about coming to planning solutions or or planning vision. which is not. which is not the same as applying a strict set of policies to something. Okay, i'm just thinking about that. That's helpful. Thank you. I'm thinking about. You know. This topic did come to planning board a few months back. I think, where we we looked at. You know how Staff was thinking about this process. and what would be accomplished in the T back to or Boulder junction 2 phase, and we gave some preliminary input so then, in my understanding that the liaison's job would be to understand that past planning board input and interest in this area

[39:07] and represent that at meetings, or is it something different? Okay, thank you. I that those are my questions. Thank you, Ml. My questions were answered, I would just about to take my hand down. Okay. Mark. I just simply wanted to say that. So I was the planning or liaison to the Design Advisory Board this year. and at the beginning of that term I had to represent planning Boards views on the Site Review criteria to the Design advisory board when Staff was seeking

[40:01] their thoughts on that. and I just want to advocate that I I found it invigorating to. We were in the board. Our board was somewhat divided on, Should the criteria be more or less proscriptive, etc., so I think, anyway, I found it to be like, I say, invigorating to advocate, not to advocate. That's the wrong work, but to represent the different views of the Planning Board to the Design Advisory Board and try to do it, and as way as fair and equitable as possible. And I think the design Advisory Board appreciated the input and a summary of the different perspectives, and I would imagine that this sort of role in the Alder Junction 2 thing would be would be similar in in that, you know. Whoever

[41:04] takes this on would do this seriously and verily and and actually it's actually kind of like a good lawyer, you know you. You can argue either side of of the of the case. So anyway, I I I found it to be actually pleasant, so I would advocate that if someone has an interest in this that they take it up. If they think they can fairly represent a disparate view of of our board. Alright, Ml: you have your hand back up. and then I George looked like he was going to say something. So okay, George will be next. Thanks. I do have my hand back up. Thanks, Mark, for prompting me to get more specificity here. Thank you, Brad, for the information. So my question is understanding the nature of the meetings themselves.

[42:00] I it sounded like they'd be informational meetings. but by virtual the title it sounds like, maybe they're actually working meetings where you're trying to solve a problem, not just get information on what's the status of the work? So can you clarify that, please? Well, I will do my best again. With this being a pilot and a relatively new concept. I don't know that we can represent something with that absolute certainty. But any group that is tasked with providing feedback and and information. It it would be my expectation that there would be a good deal of informing, but also conversation among the group about any observations they have or suggestions. You know whether that's 50, 50, or 80, 20. I I couldn't tell you. Okay. so I guess i'll face the question a little bit differently. I understand that that conversation goes along with information gathering just

[43:06] to make sure everybody's understanding and clear. Is there a goal for these meetings to come up with solutions of some kind? Or that's the working component of it. Or is it about? Here is what we're doing, and give us your feedback. I would I would anticipate it. Be a bit of a mixture both. And again. you know, the solutions in this case are are not starting from the null hypothesis right? It's working off of the existing plan. and contemplating whether that plan still represents the current reality, or whether there are aspects of it that Don't and I think you know this is where a multidisciplinary feedback is is useful. So the problem is one of potential, not of so be a problem per se, so it won't be easily defined in that way.

[44:03] Hmm. Because it sounds to me like that number of people at the at the group meeting is pretty large. There's at least what you say 12 boards plus whenever staff and whatever additional people are, are these meetings like half day meetings? I mean, how how is how is it envisioned? Yeah, again. Those logistics really Haven't been determined yet, but I would imagine a night meeting of, you know, maybe 2 to 3 h, not unlike a you know planning board meeting, but I I would also anticipate some level of trying to get feedback from the folks who have volunteered as to what their availability is, but I I don't envision these as I. I don't think anybody has envisioned these as retreats per se. You know that scale great. Thank you so much.

[45:01] Sure I I didn't really have a question. I have more comments, so i'll I'll save it for clarifying questions at this point. Okay, then, Laura, your turn. Mine is also a comment. I have a question. I have 2 questions actually, and then we'll go back to clarifying comments. So my first question, I think it's Basically, trying to just pinpoint what Ml. Is getting at Is this going to be a decision making body? Yeah. And and I, I apologize for the vagarity of it. But I I just don't know, because it's again being piloted as a an effort to have a multi disciplinary working group again. I can't envision having a conversation without people providing feedback. But it is not an ultimate Decision-making board. Those are going to be the strict decision making authorities that already exist under code which is planning board and Council.

[46:01] So then, my second question is given: the 18 month. framework, or minimum of 18 month framework. Someone like me, who's only going to be on the board for another 12 months would not be an appropriate person. You want someone who's going to be there over the the right. You don't want someone who's got to switch out next march. I ideally, I would say that's true, but we also need to be realistic in knowing that during that timeframe people may. you know, move, or whatever. And so I. But there you're on planning board. But but then there's this timeframe, and just wanting to make sure that you one of your object that someone who's gonna who can carry the baton through from beginning to end. Okay, that's very helpful. No thanks, thanks for clarifying that. That's a good point. Okay. So let's go back to clarifying comments or questions, George. And then, Laura. So my my clarifying comment is going to be kind of counter to marks, which is

[47:00] this seems wholly different than working as liaison with DAB or liaison with landmarks or something like that. This almost puts 12 boards on equal footing to get solicit some kind of input and listening device. However, planning board is quite a bit different than the majority of the other boards that we're participating in this and that these things are going to come to us either way. I I might recommend that planning Board doesn't get involved with this. that we wait for this board to actually get updated because we're gonna see this either way. because our voices are so different and disparate, and I think important, and the detail is important for for one of us to come in. Listen for 3 h. Give our peers a 5 min. Update only to have this come to the planning board anyways, and represent our peers back. I it just it seems pretty challenging. and considering that this would be coming to planning board where I I don't know if the other 12 boards, how many of those 12 boards would even see these things

[48:05] that that would be something i'd want to be taken into consideration just because I I it's hard for me to really understand how it would function effectively, specifically related to planning board. I yeah, I would say. You know that certainly is the Board's prerogative to not appoint somebody. You know there there is this concept of everybody knowing everything all the time, and whether there is some benefit of having a person be a quote unquote expert about a particular topic, on the understanding that individuals on the board who wouldn't be as engaged on a regular basis wouldn't have that same level, so there'd be that opportunity for information sharing. and a certain level of familiarity that that the rest of the Board wouldn't have when it comes time to the plan approval.

[49:01] But at the same time, of course, as a board, you are asked to vote on things with. You know, relative same amount of information for quasi-judicials. This this is not quasi- judicial right. It's it's legislative in nature and and so that that might be one perspective. But certainly, if the you know the majority of the board does not want to, or nobody wants to volunteer for it. That will be your prerogative. George. You want to do a follow up or no. I mean, you know I in this case the the Board isn't a whole lot different in our role than like a city council, and they're not on this board. so I would. I would put that out there as as something for us to consider that these are These are quite a bit different boards than our board. and we're gonna we're gonna have this run through us one way or the other. So just just a thought I I i'm, i'm open. I i'm not locked into that at all. I I just wanted to put that out there as as a concept for all of us to consider. Thank you.

[50:06] Laura. I think George raises a very interesting point, and and Brad had some very interesting responses to that. I also don't have a firm position. I I've just started thinking about this since. George raised it. The comment that I was going to make, which might or might not be related is that I think this is a very exciting concept. especially pulling in some of these boards that Don't usually get to have a say in in land use matters, you know, like the Human Relations Committee and the Water Resources Advisory Board. I see parts of wreck is on here as well as open space. You know that the this area Boulder Junction is pretty different from a lot of boulder. It's a a a part of boulder that some people find extremely exciting and kind of paving a path of a different kind of living in boulder, and it's a part of boulder that that some people find not very attractive, or it doesn't it doesn't resonate with them. And so I think, having such a wide representation of our different boards and the different things the perspectives that they might bring to. This is is a very exciting prospect, and I think, having those different boards here each other and talk to each other is something that we don't often have an opportunity to do. I do think that planning board's perspective on long range planning matters is unique.

[51:20] and I think this could be a very interesting venue for interchange for Staff to listen in on that dialogue, and weigh the different perspectives of the different boards in the same room. I I think it's very exciting, but I also appreciate the challenges of this as a pilot project. I appreciate staff's, boldness and creativity here, and trying to make this work. I imagine there may be some tweaks to this going forward. I i'm inclined to say, I think this would be exciting for one of us to be involved in, and that the other boards could benefit from hearing planning board's, perspective, and vice versa. But that's that's kind of my initial past at it. I would love to hear what other people think. Lisa, do you want to say anything.

[52:01] Lisa Kirk? Do you want to any comments you want to make. Well, I had some of the same concerns that George just expressed that it seems like Plan Board's role is extremely different than the other awards. I also agree with what Laura was saying, that getting the input and feedback from these other boards and communicating to them other boards that wouldn't normally see this is is great. Speaking personally, since the planning Board has already had some consideration of this. When I wasn't on the board. I think I would not be the most appropriate representative because I wasn't present in those discussions. So I appreciate those comments, and and I guess for me so myself, Mark. And now Kurt has myself selected out, the 3 of us would not be appropriate or eligible.

[53:01] I have, I guess, for me it When I first I heard about this, and read the memo that Nuri is sent out. I guess. My! What i'm challenged by I I I understand what Lisa is saying. I'm not Lisa Laura. Sorry, Laura. that it's an opportunity for individual members of each board to share perspectives or share the the frame of reference that has to be applied through their board. At the same time I always thought that was the role of staff to know what the the staff represents. The staff from each who who staff. Each board knows what it is that they have to evaluate, which is why, when we read like a site review, you have comments from board members, our staff members from transportation and construction and design and open space, and you know parks and wreck, and whatever. So I I i'm. I, too, have a. I realized the pilot. but I, too, have concerns that we're kind of

[54:03] in an effort to to to alleviate some of the work Staff has to do to present to all these boards. We're creating other work for staff and sort of doubling up what they have to do in terms of bringing the perspective of their particular expertise to the board. So I think it's 6 to one half dozen or the other. I realize it's a pilot. It's going to move forward, whether we suggest somebody to join the board or not. I think as long as so. So I guess the if there aren't any other comments, and leave that you have not said anything. Do you have anything you want to add to this? I'm sorry was that directed at me? No, Lisa Lisa, can you hear? I don't think she could so do you have any comments, anything you want to add? Sorry! What, Sarah? Do you have anything you want to add, you, Haven't said anything. Okay, I don't. No. I think everything that's coming up is consistent with kind of the questions that I had to reading through this portion of the packet and thinking about it, and just trying to understand.

[55:12] You know what the goal is of it. So nothing nothing particular to add. Okay. So I guess in order to decide if we want to appoint someone. If someone wants to to be appointed or to choose to do this first we have to sort of answer George's question. Do we think that someone from planning board should be part of this super group? What else is this? A large working group. Is there any way i'll weigh in briefly on that, Sarah? I mean, it seems like if it's moving forward. If there's someone who's willing to put in the time toward it that it would be good to be present, even if we're not entirely sure what it's gonna be so, unless unless nobody and and this is fair to you. But unless nobody really wants to put time toward it, I think it'd be nice to have a presence. So I think that depends on If If anyone wants to volunteer.

[56:01] or is there anyone who feels strongly again, start participating? All right. I'm not seeing any thumbs up. Okay. So now it's who who has the time and the inclination and the interest to do this for the next 18 months. Can Can I make a suggestion, Sarah. I think we're also gonna talk about all the other liaison assignments, and my answers to that question would probably depend upon whether I have the airport and some other assignments. or if there's been enough room for me to do both, or, you know, like I, I need to know what my other assignments are. Before I could answer that question, so does it make sense to roll this into looking at our other assignments? That's fair enough, I I, Laura, I hope you won't. Take what i'm about to say personally, but the airport liaison role you're playing is very important, and it's a very big Development Land Use Development Project. and I think it would only be fair to ask someone else who is not already part of a very large scale project to be the representative

[57:01] on this working group. just so that everybody gets the opportunity to kind of dig in deep and chew on these kind of deep processes, and I absolutely agree. I would totally step back if somebody else wants to step forward. Okay. So I think it's fine for us to try to figure this out in the in the context of the other board assignments. But this does seem this one is a lot of time and something new, and I I to me it's a priority given that it's a priority for the city manager and for the planning staff. So I personally think it's just. It's just my personal feeling that we should make this decision and then go to the other. But let's let that drive. Everyone else's assignments to choices. But, Mark, you had your hand up. Did you want to offer up an alternative? No, okay.

[58:07] Okay. So if Sara, Mark and Kurt are not or self-select out from being eligible, Laura is going to set itself aside, for now it's Ml. Lisa or George. Do any of the 3 of you have a particular interest in doing this. and also No. So, George, are you a yes, or are you also a. No. I i'm I You know I kind of my position is kind of this. I I I think this is coming to planning board, anyways, and I I got. I got plenty on my plate, so no, not not particularly okay. Well, that then leaves Laura or Kurt and Kurt. Do you want to UN on? Separate yourself or on? I'm: i'm not sure what the word is, i'm looking for. Yeah, I mean, I do think that it would be important to have someone

[59:03] representing. And so if if it's down to me, I guess. and Laura again. It's not. I'm not trying to. It's just it Doesn't. Are you? Okay with someone i'm with you 100%, Sarah. I understand your logic, and I support it. I think Kurt would be an amazing representative, and I I don't think it's that important kurt that you weren't at the previous meeting. I think you can read the notes and talk to us if you have questions, and I think that our our input was pretty straightforward. All right. Congratulations, Kurt: You have a new assignment for the next 18 months. Okay? Well, thank you for that thoughtful discussion and and feedback. I appreciate all that. Okay. So, Brad Don't go anywhere, because now we have to do the other liaison assignments, and we are not sure if we have the full list. We're using the list that Mark sent around a few weeks ago. Let me just read through the boards that we think we maybe also get that up. If there's a way to get the list of yeah, we are. We are just discussing that right now. So do you have that availability?

[60:11] I think Devin is going to screen share with us. Yes, absolutely. I can get that pulled out. And here, as as we wait for that, I think not to put you on the spot. How many Helen might have more history with this than I I know. I certainly do so to the degree. We have questions i'll ask her to help way into. Yeah. And I I was just looking at the code there a couple of position that the board has to appoint based on the code it's a member that's appointed to happen a member that's appointed to the landmark sport as non-voting members to those boards and then light of that I, I would recommend that you make appointments

[61:05] with emotion. and to make it efficient, you might want to figure out all of your appointments, and then do one motion to approve it all. and have any of these wrapped? Are these all still ongoing? The working group is over. I don't even know what the Code Amendment group is what is the Code Amendment group? I think it's Carl's fault is Carl here, Carl. right? Well, that's the use table liaison. No, there's there is a separate use table liaison. Yeah, I see it now. So just to make think to take one thing off the table, I think it makes sense for Ml. And myself to continue in the use table process, because it'll wrap up in the next year, and it doesn't require anybody getting up to speed.

[62:00] If that's okay with folks. Okay. So that solves that problem. And I agree with Sarah. The East Folder working group has concluded, and that line can be deleted. We don't need anybody there. and Carl start sorry to call you out, but whenever Carl might step back in. If you are away, Karl, if you wouldn't mind speaking to the code amendment group at some point, just to remind us so that I I don't think we've actually technically met, which is fine, but I just want to make sure we understand the scope of that, and where it's at. I I remember talking about a code amendment group, I mean, I think probably several years ago. I think it was mostly just a have some contact with the planning board to let them know what was coming down the pike. I don't know that we've necessarily seen a need to meet since we've been meeting with the planning board on a number of occasions. We just strike that then as a as a group, or do you feel that it's something we need to keep as an appointment, or

[63:00] maybe when, maybe if we discover we need it. We can make an appointment totally, or I mean I i'm happy to stay on there. But you're probably gonna want to also assign me to something else. You know. Yeah. What about Greenways Committee? Does that still have? Does that still exist? Not to my, not to my I heard I was going to get to go to a once a year party, and it never happened in the 2223 april to April period. Did George? Did you not go to a a Greenways meeting? Yeah, that's that's too bad. I I was the Greenways Advisory Greenways liaison from Tab for 2 years, and we met both years, one meeting a year.

[64:01] and I was both glad to be part of that, because I think it's important and disappointed in that. We only met once a year, and it was a drift without really a distinct staff liaison. And anyway, so I I wouldn't I. I would suggest that we not cross that off our list. That, in fact, the last meeting I attended, which was the prior year. there was discussion about having greater staff involvement, and Joe Katyuchi kind of was said, I'm gonna. This is important. I'm gonna take this up, and you know, I guess other things gotten away. But anyway, I would recommend that we not that we appoint people and not remove that from our list. I that's I think that's fine, but I maybe Staff can tell us if it even still exists.

[65:01] Let's start there. I I am fret, fortunately do not know for sure we can find out. I would, unless other staff does know I would recommend appointing a person, and we can follow up. It's in the code. I mean it's it's like we we didn't remove it from the code I i'd be. I'd be happy to stay on just because i'd like to. I'd like to participate at some point. Me, too. I'd be delighted to stay on there, and I know code amendment. It's not group working, but i'd be happy to stand that in case it gets reactivated. I'll also offer just speaking for myself individually, that I've already served on both landworks and Housing Advisory Board. and so it's sort of maybe recommend those for some of our new members who Haven't had the opportunity. But I have also served on both, and I know Laura just served on landmarks. Let's Let's do this. Okay. So we have the use table folks. We have green ways. Now let's just go from the top to the bottom landmarks. Okay. So, Sarah, i'm sorry I'm. I'm being really anxious here. Can we start editing like, Can we delete East Boulder working group and put the I'm writing things down. And then, oh, okay, that's okay.

[66:13] So we're not. We're not doing it on the screen. We can. We can do it on the screen. We can try to do that devin. Do you have the ability to edit this document. No, that's a screenshot. Okay, that explains why it's not happening. Okay, I'll try to release my anxiety. Devin, please Don't: feel like you have to. But but if if it's possible to add, it could just be like a line, and not even essay in the table. But if you have the opportunity to kind of take notes as we move through these within this doc that that'd be nice. But don't, you know don't make yourself too crazy. Oh, no, absolutely. I'm gonna I have. I'm making notes as well, and i'm gonna send out a revised table for everyone. Once this is finished

[67:03] all right. So landmarks board. Currently. It's Laura and Ml. Emma. I've served on it. Lisa served on it, too, and Georgia served on it. So Ml: do you want to move up and be the primary, or is Ml. I've lost her. I can't see you Here I am. I'm. I'm desiring to be on Design Advisory Board. Okay. that makes it easy. Okay, so that means so. That's Ml. Is going to be the primary for Design Advisory Board just to finish DAB. Is there someone who would like to be the second on that I i'd like to be if but i'm i'm open to someone else taking it to I haven't been involved in it yet. I'm just gonna write your name down, for now we'll go through, and then we'll see. Let's go back to landmarks who would like who Hasn't served on landmarks.

[68:03] I'm raising my hand to acknowledge I haven't served on landmarks. I I I might want to be the back up. But i'm actually holding out for to be the primary on housing. But anyway it to answer your question, I have not served on landmarks. Okay, and Kurt Hasn't served on landmarks. So before we move. So, Kurt, do you have a Laura? Do you have a preference for what you would like to serve on. And, Kurt, do you have a preference for what you would like to serve on? Well, I I think that you know Kurt just took Boulder Junction, and I've got the airport, and both of those will be pretty busy. So you know, Landmarks, I think, is extremely interesting. It only meets once a month. It is usually a long meeting once a month, but you don't have to really do any prep. The staff do a really good job of walking you through so that you can understand the decision that they're making in the criteria that they're using. I do think it is relevant for planning board members to understand how landmarks works. But Kurt didn't you serve on landmarks board in the past.

[69:05] so Kurt is very familiar with the process, and and how it works I I I would prefer to move on to something else, just for my own learning. If I If I were going to pick one, I probably would pick housing, but I don't feel super strongly about that. I i'm not going to farm or so. Anybody for it. What would would would you be willing to be a second to mark Absolutely. Yeah. So I'm: I'm. Just writing this down. These are not commitments yet. I'm just writing this down. So really all that leaves is landmarks and see who does that? Lisa Doesn't have a lead. But you've already done landmarks. I've done my marks. I'd be fine if we need me to go somewhere else, so I could certainly service back up. I just prefer not to be primary, since I've already done it. But if you need me to fill in back up on the marks, there certainly can. Okay. So current, are you at all willing to do the lead on landmarks.

[70:02] Yeah, I was sort of hoping to be back up on my marks given. Maybe you guys could switch off. and that way nobody has to go to 12 marks marks. We don't want to orphan the landmarks for so if it if it works out for everyone, i'm happy to take the lead on landmarks and let housing go. Okay. So then. if that's the case, then, Laura, would you want to be lead on housing and current your backup on housing? I was going to be back up on landmarks with my understanding. All right, let me do put you there. Hold on! This is this is a bit like 3 dimensional Ch: You're doing great. Yeah, Thank you so much.

[71:01] Is there somebody else who doesn't have a primary assignment? Because I do have the airport working group, which is pretty active. Let me tell you what I have at this point. This table is Sara and Ml. Greenways is George and Lisa DAB is Ml. And George Landmarks is Mark and Kurt, and then have is to be named, and a a a free agent to be named later. And Laura. So what we don't have is a lead for, have. Well, I I thought Laura wanted to be the lead on I I could be either. But if there's somebody else who doesn't have a primary assignment, and would like to be the lead on. Hab! I'm happy to step back there. Are you not going to take a lead. Are we thinking that uses the I mean? We both do the same thing on you? But I've already done land landmarks.

[72:01] and I think I have my hands full with this role. So, Laura, do you want to be? Lead on, have? And then, Mark, we will you back up on half this year I was back up on Ha! But John and I do to travel. I ended up attending several. Well, why don't we? Why don't we make you all right. I'm gonna i'm gonna suggest something which is which is that? Mark the lead on. Have Laura be back up, and that kurt the lead on landmarks and mark the backup. and then we've got it covered. And I know, Kurt, You've already been on landmark, so it's not exciting and new. But is that okay with you? Well. if you're I was actually thinking

[73:01] that even though it wasn't my initial thing, I would take the lead on landmarks with Kurt being my backup, since he had just taken on this other role. Laura, who has a strong interest. take the lead on housing with Kurt. Oh, oh, i'm sorry I just anyway. What with someone has her back up and that way that would solve it. Who Lisa does? Lisa have a I don't, but I've served as lead, I think, before, on both landmarks and housing. and I've also yeah, so it it's. I can take a lead. But i'm also serving as vice chair, so I i'm not. Particularly would you, Lisa? Would you take the back up on how? What about I? I hate to volunteer, George. George, do you have any interest in? Have you served on it before? Would you? I could I could be. I was yeah, I could be. I could be back up on. Have That's fine.

[74:06] You're so engaged, Laura, You're all you're going to do it, anyway. So i'll be knowing that, knowing that you're the back of that I would feel more free to miss a meeting. Devin. Let's see if we have the same thing, Sarah and and all for use. Table. George and Lisa for Greenways, Ml. And George for DAB, and then I Yeah, I'd I'd Here's what i'd like to do. Then I'd like to drop off being the backup, for i'm sure someone will will Happy do that, and maybe put my hand in the ring to be the lead on DAB next year rather than that. So let's just do this. Let's for right now, Ml. For DAB. We will figure out the backup at a later date, so we can actually get to the real work of the meeting tonight. Tab will be Laura, and George. and landmarks will be Mark and Kurt and I don't mind being back up on DAB having that if if Ml. Can't attend.

[75:02] that's that's fine, I can. I'd be glad to attend. Sarah is going to say that I can also be back up on the Okay. Sarah and Ml. For use table, George and Lisa for Greenways, Ml. And Mark for DAB, Laura and George for have Mark and Kurt for landmarks. Okay, so that's what Devin has. So now we just need to wait for Devin to put that up on the screen so that someone can make a motion, and then can you send it to him in an email? Maybe, Sarah. unless Devin do you already have it written down. I I do not have it typed out, but I will do that right now. Okay, wait. And and I would submit that we we don't have to have it in front of you for you to both you you just listed so I would like to make a motion on what I just verbally stated in terms of appointments.

[76:03] Sure the motion would be. Can we go ahead and make it approve? The appointments that we all just discussed? Is this 1 one a second. Laura Yay, Rene. George. Yes. Kurt. Yes. Ml: Yes, Lisa. Yes, Mark. Sarah is a Yes. and with that I will, Devin. I will email you my notes. and we have accomplished first 2 of our 4 items. I'd like to make a suggestion that we take a quick 5 min break. I'm back, and we will start to dig into occupancy and zoning zoning changes for affordable. Okay, we'll be back in at 721.

[81:24] Carl, Are you in your office. I am. Yes. one of the offices. We don't really have offices anymore. We just kind of hop around hoteling. Is that like a Paul, a city policy now, or just yeah, I mean, there's no assigned offices anymore. So you just sign out rooms. Come in so to you. Is that to find that efficient. It's it's okay. I mean, there's certain days when a lot of people come in. So then it's like hard to find a room.

[82:06] I mean. We have, you know, 3 floors in the building, but so we all can't necessarily be in the same place if we all come in but overall it seems to work. We have kind of more open meeting spaces, too, which we didn't have before. you know. There's pros and cons but overall pretty good. Which building are you in? Are you in the one next? The mustard's last stand. We are what is it called? Muster's last stand actually predated. Park Central. There's like like old pictures here where you can see mustards and no park. Central. I read somewhere. That was somebody's home as well as Oh, yeah, I I've heard that, too. Oh, I know I know somebody. We're talking about the hospital site. and somebody was explaining

[83:03] the history of Park Central. and apparently a bunch of buildings that were built in the flood plane back in the sixties seventies. I think I just saw that musters extended their lease, which is exciting. I need to give them a visit. I have to say I've actually never been to Mustard's last. They have the best tempe burger in town. So if you know, if you have vegetarian friends that want to have a temp and good old-fashioned tempe a burger mustard. I'm also a really good tofu dog do that, or they used to. Yeah. you wouldn't think that mustard would be like a primo place for vegetarians. But you would be wrong. Hmm. I have to say i'm old school Chicago style hot dogs. What is Chicago sale is that like mustard and onions, or something? Well, so it's kosher hot dogs on a bun with poppy seed. Now with them. Yeah, poppy seeds of the black ones. Right poppy sounds.

[84:06] and on yet mustard onions, pickles. or peppers and ketchup it's kind of what mustard's exercised itself as the Chicago style dog. I think they have a Sunday saying that you cannot have ketchup on a hot dog, so that's all. I'm sorry you're right, Mark. There's power crowd as well. I know I forgot the sour crew. Okay, so George will come back. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. We're just missing George Carl, before you start. Just so, you know you're not in presentation mode you're in. We we can see all the menus and everything.

[85:01] And there I I up the voting rules. and do you have the general or 1987, and they allow voting by voice raising of hands or roll call. But during the virtual meetings, when you're reviewing an application under title 9, it requires a roll call. Okay, good to know all right. If I don't remember that from meeting to meeting, please Don't take offense. I may ask again. No problem. Okay. all right. So it is 724 according to my phone. So we're gonna start up again, and we are now doing the the matters which is update and request for feedback on 2 work program priorities. One is occupancy reform, and the other is zoning for a for a housing that Carl is gonna walk us through both and stop at certain points for questions, comments.

[86:01] feedback. and we have scheduled 90 min for this. If we need to go over, we can. But since this is primarily feedback. We don't have to debate amongst ourselves about what to do or how to vote, or anything like that. So, Carl, take it away. Alright. Thank you, Sarah. Good evening Board members like Sarah, said. I'm going to talk about 2 of our planning and development services work program priorities from City Council. So that's occupancy, reform, and zoning for affordable housing. This is, in addition to the a project which you you're already familiar with, and you've already made a recommendation on that ordinance. So these are the 2 other housing related land use code changes that we're working on that was asked of us from council at their retreat in 2022, not to mention that there's also changes happening with the inclusionary housing regulations and program being done by housing and human services. But the AD. You and these 2 land use code changes are the housing related ones that P. And Ds is is managing so

[87:11] obviously there's a lot to get through tonight, so i'm gonna try to walk you through this. The best I can. The purpose of tonight is really just to bring planning board up to speed on these 2 particular projects, and then to get feedback on where we're headed, based on discussions we've had with City Council on this already. So just the basic structure of the presentation tonight. I'm just gonna start with just a basic background on how the project started occupancy and zoning for affordable housing. And I know I usually end on schedule and next steps. I'm gonna move into the schedule on next steps first, just to give you a lay of the land as far as the timeline we're on. It's a fairly a quick timeline, so we're trying to keep.

[88:03] We we're not seeing the slides advance. It looks like it's locked up in presentation. Okay, so we're still on the title slide. Let me stop sharing sure again. It it was advancing for me. So thank you, Brad, I was gonna say the same thing. Can you see this? I? Yes. okay. We we see your notes and the next slide also, so it's still not in presentation mode that I love. Zoom. Okay. do we, though? Do we have to love it? I think we just have to love each other

[89:02] and put up with Zoom. Interesting? Yeah, For some reason it's not. Do you see it? Now we see the title slide and we see your slide deck in the left hand toolbar. Yeah, it's like it's totally working for me. Strange for me. this something that someone else can help you with while you're presenting. Yeah, i'm hitting to start the slide show, and it's I do you see the title slide now? No, we see purpose. This is correct. Now we see the title. Carl. I'm. Trying to open it. Do you want me to try for sure? And you can just see next slide if you want.

[90:03] Okay. it's consistently. So me to you, Carl Zoom is very unjust. How is that you got it? See the title slide? All right. You want me to move forward. I don't know what I've never had that issue before. We blame Zoom. We do not mean you. Thank you. So you can see like parts one through 5. There's a lot to cover, so i'll i'll start over really quick. So i'm going to start with the background of the 2 projects, and then i'm going to go to the schedule and next steps. Just so you understand the schedule we're on. and then i'm going to pause on the part 3, which is State legislation on land use. I know that's

[91:03] kind of an elephant in the room at the moment, because it's a relatively new thing that came along since we started these 2 projects. So just to talk about that, and then i'll move into part 4 and part 5. So part 4 is gonna really cover occupancy. So i'm gonna talk a bit about the history of occupancy and boulder What our current standards are, what other communities are doing. And then we're gonna pause Just that for just basic questions at that point on the regulations or other communities. And then i'm gonna move into community engagement. talk about the options, the potential options that we talked to council about, and what Council's direction was. And then we'll we'll end that section with planning board, feedback on occupancy. And then, similarly, we'll move into zoning for affordable housing. After that discussion i'll I'll talk about what we mean as affordable housing for this particular presentation. I'm going to talk about how residential density is calculated in boulder.

[92:03] And then again, we'll pause for questions because it is complex. and then i'll talk about community engagement again the potential options that we presented to council the direction we got from Council on. We'll conclude on feedback from the board on that project. So next slide, please. Thank you. So starting with occupancy reform. This is the retreat direction we got from this Council on in 2022. It was basically to perform a comparative analysis from other communities, develop a model occupancy, approach and say community input for ordinance revision. So from that we've also come up with these goals of the project. So you've probably read them in the in the memo. But in general, like we're trying to look at simple land use code amendments that can provide greater housing opportunities in the community while preserving neighborhood character in established neighborhoods, and that changes with the community. So again, both these projects are growing out of the housing crisis

[93:15] that boulder and a lot of the nation is experiencing right now. Next slide, please. So just to give a heads up of of the kind of questions we're gonna ask the board tonight. I'm gonna go through the first part and then the first 2 questions: Are Are there any questions on the city's occupancy regulations, and then does Planning Board Have any questions related to the the general project. and then i'll. I'll go on a little bit further, and then the third question will be asked about what's the feedback the board might have about the options that Council wants us to do further analysis on. So next slide, please moving on to zoning for affordable housing slightly different projects. It's basically evaluating the land use code with the intent of removing zoning barriers to more affordable units and smaller modest sized units. This is also brought up at the 2022 retreat

[94:12] again, looking at areas that might make sense to try to change the zoning, to encourage more small units, and with that getting more deep restricted affordable units, and i'll go into more details about that. But there's been a lot of materials things online related to zoning where there are simple changes in the zoning code that could actually get more housing and get more affordable housing in the communities, and related to density, calculations, or parking, or things like that. So we've been doing some research, and i'll present those tonight. So and the next slide shows the same relative questions. First, we'll start with the questions one and 2 like, Are there any questions about how the city regulates residential density, anything, any questions about the general project? And then i'll talk a bit more about the options and the feedback, and then we'll ask for feedback from the

[95:07] planning board on what we've heard from Council. Next slide, please. So as far as this schedule we've been moving forward with a community engagement Over the last few weeks since we've had study sessions with City council on these topics. We've been reaching out to a number of different stakeholders throughout the community we're developing a a be heard. Boulder questionnaire that relates to both projects for the public watching out there. We're hoping to get that up in the next couple of weeks. That's just gonna have some questions. And the ways of getting feedback to the city. So that's it be her boulder.org, we're gonna be putting that in the newsletter. And i'll be email pulling that out to anyone who's like contacted us on these projects. You can see that the the goal is to try to complete occupancy. Reform by August, bringing an ordinance to council and completing zoning for affordable housing in September, so that means a planning board will likely be seeing an ordinance and making a recommendation on occupancy reform in July.

[96:10] and then the zoning for affordable housing in August. We we are gonna be trying to get feedback over the next few weeks, do some more analysis on the options, and then convey planning, board and housing, Advisory Board and Community feedback to Council on June fifteenth. So that's the general schedule that we have at this point next slide. So before we move forward I I wanted to talk about what's been going on at the State level. Originally we weren't thinking that we would have to spend too much time on this. But it's been kind of developing over time. So you might be aware of proposition 123 that passed in November of last year, Statewide. They basically created the State affordable housing funds similar to how. So you know, Boulder has an affordable housing program just for boulder, and it does dedicate state income tax revenue roughly 290 milliondollars a year to fund housing programs in a variety of different ways

[97:10] throughout the State. And that's you'll remember that the the Governor brought up housing as a as a major issue at the State of the State earlier this year, and then, just a couple of weeks ago a a draft of a new Colorado Senate bill 23 d, 2 1 3, was unveiled that relates to land use statewide. So it would basically be something similar to what has been seen in West Coast States like California, Oregon, and Washington, where, if past. it would be a bill that would require some local communities to it would impact zoning regulations basically at the local level. So what's proposed right now is a prohibition on occupancy limits entirely an allowance of a to use on any lots that permit

[98:03] single-family homes without any discretionary criteria. and also allowing up to what they call middle housing, or what we we've been calling missing middle housing up to Quadplexes by right in single family neighborhoods. So these are pretty pretty bold changes at the State level. So it's something that we're we're monitoring. We don't know exactly where it's going to land. We did do know that the Senate started deliberation about this today, or it might have been the House of Representatives. So it's possible that this could be acted on in the next few days to 2 weeks going into May. So we are monitoring this. I think our our goal at this point is to still move forward on these particular co-change projects, as we were and try to still get feedback on this, but understanding that while we might be down the road of making these changes, we will probably have to make if this passes more land use code changes down the road to be consistent with whatever passes. The the latest bill basically says that cities have till June 2025

[99:14] to update their land, use codes to comply with whatever passes, and if they don't comply, they actually will have a model code that they're gonna bring through a public process, and if the cities don't update their codes, that model code from the State would then apply in the jurisdiction. So that's kind of where we are right now. So I thought we should stop here and happy to answer questions. I can't say i'm totally an expert on it, but I've been in some meetings and reading through the legislation, and we're happy to help out with this part before we move forward. Kurt if I recall correctly, prop 123 included some requirements also in order for local jurisdictions to receive the

[100:00] the the money the prop 123 money. Do you know first of all. Is that right? And if so, do you know the status of the rule making on that? I'm not familiar with with all those details related to proposition 123. I don't know if anyone from if Sloan from housing is aware of that or Brad. Oh, I i'm happy to let slow and go first. I I can report about the rule making, but so you might be more familiar. So some of the rule making has been done, probably Kurt. What you're referring to is the an expedited review process. Is that what you're referring to? There's also some other standards you have to meet in terms of the expedited review process that has been. It's not a requirement until the next session or the next compliance period.

[101:05] so as part of this. But you know, the next 3 years we're going into that won't be a requirement, but it would be for the following one. and then I, in terms of the other the other measures that were required. We've determined, we think builders probably already in compliance with that, so it won't be as big of a change. Okay, so it doesn't really interact at this point, at least with this current effort. Not proposition. 1 2 3, the only way. It would interact not so much with occupancy. But in terms of the zoning for affordable housing changes, we will need to meet that 3% goal. If we decide to opt into the program which we are planning to do so. any opportunities for us to increase housing and thereby increase affordable housing. As part of the inclusionary housing program would help us to meet that 3% goal.

[102:08] So it's not directly related, but it it does help us meet the intended proposition. 1 2 3. Okay, Thank you. that's great. So we move on. Let's kick Carl. I mean Kurt Karl. Any case. Carl. Let's go forward ready to to move forward. And so No. Any any questions on the latest Senate Bill. Okay, Next slide, please. the next slide. Thanks. So i'm just going to jump into the history of occupancy and boulder going back in time before 1950. The zoning ordinance that we had at the time did basically just state that every single family home would be, would just be limited to a family

[103:11] during the 1950 S. It was updated to be a family or 5 unrelated persons. and then in 1,962. It was amended to be family, or 3 unrelated persons. 1,971. It was basically the same, but they they added the provision where we were within a single family home, you could have 2 additional rumors, which is what's in our code today. In the 1970 S. There were a number of rezonings that took place. particularly around, like the downtown area, so like on University Hill, Gosh Grove, Whittier areas were originally a high density zoning district that permitted apartments and a number of attached housing products, and it was a lot of them were rezoned to to more. Only allow a new single family. So it did change

[104:10] the occupancy in those areas. So we have even today a lot of non conforming occupancies in those areas just by virtue of the fact that more units were permitted in the past. So what was done is during the 19 eighties we actually have zoning inspectors going to all these units and and cataloging, how many non-conforming occupants were in each of these units and we still consult these records today to determine what the allowable occupancy is in in these particular areas in 1993, the council of that time actually eliminated that practice and changed the code, so that all the units would have to meet the new occupancy standards which, as you can imagine, got a lot of push back from landlords, you know, where they all of a sudden had, you know, empty units that they couldn't

[105:00] rent out, and I think over the course of the next few years. That push back led another council in 1998 to reverse that. So we've gone back to that practice of using the records for each of the properties that have non conforming occupancy, so no other changes for a while, until about 2,017, When the special, when the cooperative housing units were updated, they added a special occupancy regulations for co-ops. And then, when the Edu update was done in 2,018, that was also updated So next slide, please. So just basically the city of Boulder regulates occupancy very similar to a lot of other communities. They do use this, the definition of family, which is pretty common throughout the country, so there's no limit on the number of family members that can be within a unit. It's where you get into like number of unrelated where the occupancy rules really kick in. So this is a brief part of of our section of the code. So it's basically members of a family plus up to 2 additional rumors like I talked about before.

[106:11] And there's basically 2 just 2 different districts in the city. There's the lower density. Residential areas like the the single family neighborhoods, the Rl. Zones, R. E. R. R. As well as public and agricultural, that allow up to 3 unrelated persons per unit. and then all other zone districts that are outside of those areas allow up to 4 unrelated persons per unit. And then we also have the fourth provision, which is 2 persons in any of their children by blood marriage guardianship. including foster during or adoption. And then we have, we do have special allowances for like group living uses, which are typically allow, you know, 6 to 8 occupants, which is pretty again common across the nation for more institutional

[107:02] uses the co-ops is like 12 to 15 occupants if they get their approval through a licensing 80 user pretty much the same occupancy limit for a single family house. The only difference is that it allows. The 2 additional rumors basically can have a dependence with them. So it's a little bit more flexible. Next slide, please. So the next slide just shows a map of where you can see the the orange is the most common limit throughout the city, based on the single family zoning districts. So that's where you can see Most of the city is actually limited to 3 per unrelated persons or unit. The green areas are the other zones that are generally more high intensity or commercial zones that allow a for unrelated per unit. So next slide, please. As far as a recent local development, I think you all are aware of. The bedrooms are for people ballot measures. So this was, I think it was 2021

[108:06] where there was a a referendum or ballot measure to change our occupancy regulations to be basically the number of bedrooms plus one. And there was also a new definition of bedroom added in that proposal It was a close vote, but it didn't pass. It was a 52 against a 40 eight-four. There were some surveys that were done in the community that showed that there was still a lot of community interest in changing the occupancy regulation. So I think this is what prompted Council to ask us to to look at maybe some other solutions that were different from the bedrooms or people. A ballot measure, in order to add some more flexibility with occupancy to, you know, attain more housing opportunities in the community. So we did discuss this with Council at a study session in November of last year. Council expressed that this particular project was one of their highest

[109:03] priority items. They did want it to be passed as quickly as possible. That we we've proposed to completed in quarter 3. They've asked us to do it faster if possible. Obviously this is well before, like the State legislation, so we do have to kind of sit back and see what that does, but they've asked us to to do an engagement level of consult. We have been reaching out to a number of different stakeholders that at our last check in with council, they did ask us to kind of broaden the scope of how many folks were speaking to, so we're setting up meetings to talk to a a wide range of folks in the community on this topic. Next slide, please. I'm gonna go over other committees very briefly. If you're really interested, I I encourage you to go into the links to the Council study session memos where we have attachments that go into a lot of detail about the communities we looked at, but we looked at 60 different communities throughout the United States. We looked at all their family definitions. We looked at their occupancy, limits, and single family zones. We looked at their occupancy limits. Outside of those zones.

[110:10] We looked at a number of the different ways that they regulate occupancy, I'd say, for the most part there. Most of them are similar in terms of how they do it. The numbers of unrelated that they allow. There's there's a range, and we have some tables in the present in in the packet that show that boulder kind of falls somewhere kind of in the middle. You know we there are communities. Maybe 50% of communities have allow more, but there's a fair amount that that allow less. but they they go about it in some different ways. They have different different definitions of or variations of co-ops, functional fan families, things like that so if you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at that of those materials like I said, California, Oregon, and Washington actually a State legislation that makes occupancy prohibited in local zoning. So those States now do not have occupancy limitations. So those cities don't have them. Minneapolis has recently elected to eliminate their occupancy.

[111:15] Regulations. Some Some have reduced occupancy limits around their university. I know we heard some of the public comments talking about that. So an example is Austin, Texas, or College Station, Texas. Some have increased occupancy allowances around the University. So Charlottesville, Virginia, and Tuscaloosa, Alabama. We also looked at Madison wisconsin which was interesting because it was basically it's a free, unrelated limit throughout the city. But single family areas were limited to 2 unrelated, but you could go up to 3 unrelated if the unit was on your own or occupied. But while we were looking at that, we found out that they were actually in the process of changing their occupancy regulations, so they've actually, like Denver, have changed their requirement to be 5 unrelated citywide, so that's

[112:10] fairly recent. We did talk to the the planner who worked on that, and that's a pretty recent change. So next slide, please. I think we' to the first question. So any questions about the city occupancy regulations or anything relative to the overall project mark at an Ml. Carl: thanks for that. So currently, our occupancy limits are enforced only on a complaint basis. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, that's my only question. Thanks. Elaborate on that real quickly. Yeah, that was initially instituted in. And as I understand it, and as a response to Covid.

[113:01] and more recently it's been continued due to staffing limitations. But we do anticipate that changing in the next year. Okay, great. I I i'm sorry, Brett. So during Covid we only enforced it on a complaint basis. But going forward we would revert back to some other method of enforcement. Can Could you describe that so occupancy enforcement is notoriously difficult, as I explain to people it's still often because of a complaint. In other words. a neighbor is concerned about the number of vehicles or activity level of intensity views. The inspector goes, investigates, knocks on the door, says, how many folks do you have? We invariably have to take them at their word at some level. But then do enforcement based on that. Sometimes it also could be the result of known advertising and those types of things as well. We, you know we may discover it through those means that we do

[114:10] have some level of active awareness of what's being advertised for, you know, rental in the case of rentals. The opposite, of course, is not acceptable, which is. you know, somehow doing sweeps of houses and and going room by room to count number of people, so that obviously is impractical. So most jurisdictions acknowledged that the Enforcement is going to be a a challenge. But, like other laws. Most people choose to follow the law, and I obviously like you walking just because it's not something that you necessarily have locks, you know rock solid ways of doing enforcement. It still is an important tool

[115:02] for heavy and in the legal tool boxes of work. Great. Thank you. No. thank you, Sarah. So I have on on number one, I just a clarification. So we limit occupancy based on the dwelling unit itself and zoning. regardless of the size or number of bedrooms. Is that correct? That's correct? And second question there. Given the research that you looked at. and the various jurisdictions where there are no occupancy limits. Was there any data on the impacts

[116:00] of not having any occupancy limits like foreign actors and that sort of thing? Some of them are relatively new. So we haven't been seeing too much data on that. I have spoken with a number of different planners in areas where they've removed occupancy. They just had anecdotal comments that there Hasn't necessarily been an increase in impacts that they're They've mostly just been focusing on enforcement of of any kind of issues. What whether it's related to a a number of occupants or or not. they just focus on what those externalities are like. If it's parking in the wrong place or a couch in the front yard, or you know things like that that may not, may or may not be attributed to occupancy. But we've not seen anything at this point that speaks to an increase in impacts. I I mean. how old are the the ones that have who's had him in the longest?

[117:01] This? Is it, California? One of the ones that have had them in the longest and isn't that a number of years. Yeah, I I think I I did talk to some folks in California. I'm. I'm. I'm. Reaching out to a number of of different folks on this topic. I don't have a good answer. Is, I know Minneapolis was has changed it relatively recently. Right? Yeah. So I guess that's my main question. In so far as the project itself is. Are there any implications to remove the occupancy? I know we're talking about increasing it, but the State is talking about removing it. And you know, are there any real issues that come as a result of taking that action. And it sounds like you, Don't, have any information on places that have done? That is that correct removes the occupancy limits Doesn't mean that all the units instantaneous instantaneously have all of a sudden more people in them. So I think it's gonna take some time

[118:04] to really understand what those implications are. I think some of the research that's been done in other communities like Denver is that, you know. despite increases in occupancy or or allowances for removing the limits. You know the averages for the number of people and units has stayed relatively the same in the data they've seen. I mean, that could change over time. Obviously. okay. Thank you, Carl, for that. Okay. So I think it was George and Laura. Then Lisa. Yeah, my mind should be up pretty quick, because there's a follow on to Ml's question about data. But I I I saw her question also asking about when you talk about impacts. Were there any impacts to affordability one way or the other? Do we have data on that is implied in a lot of this presentation is that there's something there. But if do we have any actual information?

[119:03] I I don't have any data at this point. Yeah. thanks. Laura. Then, Lisa. I think Lisa was ahead of me. If you want to go first, Lisa. Sure and I I might break my own rules, but i'll try to be relatively quick, so I guess one of my first questions is kind of, and some of this might be some of the State legislation that's coming down the pipeline. But one thing I would wonder about is like the freedom of landlords to like, decide. You know who they want to rent to. I guess they could still choose to rent to like a family or 2 group of students, you know, on the hill. You might prefer to rent to the students, because that's who wants to live there? And is it going to be bad about noise? And we'll pay more in rent, and you know, so on. So I I just that's one of the things I think about, you know is is what kinds of legal decision making, depending on on what we do as a city, and also what comes, what the law that exists. And also it comes from the State. You know, as far as

[120:01] people who own property, deciding that they'd like to rent to without discriminating. And then also, as as I recall, playing school, a lot of these occupancy laws came about specifically in cities and towns with universities. and that was what drove a lot of this, although there were also racial and other reasons by this came about. And so that's just something that I know. We're not drawing back into the phone. I think it's March Ninth, memo, or like all the details around that. But that's just something, I think about it. You know we we certainly seen plans come up usually more for apartments or units rather than a house. But you know, if you can cram 10 people in, and i'm not saying that that's what they're trying to lift to do. They're trying to do it for 5. I I just wonder about how that impacts certain parts of the city, you know, ways that it might not impact others, you know. Yes, okay, that's still a legal, or, you know, would be against regulation to have that many people in. But is it, then, that much easier to put more people in? Because now you can have up to this number, and anyway, I don't want to get to down that rabbit hole, because there are some houses on the hill that like have 2 kitchens and have a higher occupancy. But that's something I worry about specific areas.

[121:06] And then I think just my last question off of kind of what other people have been asking about is just interest my funding and people to like deal with the externalities, because we say what we really care about is cars, you know, being parked in appropriately, or trash, or like whatever you know. How do we enforce those things instead which I am actually pretty amenable to, but like, I just wonder like, is this: is this being coupled with any way to manage potential externalities that arise out of that? Or is it just kind of like. Lift it and see what happens which worries me a little more. So. I don't know that those I think some of that's back in March ninth. But those are the things I think about with this, even though in general I I think anybody who wants to break this rule right now can already do it. So it's a little bit silly to have it on the books. Yeah, I mean, I I think, in our discussions with Enforcement staff. You know there there have been some complaints that

[122:03] come under the title of occupancy, but it's really related to noise, or it might be trash in the front yard parking. You know things like that. So they kind of address those directly. I I think they've noted the challenge in really trying to understand. I've I've heard this from other communities, too. Just It's very difficult for them to really like, know for sure, how many people are actually living in the unit who's just hanging out there for the day. Or you know, things like that. I think a lot of the other communities that I talk to struggled with that, particularly Madison, because that's why they they didn't. They couldn't ask for any legal information that proved that it was own or occupied or occupied to a lot like it was difficult for them to get that legal documentation. So it just became a ongoing challenge. So do you have a follow up? Okay, Laura.

[123:01] I have a couple, but I will just throw in on that last point to say. I remember being a student, as i'm sure most of us do, and i'm sure it is quite difficult to know who's just crashing somewhere, or staying over with a partner or a friend, and who actually lives there. I had a question which was raised by a a comment letter submitted by Plan Boulder, and they pointed out that in Denver, when they raised their occupancy limit. They talked about the definition of a household. and rather than looking at a family they talk about a household is people who live together as a family, or the functional equivalent of a family who share household activities and responsibilities, such as meals, chores, rent, and expenses. and the members. This is, I think, is the most important part of what they were trying to get at. Here the members of the household choose who is part of the household. not a landlord, property manager, or third party, which I think is trying to get at this idea of investors from afar, creating a rooming house rather than a group of people choosing to live together as roommates or as housemates.

[124:01] and I just wanted to know, have Staff looked at that option, and how it's working in Denver. And what do you think of that one? Because I had not heard of that before? I'd be interested in your analysis. I I did read that, and it. It prompted me to to reach out to the the planner who works in Denver, who who actually did the occupancy update. So I I wanted to get clarity on that issue, and he he acknowledged that they put a definition in the land Use code that's called a household. which is kind of similar to what we saw in some other communities that say, functional family like there's other different waste to catalog it where you know it. It adds another layer of you know. if there is the most extreme Enforcement case. they would have to demonstrate to the city that they are indeed a household. But he did acknowledge that there there are some holes in that like it still would be difficult to

[125:03] have them demonstrate whether they've agreed to live with each other or not. but it was something that they felt through the you know, compromises made in the process of updating the code that that should be in there as an extra tool. He said that they, if they have not had to actually take any Enforcement cases with that term into account lately. but it's something that they could fall back on, but again not not with a lot of teeth. Okay, thank you. And then I know that we have talked about this in the past a lot of our commenters tonight. We're asking for an overlay that would exempt certain neighborhoods from the any change in occupancy regulations. Can you just remind us what what is Staff's analysis on that? And why is that not Staff's recommendation? We had included it as an option which will be the next part after these questions more just because, like we're trying to like.

[126:04] you know, keep this as simple as we can. There's an interest in keeping it simple and not having areas being treated differently. But we would have to create, you know, maps or some sort of appendix map that would apply different rules compared to others other areas. It doesn't mean it can't be done. We we we did discuss it with City council. I think there were 3 Council members that were interested in that option, but it wasn't the majority of council. So we haven't been focusing on it, but we have been hearing it obviously from folks in, you know, Martin Acres and Uni Hill and Gospel things like that. So I don't know we're gonna go back to council in June. We'll we'll raise that as feedback. We've been hearing. It's possible that Council could still ask us to develop that. Thank you. Anything else, Laura. Nope, that's it from me.

[127:02] So this follows up on Laura Lisa's question about externalities. I do. Our occupancy regulations have touch on parking at all. They do not. Okay and but didn't Austin reverse its occupancy increase. They it wasn't necessarily reversed. So i'm going off of just a conversation that I had with the Austin Planner about it. What he told me, was that the rules of occupants, the the the higher occupancy that was around the university had been in place for for a long time. Again. I'm going off of what he told me. and that. But during the course of that time there was a lot of duplexes that line the University. I think they called them what was they called super duplexes, or something where it allowed up to 12

[128:02] students in each duplex unit. So you'd have like 12 and one building. So over time it it built up, and it became a problem. And then that's when they you know, they had those zoning areas that had those duplexes, they reduced the occupancy. So it wasn't necessarily, from what I heard from him, that they didn't increase it, and then then suddenly decrease it. It's just that it had grown over time. It had become an issue, and then they they changed it to reduce the occupancy. They kind of had to respond to a situation on the ground around the university. Yeah. Okay. Anyone else have questions or so. Carl, move along. Looks like Carl. Take it away. Okay, next slide, please.

[129:07] on the Sloan. Are you able to advance that? Or okay. Thanks. All right. So i'm gonna talk about community engagement thus far on occupancy. So obviously occupancy has been a community discussion topic for many years in Boulder. We've been trying to get the word out on this latest project through our our newsletter in the city website. Obviously the ballot measure from 2,021 is brought interest back to this topic. We've been reaching out to a number of different groups from neighborhoods to students, to renters all over the city to get their viewpoints. We did hold an outreach event on February 20 s that try to bring some of those key stakeholders together and talk about all the housing related code changes that are going on in the community. So next slide. Please

[130:00] wait, Carl. And what kind of what kind of are you finding people are showing up? Yeah, I mean, we had over 30 attendees at that meeting in February. and we we're going to continue to have virtual. and in-person office hours we we've had a number of different meetings with like the Hill Plan, Boulder University Hill Revitalization group. We're we're going to be meeting with some student groups in the next couple of weeks, so we're just trying to get the word out, and we're again like I mentioned to have the be heard. Boulder questionnaire sent out to a whole bunch of folks. Okay. so as far as those that are speaking in favor of increasing occupancy limits a lot of folks feel that it would, I'll add more affordable housing opportunities for those that are struggling to find housing or struggling to stay in boulder, that the changes would be consistent with the city's housing and racial equity Goals

[131:03] There are some that have been noting that the potential impacts of increased occupancy are not demonstratively more than what what could actually come from just a large family living within a unit, and that if there are any impacts, whether it's a large family or a number of unrelated that those would be directly handled through enforcement. Obviously it would help students be able to live together to deal with the higher rental costs. reduced violations. If if occupancy is kind of removed from the categories of of an issue. and then it would just ultimately, if, by adding the number of units it can address the increasing cost of housing in the community. So next slide, please those that are opposed to changing the occupancy limits, or more cautious of it, indicate that their viewpoint is that increasing housing spline alone will not make a difference at the demand.

[132:05] To live in. Boulder is so high that ha! Adding housing will only add more expensive housing, and that if landlords are allowed to have more occupants within their units, they're just gonna allow more people and charge you the same or more rent, because people are willing to to pay that rent, so that that's a concern. Rather, some find that the city should just really focus more on increasing in blue cash and loo fees, commercial linkage fees, or look at other ways of getting deed restricted and affordable units you like you've heard tonight. There's some that feel that certain neighbors neighborhoods should be exempted out of any changes. and that there are concerns that increasing occupancy limits will increase enforcement burdens on neighbors next slide, please. so as far as the I'm. Not going to go too deep into all these different options that we presented to a council. But these were derived from looking at the other

[133:07] sample communities. Option a was to increase the maximum number of occupants in all zones by one. So in all the areas where it's 3, it could go to 4, and all the areas that are for it could go to 5. Option B was to increase it to 4 or 5 unrelated citywide. only allowing an occupancy increase in single family areas within a owner occupied units like like Madison. options. D and E. Were to only increase occupancy in areas that are not single family zones or not within single family units. Option F. Is the one that relates to any kind of overlays or mapping solutions that would exempt out certain areas from an increase and option. G. Was no change on next slide, please. So when we presented this to to council, most Council members were generally on the same page. There was some diversity and opinion. There was majority support for increasing the occupancy limit per unit to 4 or 5 citywide. I I think a number

[134:15] of Council members showed a preference towards 4, and a number showed a preference towards 5, but they wanted to get more engagement on that to to see what resonated with the community. So 8 supported, moving forward with option. B. One member didn't support increasing occupancy against the will of the voters of the bedrooms are for people ballot measure until the city we're able to develop a well vetted option, and then actually put it out for the community to vote on rather than council, taking action on it. Like I said before, 3 expressed interest in option F, which was to exclude some university in the adjacent neighborhoods, but they were not part of the majority, so the focus has been an option. B.

[135:02] I also mentioned that some Council members put out an option Z, which was, get rid of occupancy altogether kind of like what this state our legislation is saying. They asked us to reach out to more people in the community really try to get perspectives on people that might be struggling to find housing, really talking to the student populations or other folks that or like work in the community. And Aren't able to live here, or can't afford to stay here. Those people should be included. They've also asked that we talk to our community connectors and residence group which we're planning to to meet with on this topic. And then a couple of Council members also brought up just the family definition. See if there make sure that the community is aware of of what our definition is, and whether there's any folks in the community. I think that it should be changed or modified. So we will be educating people on on how our code works today.

[136:02] So I think that concludes this section. So next slide is the question for planning board. So what feedback does the planning board have regarding Basically, Option B and any other feedback that you wanted to provide tonight. So my recommendation is that since again it's not a dialogue or this course between us, that if you raise your hand. Just go through the things that you want to give feedback on to Carl, and we'll each go through and give feedback. and that'll enable us to wrap up and move on to the next. The next item. So, Ml. it's your term. You go first and then Kurt, and then mark. Thank you. So, Carl, I have 3 feedbacks. One is.

[137:03] what would you be giving Council information on option? B. That spoke to what option being result in more people being housed. I mean, that's the point of all this right is that we're trying to get more people housed. And would you be going back to council with that kind of information that increasing the density 4 to 5 occupants. Is that going to house more people? What have the city to have done these changes given us. This is going to actually do what we want it to do. So that's one piece of feedback, and I guess it would be about what Information City council will be getting. The second one is, is there? Is there going to be? I think I saw somewhere infrastructure capacity that would be tied in to the occupancy. Would there be

[138:03] any of that kind of information going to city Council if we, if they go with option? B. Is what kind of impact might that have on infrastructure? And is the city capable of of meeting that? And then, lastly. by changing the occupancy of up to 4 and 5. Would there be any value in addressing what the community has stated as one of the big issues with occupancy which is parking? Would there be any value to attaching parking requirements to occupancy. and those are like 3 feedbacks to 2 option. B. And what information might be useful for counseling?

[139:01] Well, thank you. We always circle back around. I did. I say Kurt was next Kurt, and then and then mark Yeah, thanks. I do support increasing the occupancy limits somewhat to me the primary benefit is of how improving housing security for people who are already living over occupied, which I think is quite a few people in in the city. Unfortunately, we don't have very good data on it. but we do know that there are a lot of people who who who are living over occupied, who historically, we've had a bunch of cases of people living over by, whether they know it or not, and then, you know, losing their housing when when enforcement happens. And so to me, that's the primary benefit of of increasing it. I I do just anecdotally. It would be nice to have better data on this, but anecdotally, it feels to me like

[140:05] in the area where there is high demand for rental. This, especially around the university. Most of the bedrooms are occupied. you know Again, legally or not. There, there. There might only be 3 people on the lease, but I think there tend to be more. I, if it's a 5 bedroom house generally, I think it's rented to 5. I also anecdotally. I feel like most students is these days are not really interested in sharing them, so I it seems like a 5 bedroom house doesn't get rented to 10 people. So so so to me the I guess the bottom line is the maximum number is not so critical. It's more determined by the housing economics and by the actual housing stock that we currently have.

[141:07] which are kind of fixed. The other thing that that I would say is, I certainly am sympathetic to a bunch of people that we heard this speaking in public comment, especially from the hill, and to some extent from Martin Makers. who, you know, are experiencing a lot of difficulty because of the the student population there. and I grew up on the hill. I experience some of this. I think it's probably worse now. but i'm not sure that that is really a function of the occupancy per se. I feel like it's more is me more function of just the pervasiveness of that age, group and demographic throughout the area. And so I don't feel that increasing the occupancy minutes

[142:04] there is going to significantly those problems we need to deal with those problems. But I don't think that occupancy is going to significantly worse. It. The last thing i'll say is to me, the fundamental problem is, we just Don't, have enough particularly student oriented housing, and part of that is because we don't have zoning for it right there. The low density zoning in on the hill goes pretty much up to the university in Martin Acres. It goes pretty much up to the University. the whatever the the area just northeast of campuses, whatever that little residential area is, there was talking about up zoning that in the past, and it didn't happen. There's an example from Eugene where they up zoned around the University

[143:00] developers built big. hey? Much smaller than it would be allowed in older but but very dense student housing directly around the university. and that pulled the the students out of the the neighborhood areas quote unquote. Not really, you know that, but you know what I mean. It pulled them out and significantly reduced the amount of sort of conflict between students and non students in the rest of the city. And so we have not done that. And to me, that's part of the problem. Thank you. Thanks, Kurt. So Mark. And then, George I'm going to begin with a a a question I should have asked earlier. Can we regulate occupancy based on different criteria or people that are members of a family

[144:05] under the Federal definition of a family. So I, if I have a 3 bedroom house, and I have 9 kids and 2 adults plus grandma and auntie. we can't it. My understanding is and I I want to be correct in this is that Federal law prohibits us from actually limiting the occupancy of that house based on the number of people in the family. Is that correct? Yeah, okay. So my comments are go to foundationally. What is the goal of our code? What are we trying to achieve? And I think that sometimes we start nibbling around the edges of these things, and debating 3 versus 4 versus 5

[145:05] versus number of bedrooms. when, in fact, what we're. what the role of government is is to provide a property owner with the ability of in a person. with the ability of quiet enjoyment of their property. the ability to have freedom of association which is constitutionally. it's part of our constitution, freedom of movement. And so we get into trouble. When I think government starts trying to define family and the and the definition of family and very recent years has changed with the the broadening of of who is allowed to marry. And I think you know for me Broadening of the definition of who who is allowed to marry is a great thing, and I I think we're seeing greater.

[146:01] We're seeing progress in that regard. And so and then I then I look at the code. and I find it kind of strange and sad that if you read 9 minus 8, 5 a. It reads as follows. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 12 quote property, maintenance, code. brc, 1,981. This is where it gets important. Here no persons except the following persons shall occupy a dwelling unit. So we have our code. beginning with with the with what should be a little parenthetical to 2 commas there no person shall occupy a dwelling. We begin in the negative. and I think that's that's fundamentally wrong that we criminalize the act of being the act of seeking shelter. the act of fulfilling

[147:05] what are fundamental needs of of shelter, a food of association. and society. So I I think that in answering this question we need to really look at what we're trying to do and what we're trying to do, what I interpret us trying to do is to keep person a from infringing upon the quiet enjoyment of person D and and in their property. which takes me right back around to code enforcement and and and looking at policing and criminalizing behavior versus the act of being the act of seeking shelter. And so you know, I I know that this is probably on the scope, you know. Your council says, Gee! Should we up it from 3 to 4 or 4 to 5?

[148:05] I I I get it. That's a that may be a an easier question to answer. But I think that as a as a city. if we look and say. Is this really the right thing to do at all? To criminalize the act of seeking shelter of criminalize the act of not having a blood relation? Maybe we'll come up with a similar code. and we'll change our focus to behavioral problems rather than familiar status problems and those problems of our own making defined trying to define familiar status. So those are Those are my comments. Thank you. Mark George. Then, Laura. I'll try to. I try to bullet my stuff out to. To make somewhat brief.

[149:02] I find it challenging to support anything related to this without more data. I mean, we are completely absent. Any data. and the data as far as the comparisons of city. I think we need to get much more granular because housing a lot of this, a lot of the centers around the student population. and Cu. Has woefully under supply their students with dorm rooms. That's a fact. Many schools. including the school that I went to when I, When I, When I went to undergraduate, there was freshman only dorms, and then we were pushed out into Ithaca, and similar to very similar to boulder right, the the dilapidated housing stock students cramming in. and it becoming a big problem for the neighbors in the neighborhood, as well as for the town and enforcements difficult in those situations. It also was a terrible student experience at the end of the day.

[150:03] And so what my university did to to rectify that was basically put together a 20 to 30 year plan to go ahead and build dorms. And now every every up to every sophomore is now completely housed on campus. That's a requirement, and see you has not made that commitment to boulder instead. Boulder is sitting here trying to figure out what to you should have figured out a long time ago, and should be figuring out and giving us a strategic plan now as a city, because we are in a crisis in those neighborhoods. We heard from all those neighbors that that live there. Now that that's a major problem, and that that student, that student population is also pushing on the affordability of boulder. There are other dynamics that are happening, but that student population is is pushing a lot of that housing stock to unaffordable levels. and the students actually migrate outside of Uni Hill. I'm. I'm all the way in North Boulder. We've got students creeping an older home stock there and the other component that I think is lacking here. Is any component around.

[151:12] Will this do anything for affordability? Because I think a lot of people? I think the majority of people really want at the core of it to try to make bolder and more affordable accessible place for everyone, as do I. But What I see is is the opposite happening with something like this potentially where a a another sort of anecdote is, I've got my directly adjacent neighbors pay $3,300 a month for their single family home for their family. It's got 4 bedrooms in it in in this scenario right now. They're not competing. They're not competing that aggressively against a student population. But in a scenario where occupancies are raised, and all of a sudden the landlord of that house can get $1,500, a bedroom, or 4 4 units that goes from a $3,300 house, and their their rent is already getting raised. About fourth house

[152:11] that goes through a 3 $300 house to a $6,000 house. And now that family is pushed out of the neighborhood by again the the same thing which I bring up at the beginning. So you know again it it's it's the complete absence of data and just feelings that we're going off of. And if we want data. the data was there was. There was a vote put towards the constituents of boulder. The vote was made. and that's what's out there, and I think we owe it to people. If we're going to make changes to provide them with real data and backup that we're going to solve our problems here, and not just create more. because there are far too many questions about creating problems around the definition of family. I I i'm, you know, to sort of Mark's point right? I think

[153:00] I I think you know we need to consider that as as human beings, and make sure that that's set up appropriately in our code in a way that that also honors what this is trying to do, but at the same time also honors where we're headed as a society and make sure that everyone is included. But we really really need to consider the impacts to affordability to the neighborhoods and the students, and, I I think, come up with a a true plan. That's data driven and put it back to the voters. It may get superseded by the State either way. And then truthfully, I think the council's misdirected here, because I think where we should be putting our pressure as a city is on, see you, and getting them to build more dorm rooms to solve this problem. And we're going at where we're just letting the the tail wag the dog. So that's my that's my short or tried to be short. Thank you, George Laura. Then Lisa, and then i'll call on myself.

[154:02] So i'm gonna agree with George that ideally we could work with the University to get more dorm rooms built. I do think that's both a better community experience and a better student experience, speaking as someone who spent all 4 years of my undergraduate in university housing and enjoyed the experience greatly. and and I came from the collegiest college town in America, the highest amount of students per townies, and the only reason why we didn't have a higher percentage of rentals rented to students than here in boulders, because there were so few rentals because everybody lived on campus. I I do think that that is an ideal model, and hopefully we can as a city work with Cu to get more dorms built. But that's a different question than what we're talking about tonight. 250. So my My comments on this project. You know my understanding of the benefits of increasing occupancy are twofold. One is the problem that Kurt mentioned about people who are currently living over, occupied. giving them stability, letting them come into the light of legal status, which also gives them the ability to pursue their legal rights as renters. If the landlord is not keeping up the property and is not doing right by them.

[155:10] you know, when you're living over occupied, you don't complain about things like drafty windows, or the washing machine, not working, or or whatever that thing is that the landlord is not doing to maintain their property. So I think that's one benefit. The other big benefit is that it is the gentlest form of infill that I can think of is to have more efficient usage of the structures that are already built in these neighborhoods. The pressure from investors is real. It's happening now, you know, as many of our commenters mentioned. There's already this turnover of housing to investors, and they're either going to rent it out and make a profit that way, or they're going to tear it down and build a very large luxury home, the largest thing that they can build, and it might still stay in a single family occupancy. But it will change the character of the neighborhood when the neighborhood is no longer middle class, working people and families, and is large luxury homes. So I I I don't object to giving a different way to make a profit other than tear your house down and build it as big as you possibly can

[156:13] mit ctl. And so I do think that that increasing occupancy is gentle and fill. I do support the direction that Council is going to think about changing it to 4 or 5 citywide. I'm glad that they are trying to get more sources of input and more perspectives on this question 250, you know. I I do think that supply and demand have an impact. Obviously you do not charge the same thing for a bedroom in a house shared with 6 people as you do for a bedroom in a house shared with 3 people people who are tenants. They do look at what the options are, and they understand what they're getting for their money, and the more options that they have, the less likely they are to choose to live in a very crowded situation. or in a more crowded situation. Some will choose to to live less crowded.

[157:01] So you can shop around basically as the point. When you have more options you can shop around, and that does lower rental prices, maybe not to the extent that everybody would like. But I don't think it's a strict. I'm going to charge X amount per bedroom, no matter whether I can have 3 people there or 5 people there. So i'm i'm glad to see this project moving forward. I do think that it is respectful of the input that was received from from voters who did not like the bedrooms are for people's solution of one person per bedroom. This is a different way of of looking at it. That I do think will help us to make better use of the existing property that we have, but will not encounter that problem that that was so prevalent in the conversation around. Bedrooms are for people of Well, we'll just turn our dining room into a bedroom, and we'll put 3 bedrooms in the basement. We'll just add as many bedrooms as we possibly can, and get 10 or 12 or 15 people in a property. I don't. I don't think that this encounters that same problem. So those are my comments.

[158:01] Thank you, Laura Lisa, and then i'll call on myself. Yeah, thank you. I think it's interesting, as as I often i'm kind of somewhere in the middle. I completely agree that CEO has externalized their housing problem onto the rest of the city, and this on that for a very, very long time. I've had some. in my opinion. I'm. Using conversations with people from where they're like, what is Boulder doing to solve the housing crisis? And i'm like, Why didn't you buy a bunch of houses like a whole bunch of other overseas did back in the sixties and seventies, and like deal with the problem. Anyway. you know. So so that that's something that we deal with, and I, I very much would push back to Council. You know whether it's this or anything else. Whatever gets passed off and get past wherever the State does, to continue to the extent that we can to put pressure on. See you, because you know it's on them to also provide housing. I do agree that, you know, looking at doing 4 or 5 people, whether it's across the whole city or in certain areas, is much better than just the strict bedrooms for people, because I think that did create an incentive to start subdividing absolutely everything into a bedroom.

[159:06] and and I will just push back from a landlord's perspective. I mean, if if you've got a property that you can legally rent out so like 4 or 5 college students who are going to pay you a 1,000 to 1,200 or 1,500 month. I would we would do that like my dad has a couple of properties there and loose, will not folder his own properties and boulder before we would have a really hard time saying no to that. you know we we would, even though they can be very hard on houses, you know. Because how do you walk away from that? Versus like, I know, multiple over occupied houses near me not hard to hide, you know. People like the roommate who doesn't exist on the lease showed up to the landlord meeting, and we just had to pretend she was a friend, you know, and I was like that's offered, you know, like we put the mattress up, and i'm like, yeah, we know the tricks right. You know what to do. But you take that that chunk of change, and you divided across 5 instead of 4, and it is more affordable, as opposed to legally renting to 5

[160:00] where you set the per room rent. you know, I, that will happen at least close to the university. So whereas in some of the other outlying areas. I'm not so concerned about it. I guess what I would sort of recommend up to counselor. My feedback would be maybe go for 4 instead of 5 to start. If you're gonna do this. if it goes well at 4 or it's not, and and maybe also allocate some funds some time and effort toward enforcement of any externalities that come up Recognize that this is not. This is mostly just going to mean more legal student housing like that's that's basically what you're enabling. I i'm now not 40, but, like, you know, all my friends in their thirties and forties, started buying right, and most of them bought an eerie Lewis phone off. Yet this is really primarily an issue for people in college and in their twenties before they realize they either can't afford to be in boulder or decide to buy something small. It's got to be student housing. I I just I don't see how it's not. You know the one the one caveat that I would put on top of that. That was something that I thought was a really good point back with bedrooms are for people with some of the other stuff is senior housing, you know, legalizing it, you know, across the board also to legalize it for seniors who are going to be in trouble soon if they're not already.

[161:18] and maybe looking for more football housing. So I I don't know if that's a strong enough take. I. I don't think it's going to solve all our problems. I think you're gonna see a lot of 5,000 plus rents, you know, Going to students. I is up the goal. I don't know it's nice for landlords, I guess you know. And but again, like, is it going to do anything that terrible to move it up to 4 or maybe 5? Maybe not. I mean, a lot of those are over occupied already. It just legally allows you to raise rent higher. So yeah. and i'm curious to see what the state does. That'll be interesting. Thank you. Lisa. Okay, my take. So i'm going to touch on some things that other of my colleagues have said so. First, if the goal is to increase opportunities while maintaining neighborhood character, I think we, which is a quote from the docket.

[162:09] I think what we heard from the see you adjacent neighbors is that occupancy increases in those neighborhoods will not enable maintaining what's left of those neighborhood characters character. So that's a concern. and there's this whole matter of I don't know democracy. You know there was an outcome of a public ballot measure, and I think it's a big mistake to override the public's vote. I I think that's just mistake to disregard voters. If we were to move forward with this, I would say, I think i'd agree with Lisa no more than 4, and then with overlays, for near in near see you communities or neighborhoods. I realize that we normally do this via zones, not via neighborhood. So you'd have to come up with some sort of mechanism for that. But

[163:02] I was, I have to say I I almost cried when Lisa Nelson was talking about. You know her emotional response to how her neighborhood has changed after living there for 30 years. That's that. That was moving. So Fourth of Boulder is now majority renter, and I think we need to be cognizant of what occupancy increases. We'll do to further erosion of home ownership in 10, and I think that that is something we we want to. Not that renters are bad. but there are positive impacts of home ownership, both for individuals and families, but also for sense of community and engagement and belonging, and a sense of place, and all of those things i'm specifically concerned. So if you actually look at our occupancy regulations, we can't have more than 2 people in an Elu. and I believe that we need to maintain that the the broad brush, 4 or 5 does not take into account the size of

[164:07] a unit. I I don't. I don't know whether single one bedrooms are a maximum of 3 unrelated. or whether they, too, have a limit of 2 unrelated. But I think, for Elus and one bedrooms. 4 or 5 would not be a good idea, so we'd want to break it out by the size of dwelling units or not the size, the yeah, the number. In this case the smaller dwelling units. I totally agree with George. There is no mechanism here to guarantee affordability. and if the whole point here is affordability. why isn't there a mechanism to guarantee affordability? I think Lisa has made the point really Well. most not all. But most landlords will be like great. I can charge more and make more, because that's the point of my being. A landlord is to make some profit on my this asset that I own.

[165:04] and I think if we do not have a mechanism to guarantee affordability this you you this is a this is a failed, it would be a failed ordinance. I also think, and I don't know how you would do this, but i'm quite concerned about families who rent, who are going to find themselves in competition with 5, 4, or 5 individuals who can each pay a sum of money. Those families are are going to find themselves to George's next our neighbor. They're going to find themselves in competition with a larger number of people who can each pay a significant amount of money, and that's going to further push out families, particularly families with children, and I think that is something we do not want to have happen in boulder. I don't know how you I don't know how you address that. except by not raising the occupancy, or coming up with a mechanism for affordability or some sort of mechanism that protects families who rent.

[166:00] I don't know what that mechanism would be, but this concerns me greatly. I've already talked about exempting neighborhoods surrounding. Cu. I agree with everyone who's talked about expanding enforcement tools for over occupancy, or in this case, if you raised it to 4, meeting the occupancy or not bypassing, not going over the occupancy limits. and I I realized that there are challenges to that, but it's a law on the books. It's a law on the books, and the city has the right to enforce that law. How you you know in ways that Don't violate someone's human rights. I I agree with everyone who has said, we need to put pressure on Cu to use more, to build more housing and to the Kurtz point that you know we we could have zone. But see, you owns a ton of land. See, you see, it has parking lots galore in Willville that could be transformed into 10 story high, rises, like the other 10 story high rises that are there that would produce more housing. They have area. They have land over by

[167:11] College Avenue. They could build on. They didn't have to build 700. They didn't have to get 750 square. 750,000 square feet of office space approved at. See you south. That could have all been student housing. But to Georgia's point they have not made housing students a priority at all, and the consequence has been a spillover onto the city. The city keeps solving and trying to solve the use problems without being able to solve its own problems of not having a for housing that is affordable for people who work here in families. I think you have to deal with parking. which is an issue I'm. Going to bring up as well in the next topic. So transfer of parking responsibility from a from a landlord or a developer to the city means that ultimately the city is going to have to create

[168:03] a a city wide way to value parking, and we'll have to create a citywide charging station infrastructure as more and more people go to Evs. and this is going to end up being a taxpayer cost. So I think we just need to really be thinking about this long term infrastructure costs which Ml. Also brought up. She she may not been thinking about Ev, but those infrastructure costs are very real, and the city has to see. Have to know what that's going to cost us to keep up. Okay. So I already talked about policy that actually oh. I would. I would suggest that what the city would be better focused on if they really want to address affordability is to increase the percentage of currently affordable units in new developments, and increase commercial linkage fees to support development of permanently affordable units, I think you know, increasing with increasing the number of 80 us increasing by one. The number of people who can live in a house not only have

[169:02] follow on effects, but are really at the edges of the 6 the edges of fixing the problem. Then in terms of public engagement. I honestly I I don't know how I don't know exactly what the obstacles are. But I feel like, since Covid started the city really withdrew from public engagement processes. and has not figured out with the end of Covid out of how to fully come back to what they used to do. and how to fully utilize the 2,018 public participation processes. I I know I see the graph, and I know what you all are trying to do. But I think there's a disconnect between what you put out there, as you know. Please participate an actual participation, and I I do not know how to how you fix that problem, but I don't think be heard. Boulder

[170:04] is the solution. It is part of the solution, but it is an inadequate tool for gathering. you know, a wide range of viewpoints. So those are all of my thoughts. Does anyone have additional things they want to bring up, or shall we move on to, or does Karl have anything he wants to ask us, or shall we move on to the next thing. Laura put her hand up. Laura. One thing that I want to mention, you know. I agree that the Enforcement is a challenge, and I that the city needs more staff and more resources towards enforcement of those 2 impacts to neighborhoods like noise and traffic and trash parking. But I wanted to talk about the other side of the coin, which is incentives to encourage better relationships in some of these neighborhoods, and I know that the city has programs, for example, to do neighborhood block parties and funding for that, or I I believe there's some programs for student volunteerism in their own neighborhoods. And so I think

[171:06] we should also look at better developing those ways to connect students and residents, so that there isn't this adversarial dynamic in the neighborhoods that people are talking to each other about things other than when they have a problem with each other, and think about those incentives to encourage better neighborhood relationships. So I just wanted to put that out there also as something to think about in conjunction with this project. Great Laura Carl, did you get from us what you need on this topic more than what you need. Yeah, I I think I got what I need. I don't. I don't have any questions. Okay, great. So let's move on to affordable house housing, zoning for affordable housing. Okay. So we'll switch gears next slide. Please

[172:00] slide. Okay? And one thing we wanted to start off with was, what do we mean when we say affordable housing as part of this part of the presentation? So we wanted to break it down into 3 categories. So obviously most of the time when we say affordable housing, we're talking about deed restricted permanently of 4 global housing. So that's certainly part of this collection. But we're what we're also talking about is affordable attainable housing, or what people have called workforce housing or just trying to get in the third category more modest sized market rate housing because it's all connected, and and that's the point that we're gonna try to make through this presentation is just. Where are there opportunities in the city to allow more housing, so that we can get more deed restricted housing, so i'll. I'll paint that picture a little bit more as we move forward. So next slide, please. So the point we're trying to make here is that there are some

[173:02] density limitations in certain zoning districts where, particularly where housing is anticipated or planned for in the Boulder Valley comforts of plan, where the the the way that the density is set up. It. It actually drives more large units or or just large-sized units, which is not what we're typically trying to get. We're trying to get a a diversity of of units unit sizes. So by relaxing some density limitations in these areas you can increase the number of housing units in those areas within the same size of buildings. Just so you can get more units, and by getting more units it would you would get more on-site affordable units, because the city code already requires 25 of whatever the number of units are have to be deed restricted currently affordable or alternatively, you would get more cash in loo fund going in.

[174:08] And the thing to point out is that with cash and Lou it does enable developers and quasi housing agencies to leverage that money to actually get more affordable housing units, that you may even get on site by using that money to get other funds from from like the Federal Government. So that's the point we're trying to make. Do this presentation that, relaxing some density allowances will actually increase the amount of housing, and as a result, a deep restricted housing. So next slide go back through just to clarify the way. The the the argument, which is the 25% of units, have to be deepened. or the same number of units have to be built. But how does the cash in Loo

[175:01] reflect the number of units? I I, because you're talking about smaller units, therefore more deed restricted or more cash in loo. But I It was a little unclear. Yeah, I mean so basically any development that comes in 25% of the number of residential units either has to be on site permanently affordable deep restricted or they would have to pay a a cash in luffy per unit of that amount that goes into the affordable housing fund? Does that make sense? And is the number? Is it per unit, unit? Or is it for Units square foot? It it would be a an amount per unit. Okay. Okay, that's helpful. I just it was a little confused. Thank you. The next slide, please. So I wanted to start at the policy level to talk about this particular discussion. Since

[176:04] the way this project started at the Council level in 2,022 is really focused on relaxing certain zoning districts to get more house same types. But that's kind of grown over the last few months similar to what we're seeing in the State legislation that there's interest in potentially looking at allowing more housing types in traditionally single family areas of the city. So I wanted to talk a little bit about the construct of how this city regulates density. Just so we have a clear understanding moving forward so obviously everything we do through our zoning ordinance is implementing what the vision in the Boulder Valley comforts of plan is. So this slide is meant to just show kind of the the framework for the whole city. The vision is set out in all the Comp Plan policies, all the focus areas, and then it's implemented in a number of different ways like it can be through, you know, commercial or the capital improvement projects certain programs.

[177:09] strategic plans in this case with zoning it would be through the land use code. So that's what we're going to talk about. So next slide. So when you look at the the Boulder Valley comfort to plan in the beginning pages of it. There's a number of focus areas that go on over a number of different topics, obviously housing affordability, and diversity is considered one of the primary focus areas in the compliance. So we we've taken this very seriously in this particular project. Next slide, please. and you can see that there is a number of top plan policies that apply to housing, affordability. addressing the jobs, housing and balance. Looking at a number of different ways of getting more affordable housing protection of of in support for residential neighborhoods.

[178:05] a a number of different ways of of really trying to address the housing crisis. Our next slide, please. So this starting at the holistic level, i'm sure you're familiar with the the Pvcp. So everything that we do through zoning has to be consistent with our land use designation. So you can see that all the the land uses throughout the city have a land use designation, and it's basically the vision for those areas. And then that ultimately gets implemented through the actual zoning districts. So you can see that a a wide range of the area is considered very low, density, residential or low density residential, shown in like the beige and the yellow. And then you can see that the when you get more towards the brown is high density residential and a number of different land uses. But I just wanted to start with the land Use map that we are always, you know, looking at to make sure that it's consistent, or zoning is consistent with it.

[179:05] Next slide, please. So when you go into the land use designations of the the plan. It has basically the vision statements, or the characteristics of all the different land uses. So you can see there. What i'm trying to lay out here is that the request to increase density and a lot of the areas that are single family is a much more involved process. It's not something that can easily be changed. And i'm saying this absent, you know what might happen at the State level, because, like if the State passes a mandate that overrides, you know, local governing authority. We may have to come through with ordinance and make a lot of changes to the comp plan, hand in hand, to to meet the State code, but that aside, we do have. You know we do look at the complaint like it is the the legal document that we have to follow. So you can see that these

[180:02] lower density zones do have intensity limitations. So very low density areas are 2 dwelling units per acre or less, that tends to be one of the lowest density areas of the city typically areas that were developed in the county that were annexed into the city have that density a lot of the single family zones throughout the city or the yellow. So that's a low density residential that allows 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre. So that's our R. L. One and our Rl. 2 zones. and then you get into medium density, which is the orange, which is 6 to 14 dwelling units per acre. so you can see that there's not a lot of flexibility in the call. Plan related to this piece. Next slide, please. When we get into higher density we have a little bit more flexibility, because it allows more dwelling units per acre, particularly in the high density residential areas. It just says more than 14 dwelling units per acre.

[181:04] So we are able to make changes to high density. Residential zones that aren't necessarily ha like including a density cap like you see in some of the single family neighborhoods. Next slide, please, Carl. Just I see that Kurt has his hand up. I don't know if he has a question specifically for you right now. I do. Do you want to take it now, or do you want to take it at the end of this presentation? I'm. I'm. Pretty close to the slide. That has the question. So maybe that might. Maybe i'll hopefully answer it in this question or in this slide. But if not, i'm happy to do it. I think it's it could be the next slide. so as far as like. How how does boulder regulate density? You can see there's the different categories, the less than 2 dwelling units per acre, the 2 to 6 for low density, 6 to 14 for medium, and then more than 14 for high density. So the way that translates into our zoning code or land use code

[182:01] is in a lot of cases it's it's a minimum lot size per dwelling unit. So, for instance, the the rural residential are our or residential estate or low density. Residential zones. Rl: One only permit one detached unit per lot. So on an Rr. Lot you have to have one unit per every 30,000 square feet, which is the the minimum lot size. one unit per every 15,000 square feet, minimum lot size, and re it's 7,000 and Rl: one which is our most common single family zoning district. Then it gets a little bit more complicated with Rl. 2. It's it's not a minimum. It's not a minimum of land area or a lot area for dwelling in it. It's a minimum out of of open space for dwelling unit, so it's 6,000 square feet of open space per unit. Then you have the Rmx. One zone, which is 6,000 square feet of of amendment per per unit. Next next slide, please.

[183:04] I mean it's it's It's like I might be right after this one. But what we're basically saying is that there is no density caps in certain land uses in the Comp plan, so there is more flexibility in the high density. Residential land uses mixed use, land, land uses, business, land uses, and the industrial land uses. And if you look at the intensity standards in the land use code, there are some zoning districts that have no density limit. So it's not unprecedented. So we do have some flexibility to make changes to certain zones to get more housing, and i'll be showing an argument of why that makes sense to get more affordable housing. So when we look at the growth areas in the city, which is typically, you know, neighborhood centers in areas where the complaint anticipates more mixed use and housing, you can see the map from the complaint that shows the different neighborhood centers.

[184:01] Those areas are largely zoned. Either VR. Which is regional business. That's like around 20 Eighth Street community business, which is like the neighborhood centers like base Mar or meadows or diagonal plaza, or H areas along corridors. And then also, we we've made changes recently to the use standards to allow more land areas within the industrial zones that can allow a residential. So we're we're really trying to move on what the Comp plan and the last update set which is really try to make it easier for housing in like light industrial areas or in commercial areas. So that's largely been our focus in this project. So i'll. I'll be talking about some changes to those areas. But one thing we did talk about with Council is looking at the low density areas. There are opportunities to change the code to allow duplexes and triplexes in instances where it wouldn't require changing the Bv. Cp. So we we would like to get some feedback

[185:06] from the board on this. This is really an areas where there might be a lot that's large enough that it could be subdivided into 2 single family houses. So what we're saying is that we could change the code where an alternative could be that they don't subdivide. They just put a duplex, or they convert an existing single family house to a duplex because they have the land area wouldn't be inconsistent with the Comp plan. So we do want to get your feedback on that. So next slide, please. Sorry it's still one more slide. So I I wanted to make a a clarification about what the difference between density and intensity is. We have what we call intensity standards which really regulate how much can happen on a property and density is part of that. So we use a number of different tools and different zoning districts to regulate what can happen on a property in terms of it's it's, mass and bulk, or the level of activity that happens on the property. So

[186:10] just to be clear density is really the number of dwelling units that are permitted on the property, and that has to be consistent with the Comp plan and the zoning district. So that's you know either the the calculation of a how many units per per lot amount of lot area, or how many units per amount of open space. Intensity is, is a slightly different way of going about it. That's where we look at floor area like a Florida ratio. So that's where you add up all the square footage on all the floors of a building, and you divide by the lot area, and You can see from this graphic that far is an important tool, and it can work. But it really depends on what other requirements you're also applying, you know so obviously. We don't get 8 story buildings in boulder anymore, but you can see that like on the bottom line you get a 4 story building. That's

[187:02] a 2.5, which is kind of analogous to what you see downtown and around Boulder Junction things like that. So. because of our height limit and the requirements we have on open space parking setbacks, you know things like that. They all those things come together to determine how much can be built on the property. But density is really just a factor of how many units. So once you get that far and you figure out the box, it's how that gets split up into units. So that's where it gives us some opportunity for trying to get more housing without having it visually be a a much larger project next slide, please. So her am I answering any of your questions, or or do you want to jump in now? You're not, but keep going. I can ask later that's fine. So what what this is leading up to is this table, and I know this is kind of overwhelming to to look at. But I think what if I walk you through it? You'll you'll understand where we're coming from.

[188:06] So we wanted to use diagonal as a as an example of why this these types of changes would get more housing and more deed restricted permanently affordable housing. So the first line is the actual zoning that's applied to diagonal plaza. So it's BC: one. and the density limit there is. You have to have 1,200 square feet of open space per unit. So when you apply that to that site, it gets you a a total density of around 22 dwelling units per acre, it really depends on how they design it, but it it's generally a more, I I would say, a more suburban. a amount of open space that's required for that area, so you'd be able to get about a 120 dwelling units on the site. So when we apply the the required 25 for inclusionary housing that has to be deed restricted, you would get 30 ih units out of a project there.

[189:04] and that particular zone. When you look at the fourth column there's no fa our limit in that zone again at all zones are very different. Some have dwelling units per acre; some have both 1 one zone. We've heard a lot about as having a a a construct that basically drives large units is br one, which is again in that commercial area on 29 Street. In the village. It has a 1,600 square foot of lot area per dwelling unit requirement, which is pretty common in a lot of the high density zones. So When you apply that to a site, you can get to a max of about 27 dwelling units per acre so if we applied that zoning to say the the diagonal Plaza project you get about a 148 units. so 25 of that would be 37 units that would be deed restricted so you get a little bit more with like br one zoning. In this case your one zoning has a 2.0 fa or requirement. So one thing that's interesting is, if you do, you find out what the floor area is

[190:11] in the R one, and then you divide it by the number of units that you can get with that 1,600 square feet of lot area per unit. It. You get an average of well over 3,000 square feet per unit, so you can see where the zoning sets up large units, which is not what really the goals of the plan are. So the the third line shows what the applicant had requested through the Diagonal Plaza project, and you can see how it's very different than the underlying zoning. So with the special ordinance that was applied, they actually applied a 15 open space requirement as part of that project, and they ended up getting a density of 50 to dwelling units per acre at diagonal plaza. So this is something that was approved by special ordinance. The number of units is 282 units.

[191:02] So when you apply the 25 Ih. Requirement to that. Then you have 70 I h deep restricted units. You can see that just allowing that flexibility enabled more than a doubling of the amount of I H units, and you would have more smaller units, because if you apply. say the 2 to in this scenario, you would get a much lower average unit size, you know, roughly like 1,200 square feet per unit. So I think that's the goal that we're really trying to work towards. So what we've been asked by Council to do is look at these particular areas like we're trying to address the Diagonal Plaza Project, and the example, change is basically getting rid of the 1,200 square feet of open space per unit, or the 1,600 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, and then just putting an far cap and then letting the site review process, the height limits, the setbacks, the the landscaping, and open space requirements that ordinary apply based on building height, and the far be the drivers of regulating the the intensity on the site, and not have these calculators that

[192:15] get Don't get you as many housing units. So I just wanted to kind of paint that picture. So I think the next slide is the questions. So does plenty Board have any questions of how the city regulates residential density, and then any questions related to the overall project. And then Ml. Yeah, thanks. That was great presentation. So i'm still confused about the call plan. It density limits. It seems like you are applying them on a per parcel basis. Is that right? Generally through zoning? Yes, it's through a part per parcel basis.

[193:03] Well, I realized through zoning, but we it seems like part of the the the rationale is not about the zoning per se, but about those call plan land use, designation density limits. and the reason that i'm asking. So it sounds like we're still sort of thinking about those as being applied on a per partial basis. But if you look just above in the Comp plan, if you look just above where it talks about the different land uses it says Residential densities range from very low to high density. It is assumed that variations of the densities on a small area basis within any particular designation may occur. but an average density will be maintained for the designation.

[194:04] So, for example, when Lr. Talks about 2 to 6 dwelling units break, or my understanding of this wording is it doesn't mean that every parcel needs to meet, that it's the If you average the density over all of the Lr. Land use designation. it needs to be between 2 and 6 blowing, and it's breaker. So so i'm just i'm trying to understand. I mean, I don't know what the at these average densities are, you know, for Lr. And for Mr. And for Hr. But it seems like those are what we need to be paying attention to, based on what the call plan says

[195:00] rather than the the per parcel densities. So I'm: i'm just trying to understand this distinction. Yeah, I I I understand where you're coming from. And I I think you know we can look into that further. It's just, you know there there is a certain level of complexity when you're dealing with an average over a large area. and you know generally the designation sets the the density, and then we write the zoning to kind of fulfill that. And you know we might be able to look at full blocks and see what the averages are. But it's it's very. It gets very complicated at that point to see, you know, if there's flexibility to allow increased density or not. it seems like it's. It's more straightforward to apply it through a zoning district. So I think the point that i'm trying to make in the presentation is that absent the the State legislation. If

[196:00] we're looking at some wholesale changes to these areas, particularly the single family areas, we we, I think we do have to go back and consider these types of changes through an a, a, a planning update process to really have that holistic analysis done, to see how that should speak to changes that we make in the zoning. and it's just it's it's a much more involved process than just going into the zoning code and changing. You know, the minimum lot sizes or or dwelling units per acre calculations without a more involved analysis and outreach process. Sorry. Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. I I guess i'm still it I'm I'm. Still not really understanding, because to me I read this statement

[197:05] in the call plan. and it's pretty unambiguous that it's not about the per parcel density. And yet that still seems to be what we are coming back to. even in the the case of we, even when we're talking about the the the Comp plan designations. I guess. Maybe let me ask about it this way so or a sorry the Hr Land use. Designation says more than 14 dwelling units breaker right? Right? And yet our zoning allows for single family. Yeah

[198:00] or h 2, for example. right it does it. There, there is a use for your requirement now, if you establish a new single family home. So I guess it seems to me. And then maybe yeah, maybe this is turning into a comment, but I'm I'm. Still, i'm still a little bit lost. As to why we're not using the the the fairly clear language that the beginning of these, the the land use designations about how this and density is intended to be interpreted. Yeah. So i'm looking at page 1 10 of 174 in the Our plan it's it's right above these little colored

[199:02] sections that that Carl showed the a few slides down it it the the light blue and titled residential categories, right? And so the second paragraph, as I read before it, says: Residential densities range from very low to high density, and then the key. This is the next one. It is assumed that variations of the densities on a small area basis within any particular designation may occur. but an average density will be maintained for the designation. So I I see what you're saying, Kurt I I I just I think the point we're trying to make is that, you know, when this project was. you know, conceived by by Council as something that we should work on, it was really to look at things that could be quickly done to remove zoning barriers to additional housing, and I think

[200:00] the analysis of trying to look at single family neighborhoods in trying to figure out counting up all the units within a land area, and then figuring out how to dull out whatever might be allowable, based on an overall average is is highly complex. I think it's something that we could do. I just. I think you know, with the within the scope of this project. I think that's why we've been focusing. you know, on the areas where there isn't a a cap and focusing, you know, housing in those particular areas. And yeah, and recognizing that there are some lots that have subdivision potential that could be change to duplexes or triplexes, and that could be implemented. But I I think. looking at the averaging piece, I think, is a I. I just I think it adds another layer on to this that could be quite challenging. Yeah, maybe I can shine in and just add to what Carl's saying. So

[201:04] I we we've heard it version of this question in a couple different contexts, and I think it's safe to say that we recognized and we'll flag this as part of the comprehensive plan update. But just to elaborate on what Carl stating is. If we approach that kind of concept in the plan as administrative directive. it it's impossible to administer. I I would go far through my curls. And actually, then difficult it's. It's. It's impossible, because it requires an accounting of every single lot in those areas or in the city. and it creates winners and losers by a de facto. So when that area designated the cub plan. it's a threshold. Suddenly everybody else isn't eligible, and and that's really not not kind of the intent in talking about the character of those areas as defined in the molten Valley plan. and and more substantively it gets to the point of adequate services to those areas, too. And that also is something that we've recognized, both through this conversation

[202:09] or conversations around this topic and others needs to be a focus of the account plan update as well. There needs to be adequate carrying capacity when you start to start to it. Envision. you know the intensification based on some of that logic. So I I would. I would just say it's it's a it. We we understand the the point one. There are no easy answers, and 2, it is beyond the scope of what Council asked us to do in in trying to be expeditious with some no potential zoning changes. If that if that's something correct. Does Does that meet your needs? For now, Kurt: i'm driving at Sarah's request for a moment. Okay, good question. As, as I said, it comes up before. So Sarah told me that it was Ml. Then Marks, Unless you guys want to dispute that. Ml: I think you're up.

[203:11] Thank you, Lisa. So let me see, Carl, I have a couple of questions on these questions for a couple of yeah questions. Actually, it's more portion number 2 here. So I understand that the low hanging fruit. which is Don't. Look at changing Border Valley call plan. If that was the case, how many parcels have you, you know? Do you think might be available for up zoning in the largest housing sales which is our L. And I don't it's the other one. I don't remember how many of those parcels have the capacity to put 2 or more units without changing Boulder Valley Comp plan minutes, I mean, are we talking

[204:11] 10 parcels? Are we talking a 100 part? I kind of think it's not many. Yeah. So we did this analysis as part of the large homes and lots project several years ago. So we looked at large lots in particular, so that those are in the Re. And Rr. Zones. So those are the lots that are like 15,000 square feet, minimum lot size, or 30,000 square feet, minimum lot size. So as part of that project there were. If you looked at the overall size of of of the lots there were, I think it was just over about a 100 lots that could potentially subdivide and add another single family unit. Or if we change the zoning, they could, they could do a duplex or a triplex. So

[205:03] just over a 100, and I would say, however, we did also look at the Rl. Zones. which was not part of the scope of that project. But I think because there's a a fairly large number of of lots that have not been subdivided in the Rl. Zones that are. For instance, the minimum lot. Size is 7,000 square feet number of lots that are more than 14,000 square feet that could potentially subdivide and add a unit was a much larger number. I I I believe it was like over 800 units. So we that's something we are looking at. We would want to get your feedback on. I think a lot of these pro properties. Either they elect to not subdivide them because they want to have that land area, or it might be because of slope where it makes it difficult to get a building site. But those are the types of lots where you, If they have the amount of land area they could convert their house into a duplex.

[206:05] or potentially a you know, a triplex. If they have the land area. it would require a subdivision if we were to make changes along those lines, and it would still be consistent with the the Boulder valley, so we could have like maybe 900 additional or lots that could be could make use a zoning change that would allow 2 plants triplex for depending on on land size. That's a that's a significant number. I was thinking it was much, much less, because obviously the the next tier which is already been spoken to is it's a boulder that is significantly limiting what we can do with the largest

[207:03] residential zoning in the city. Right? That is what is limiting it, based on the density and intensity. But 900 units. I I I like that. And is this is this something that you are? That is part of this task. Will you be looking at that? Allowing at making that use by right? Yeah, I mean we we. When we went to Council we we mostly were focused on the our R and R. E. Zones. We didn't really talk about the Rl. Zone. So it's something that we looked at after Council, because they we we basically recommended to not make any change to these particular areas when we went to Council, and i'll talk about this on upcoming slides. There was some, you know. Push back from the Council that you know we should consider looking at some other zones or other opportunities to to add units. So we did that, and we we looked at the Rl. Zones, and we saw that there is some level of capacity there. So we do like that's why i'm saying it'd be great to get the boards feedback on that tonight, so that we can convey that to council in June

[208:15] right. and making it really clear to the community that we're not talking about adding more unison. That could be more than than today. It's just these are on lots that haven't subdivided. and they're still subject to the intensity standards. I mean. I think that is something that needs to be said again and again and again, because people worry that I mean the big houses, I think, take the intensity standards to their maximum. whereas looking at having more and maybe more modest size units may push the intensity standard as well or may not. because they're necessarily smaller units. If we're talking, you know, 80 user. However, one gets more housing on on a property. So thank you for that. I I like that you found 800

[209:16] properties in the Rl. Zones that have that potential. That's a big number. All right, Mark. Yeah, Carl: Thank you for showing that slide again. I think this might be the third or fourth time. I've seen this at have, and other meetings, and and and I I my My grasp of it gets a little bit better every time. But it's it's still. I I still need help at times. so what I want. So i'm going to phrase this as a question council. It's come to P. And Ds. And said, hey gee! We want

[210:02] tweet zoning. so that it's easier to have more middle housing, well missing, middle middle income, middle housing. Okay. and so are we. Are we nibbling around the edges in in such a way that ultimately, in a year or 2 from now. No one's gonna be super happy because it Hasn't resulted in as great a change as what they might have envisioned. So for that's the first question. Is, is that perfect? I don't think with any of these changes we can expect that when the code change happens that all these things are gonna happen instantaneous, and that we're gonna get a fulfillment of the goal like in a couple of years. I mean, I think this is very long term. You know the there's a lot of lots out there now that

[211:06] could have subdivided in some way, and they haven't by their choice, or there might be some limitations, but over time I think you probably will see some of these things happen. I I think that when I look at the single family neighborhoods. I think it'll be a very incremental change if this code change were to happen. I think the removing some of the density limitations in the Br. And B. C. And the I zones. I think, could. because developers can get more units that way within potentially the same floor area that might be the biggest change that we see that it would spur more development, particularly in the eastern parts of the city where development is anticipated. We're we're trying to get more housing in the industrial zones and along multimodal corridors and mixed use areas. I think that's where a lot of a change, I think will

[212:08] will happen. Right? Okay, Thank you. So the example of Diagonal plaza and the and the diagrams you had up on the prior screen. It's so interesting to see how twisting the dial of density and intensity in different ways drives this the the number of units and their size. And so my question is, is. could we take our code, and this is probably a bigger project than what anyone has envisioned. But take our code and our zones, and established an intensity and a density

[213:02] maxes for each of those, and just let the chips fall where they may within those constraints. Or is that already there is this complex? And I I don't. I don't. I don't see it. I mean, I think a lot of. I I think a lot of it's already in there. Every zoning district is a little bit different. You know whether it has an F. A. R limit or a dwelling units per acre mechanism. I think it's all in there minimums are a little tricky, because then it it's like. If somebody comes in to do like a little. you know modification to their site, to force them to add units when it's not it doesn't financially pan out that you know. So minimums are very difficult. I think we just have to write it in a way that it incentivizes them to take advantage and do it right. So when when you guys did the AD, you project, and I think you know it's such a great example of how simplification

[214:02] can help. you know, no matter which side of the you thing you're on. It seems like simplification is a is a good thing to to strive for, so that you everyone has clarity. and people are coming into the planning department, pulling their hair out, saying, I don't get it. So is is this this project allow for kind of more wholesale simplification. You know Minneapolis says. Hey, we're illuminating single family zoning. and you know that's a big kind of big, wholesale thing that's easy to understand. I'm not necessarily advocating for that. But what I am wondering about is, does this project allow for greater simplification. That will also is the

[215:00] he's the burden of decision makers. whether it's a homeowner wanting to subdivide on a big lot or someone living in a particular zone. Does the simplification enter into this project? I I think it does. I I think we we've been hearing time and again about particularly the Br. One zoning district in that 1,600 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit that it's not just in br one. It's in our H 5. It's in enough. It's in the Ig. And the I am zones. We keep hearing that that doesn't incentivize housing. because it it doesn't necessarily get the product that they want to build like. If they want to build smaller, more modest size Units like that that doesn't always work, you know for them. So, removing that calculation. and or or the 1,200 square feet of open space for dueling it, it's just one less thing that has to be calculated. You know, that you're using other tools that are already in the box to to make sure that the project is compatible

[216:04] in terms of its height and bulk and massing the the the zoning calculators are a relatively arbitrary I mean they. You have to make sure that the parking works, obviously. and that the massing is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. But I think it it would lend to simplification. Great. Thank you. Those are my those are my questions. Okay, I'm going to call on myself. So 2 questions, Karl. The first is. what do we lose by reducing open space in these developments, and by going to F. Anfar. What do we lose? I'm: sorry. And the second is. how does this everything you're talking about is about smaller apartments in large scale developments. How does this get us to the kind of housing, diversity and housing choices that they

[217:05] only housing choice surveys? We have have told us that missing middle or middle income. and in commuters want, which is not small apartments that they rent. but is, in fact, town homes. single family homes, if possible, town homes or duplexes, or triplexes that they can own. I'm. I'm. Seeing a mismatch here between. you know, market rate, middle income housing. and just getting smaller units to generate smaller units. I'm. Just so. Those are my 2 questions on the open space question. I I don't know that we're we're missing much, because, like. I feel like where that 1,200 square feet of open space per dwelling unit applies is in an area where we expect there to be

[218:00] more housing units and not in a more suburban context. We're not proposing to get rid of our standard open space per lot requirement as part of this. So what we have in the code right now is if you have a building that's under 35 feet tall, it's a 10% open space requirement on the site. And then, if you go from 35 to 45, it goes up to 15%, and then, if you go over 45, it's it's still going to be a 20% open space requirements. So I don't think we lose much on the open space front. I I think it's one less calculation and a lot of times it's it's kind of a wash. I think the 1,200 is it is that shared open space, or does that include private balconies or private patios. it would be shared, and then the private balconies can can, can count for up to a quarter of that calculation. So I don't. I don't look at that as as much of a concern

[219:04] as far as the missing middle housing. I think it's kind of a factor of what do you want the intensity to be? We're right now. We we need to do more analysis. We're not. This is baked. but I mean we're looking at a one to a 1.5 far. So obviously that's not going to allow. You know, big 4 story or 5 story buildings. We're we're thinking that in these particular zones, like Br, one like already allows 2.0 to 3.0, and that's appropriate for those areas like. you know, around 20 Ninth Street, but, like in the neighborhood centers, we think there needs to be a lower, far to fit in with the character of what's around it. So we're we're looking at a 1.0 to a 1.5 far, and I think with a lower far, I think it might be a better driver of of those other types of housing types.

[220:02] Is there a way to marry the lower to requirement or expectation of more than one type of housing. That's an interesting point. I that's something we could look at. Okay. just when we get to the comments i'll bring that. I'll bring up that issue. Are there any other questions right now, or shall we move forward? All right, let's move forward. Oh, it has a question. Sorry you talk about specifically the a a set of zoning districts. Right that you want to look at our VR. One, our H. 5 PC. 2 PC. One Vc. 2, ig. And I. You know. Certainly the other. Some of the other, or have the same. The same problem that we've been talking about same problem as our H 5, and I think

[221:06] there's more or 2. It seems like, then. any of the other. So you you are looking at those other, or we we've been asked, and this? Is it on a on a slide coming up? But we've been asked by council to just investigate those other zones as well. I think we we kind of hesitated to look at some of those zones, just because. like our H. 2 and our H. 4 in particular, are ones that are usually adjacent to single family neighborhoods. So we were, you know, more focused on the zones where you could get more intensity without impacting existing development. But we are going to look at them just to kind of see if there are opportunities. And what about our next?

[222:01] We're looking at that, too. Okay. i'm sorry. But this is, is this. This is not meant to be an exercise in up zoning the entire city. and that's what i'm hearing from some of my colleagues here, which is, hey? What about our Mx. What about our what about our I mean? This is not meant to be an up zoning of the entire city. Is that correct? I mean, if the focus is really removing zoning barriers to get more housing. So there might be more housing units that get built, but it may not appear. you know, like added, for area, or something like an up zoning. In fact, it might even be less far than what could be permitted today. You just might get more housing.

[223:04] Mark. Sarah. I was just curious. I I don't. I didn't interpret that anyone's advocating for wholesale upside. But I I do go back to. and maybe Staff can restate it or stated again Councils direction to planning, to planning and development services. Staff was to evaluate the code. or but at maybe you could just stated again what what their mission was for you. It's to remove any kind of to really look at simple changes to the code that could remove zoning barriers that stand in the way of

[224:02] of more modest size housing, basically so that you can try to get more at that missing middle. instead of getting just larger units. But it's an assumption that smaller houses in boulder somehow will magically units will magically be less expensive. and we know that that is not the case. and we're getting. We're not in the comments section yet, so I don't. We don't need to get there, but I appreciate the restating of the purpose. I do, too. Thanks. Okay. Go ahead, Carl. Okay. Next slide, please. I Won't spend too much time on this. I I think a lot of the comments we've gotten from the public are similar to what we got on occupancy like perspectives that adding more modest size. Housing will increase housing opportunities within

[225:03] the city, and consistent with our goals, and that opposing side finds that it may not make a difference, and that the demand is high. I think a lot of this is pretty similar. We we have been hearing opposition and concern from some folks in the single family neighborhoods that are opposed to allowing any housing types beyond just single family homes. So I think that's the one that stands out for this project. Next slide, please. So these are the the potential options that came from our analysis that we presented to Council. So I won't. Spend too much time in it, because we've already been talking about these, except for the parking ones. But looking at revising those density calculations in those set of zones that are in areas that are anticipated for housing and then setting an fa our limit in those areas we've talked about, you know, being 1.0 to one to 1.5 far.

[226:03] We talked about the housing type allowance piece. We didn't recommend that this move forward with Council, and I think in general Council was okay with that. But they said, You know, if you can find opportunities, particularly in the a high density areas or even low density areas to look for those. So that's why we brought up the rl option tonight, and i'll talk more about what Council told us. What I Haven't focused so much on is just parking modifications, because that was part of the trying to remove zoning barriers. So one thing that's been in the code for a while that we've we've been hearing feedback that it requires too much parking. Is there's a kind of an more antiquated parking requirement that requires 1.2, 5 parking spaces for every one bedroom unit in any kind of project that has more than 60% of its units as one bedroom. So we're proposing to change that to just one

[227:01] space per one bedroom unit. That's kind of like a low hanging fruit change we can make. We're we're also looking at a procedural change where we do process up to 25% parking reductions in commercial projects. But we don't do that for residential projects. All residential projects requires site reviews. So we're looking at potentially making it administrative process for a residential parking production up to 25. So these are the options that we presented to to Council next slide, please. So we went to Housing Advisory Board on March 20 s. The board largely supported the potential options the recommended options that that staff brought. They did express some disappointment that the scope couldn't include more missing middle housing and more infill in the single family neighborhoods similar to you know what we heard With some in Council.

[228:02] They supported any kind of process that might go into the next Bvcp. Update to really re envision some areas of the city to allow more housing, more kind of like what we're seeing at the State level. Some felt that we we should make more aggressive changes to the parking code to encourage more affordable housing. and and the next slide shows what Council talked to us on the following day. March 20 third. So Council agreed with all the staff running, recommended options about revising the density calculations in those zones like I said they wanted us to look at additional high density, residential zones for changes. There were some Council members that did want us to look more at the single family zone. So again, that's why we raised the Rl. Zone. So we want your feedback on that tonight. We're also proposing to remove a use review requirement for el use right now, if you have more than

[229:05] I think, 40 of the units as i'll use. It, requires a use review. We think this is unnecessary, especially since we recently changed the Site review criteria that you looked at that an Elu project still requires at least 2 housing types already in the criteria. So we just don't find that the user view process is necessary. So we're proposing that that be eliminated. They supported that they supported the change to the one bedroom requirement. They supported the Administrative Review for residential partner reductions, and even asked that maybe we allow more than 25 for both residential and non residential projects through an administrative process. So that's where we are with city council and I think the next slide just takes us to the question related to forward feedback. So in the interest of time, because everyone's getting tired, and we still have one more

[230:01] thing we have to deal with. I'm: just gonna suggest that everybody just i'm gonna call it on you. Please go through your list of comments and feedback, and we'll speed through this. Take a quick break, and then come back and do this last item. So who would like to go first? Kurt. Generally I support the project. I think it's great. I I feel like when we're talking about open space. I think I I have doubts about the value of private open space. I think we need more public open space, especially parkspace, rather than private open space. And so I think that this moves us more in that direction. which I think is great on the parking I would I support reducing the parking requirements.

[231:01] I think that the there they are, Currently there's a different scale of parking requirements between. like Rmx 2 and some similar zone districts, and the more high intensity ones. And I would suggest that we move all of them to the lower level. and I can give you the details if you are interested. I think that all the parking reductions really should be administrative with a potential appeal to planning board. So I support that aspect. and i'll leave it at that. Thanks you, Laura. Then mark thank you. And and, by the way, Karl, thank you for the really great presentations, both of them. I I think that probably goes on set, but it should be said as well. So thank you so much.

[232:02] I'll be quick here and say I resonated with everything that have said. I was really vibing with all of Hab's comments. Same thing with city council. I agree with all of the things that they supported this new piece about allowing duplexes or triplexes rather than subdividing in Rlr and Re. If I got that right. Am I understanding correctly that that would mean they basically trade away their right to subdivide? And instead, they would have the option of doing a duplex or a triplex, whatever the amount of land that they own would allow. Okay, I would say that I'm. Cautiously supportive of that I would want to wait and see what happens with the State Bill. Just simple math. The State Bill, if it goes through any single family home could be turned into a duplex or a triplex, you know again depending upon our intensity standards. And so, if they were able to subdivide. and then the State bill allows them to also do a duplex that gives us more units of housing than if we just allow them to do a duplex or a triplex instead of subdividing

[233:04] if if my math is right there. So I think i'm cautiously supportive, I would definitely want to see what happens with the State Bill first, before we we go there and make them trade away their right to some divide. But if the State Bill doesn't pass, then i'm absolutely that if that provision in the State Bill Doesn't pass, then I'm. Absolutely supportive of giving homeowners the option to do a more efficient duplex or triplex, one building rather than spreading it out on the lot. And and that might make some like you said, with certain situations with like grade, you know gradient, or whatever or easement, or something, it might make more housing possible if they can concentrate that housing in one part of a lot. And then my last comment has to do with the parking reductions like I said I'm. I'm. Supportive of the Administrative Review provision, i'm supportive of going from 1.2, 5 to one. I think we tend to grant parking reductions almost every time they are brought to us. The one thing that I think planning board adds, that is of great value that I would really like to see Staff push hard on. I would like to you push just as hard on robust Tdm plans, because if we are going to reduce parking requirements.

[234:12] we need the developers to be contributing in not just superficial and standard ways to other kinds of transit, but really contributing to a walkable, bikeable transit, oriented city as best they can with with their property so really, really robust Tdms. So that's my comments. That's all I have. Mark. Oh, well. Laura said my comments, and set them better than I I could have, so that was that's great. On parking I would go one step further and say that set the side review process is subjective in some regard so as an administrative review. And so, in looking at partner requirements.

[235:00] just take it as far as we can. in terms of not building more car storage, that building, more housing. and and and incorporate that into the code without review at all. And at the same time, though we're giving up a lever by doing that of what Laura pointed out was the need for review or robust Tdm plans. I realize it's a trade off there. But anyway, taking it up to as far as your community really feels comfortable with, to achieve our more housing goals. I think we ought to do it in the code. Finally. I just want to say that this is a is an opportunity for simplification, and if we can incorporate additional simplification into this project, all the better.

[236:09] Ml: and then, George. thank you, Sarah. I have 3 comments. Thank you, Carl, for your there. There were some just like, really very concise, very clear slides that that shows up. This is complicated. It can get complicated really fast. So I really appreciate your bringing it graphically. That helps understand it. I I've got 3 points. I'll do feedbacks. you know. I think I think, and I and I know it sounds like they're a hesitancy to get the ours involved, but I think that's low hanging fruit. That's where we're going to get the middle the middle housing is by the Rl. R. R. And R. E.

[237:00] Allowing flexes by right. I think I think that's a game changer, You know. You talked about 8 800 units potentially out of that. So I would absolutely encourage looking at that capacity. As far as the parking goes, I I would say that reduced parking should be a staff level approval. Parking requirements are trending to being abolished nationally. All over cities are are removing parking requirements. It's kind of putting it in the hands of. And the developers is, how much parking are you going to need in order to make your project a viable party. and that doesn't seem to have any. I have not seen any statistics on that having a backfired, so I i'm i'm good with. Let's make it easy to reduce parking. and I think, big picture.

[238:02] We should have our sites on changing pvcps, density, intensity, standards to allow more housing by right. And you know the State policy might push our hand in that direction anyway, but I think we should. We should have it on our radar that that needs to be looked at, so that we can get more housing by right. We're not making it harder. We're making it easier. and those are my comments. Thank you so much. George. i'm sorry I'm I'm getting a little tired, so i'm gonna keep this really brief. I I don't know if i'm I I generally i'm supportive of the project. I not entirely on board with losing all that open space requirement? I I think I think that should be considered a little bit more, and and the value of that open space, and just just understanding that a little bit more, I think, would be helpful.

[239:05] And then on the parking generally agree. I do think we're in an interesting moment where we've got infrastructure issues around electric cars, and that's going to get worse. Not better for the next sort of decade. I You know I've got my own electric car pro charging problems right now, because we we we only have one off street parking space, and we've got 2 electric vehicles. and I I do think, and you can't charge an electric vehicle on the on city streets. Currently, you can't drag a port across the sidewalk. It's a hazard. It's. It's not not proper. It's illegal. And so okay. I i'm a little concerned about what the way I read this: is that basically we're reducing it down to one per bedroom, and then Staff has the ability to cut it down to 0 point 7, 5 per bedroom.

[240:04] And I just i'm, i'm i'm i'm totally fine with parking reductions. I just don't want to trade it for free to kind of to what, Laura, I think Laura said something about, you know, making sure they are robust. Tdm. Plans so. and and I feel like what will end up happening is kind of what happens today, which is what is in Staff's purview kind of gets eaten away in that process, and I don't know if the trade is as good for boulder as it could be if it went through planning board. So it's it's. It's a thought process around negotiating with a developer and making sure we maximize the leverage that we have rather than making it an assumption that they're going to get 0 point 7, 5 per unit, because that's what staff's allowed to do, and that's what gets done. so that that's kind of a comment. I don't I don't have a I don't have a a cure to that. But I I wouldn't want to reduce it further than that specifically, because I I think there is a place for planning board to question those types of things to to enable us to get a little bit more from the developer. Thank you.

[241:17] Lisa. Do you anything? No, I I think I really agree, actually grateful to hear from everyone else. I I think, overall. I really agree with what Georgie just said, that there's just like I'm in broadly kind of feel properly about it. I think it's going a good direction. and I just worry about some of the stuff in terms of what it'll do. I? I Electric cars are something I can go out constantly and just like, where is that we're gonna buy? And I don't think that Si means that parking has to say exactly the same, or that you can't or do you sort of an eliminate parking minimum, you know. Maybe you get rid of bit of parking minimums, and you put in a charging requirement or something. But you know, I think I think we got to figure out how we're going to handle that.

[242:00] so I wouldn't want that piece to get lost in otherwise. Yeah, I think things I would say have already been touched on. So nothing further to add. Anyone Who Hasn't gone other than me. All right, then I will go. So I have a problem with the fact that this is being that what's being proposed essentially continues to move us in the direction of rentals, and with that are not necessarily and not necessarily creating any home ownership opportunities we have no idea, because we Haven't updated our housing choice surveys in 10 years. We have no idea whether the type of housing that's being proposed that would be buildable under the new F, that we, using far rather than density. would meet the needs of middle income families. and in commuters, which are the 2 communities, the 2 populations that we say we care about housing my personal suggestion. I know this city council really wants to push stuff through super fast, because

[243:08] they have an agenda. They want to push through, but we're doing it again with kind of limited data. And I think before we do anything we need to conduct new housing choice surveys, so that we know that the changes we're making will result in the kind of housing that people now want. not the kind of housing people we think people should live in, but the kind of housing people actually want. Secondly. I kind of feel like the proposal. I I don't really have a problem with the far approach. as long as it allows for a diversity of housing types, particularly in the BC. One and PC. 2 zones which have a during the use Table review or use table update has the opportunity that has been re-imagined? Is.

[244:00] you know, dense diverse developments that have housing and retail and public space and a diversity of housing type. So that you have a real neighborhood that is the center that the surrounding more single-family home neighborhoods turn to as their 15 min neighborhood, or their 25 min neighborhood, 125, and I'm. Concerned that using the far without some other components that push for more than one housing type, not dwelling type, but housing type. I think that's very important, especially if we want to advance BBC Goals 7, 10, which is housing for a full range of households, or 7 12 permanently affordable housing and 7 17 market affordability. I'm a little. I'm. I am concerned that in moving to the far we're going to lose adequate, livable open space. I happen to disagree with Kurt that

[245:03] private open space doesn't matter. I think if we learned anything during Covid is that it does. and it doesn't have to be a lot. But some private open space. Let's see. What else do I have here. So parking. Okay, only Lupita, we're here. We, Peter, would talk about the equity component of parking, especially in low and moderate income neighborhoods. as we learn during the ponderosa process. low and moderate income. Individuals and families Often their car or their truck is their job. It is where they do their work from. and to be reducing to. To focus on reducing, parking without thinking about the needs of the folks in those communities is to completely ignore their needs, and and we have to make sure we don't do that. I totally agree with George, and I said it before in terms of the other issue which has to do with

[246:04] the offloading of charging a charging network onto the city, which will mean an offloading on to taxpayers is something I think we need to be thinking long and hard about before we do before we do that, and carry over John's voice in terms of the Rlr. And Re. If he were here, I think he would talk about people purchase somewhere or live somewhere, believing that they bought. They are living in a neighborhood that has a certain density, a certain feel, whatever it may be. Maybe it's very urban. Maybe it's very rural, and what i'm hearing from some of my colleagues is. let's see if we can use this very speedy process to try to push that through without having to kind of I mean people saying, Don't have public. Input but this is a very speedy process that is not going to allow us in that Not a lot of folks who live in Rr. Re. Which I do not live in. I actually live in Rfx. 2

[247:11] won't give them very much time to respond to, and I don't think that's an appropriate thing for us to be doing, and I don't think it's an appropriate thing for City Council to be doing. and I I think that's those are my comments. Sarah. Can I just ask you to clarify you, said housing types, not dwelling types. And how do you differentiate between those between under the city code? They probably the same thing. But I mean not one bedroom, 2 bedrooms, but town homes and condos and duplexes and apartments. That's what I mean. Okay, Thank you. You. On Okay, any other comments. All right. So we have one last item to do, Carl: Thank you very, very much. Really appreciate that. You've done so far. It's great. It's interesting. It's challenging.

[248:02] and you always take on the big, the big projects. So we have one last item. Let's not take a break if you need to get up and do a vibrate. Just go do it. Hella is going to walk us through what sounds very complex, but is actually ultimately a very simple. Ask of a Yeah. And I apologize. I have to run. I've got a plumbing emergency that I've got to. Okay, Thank you. Bye, guys, bye. all right. He'll take it away all right. I'm gonna try to go through this quickly. Let me share the screen whoops and my screen kind of moved all of you from my screen. Can you guys see my slideshow?

[249:08] Yes, we can to you. You yeah. all right. Does it have a bar on top of it that you know that has kind of the bottom of the No. It has 2150 Folsom subdivision, final cl clarification of findings of fact and conclusions of law. then then only I see that that bar and i'm fine. With that thanks for hanging in there with me this late in the evening. This is a very unusual item to come in front of the planning, or I don't think any of you have seen this particular request before. and it is actually coming out of a court order in a legal challenge of the city's approval of the 2150 for some sub vision. Final plan. The court in that particular legal case, that the city is a part of asked the city to make an additional

[250:07] finding a fact on the final pad application requirement. And it really is just on one of the many criteria that apply in a final flat application that the court asks you to to make a finding today, and this is the criterion on the screen here, c. 2. So a a subdivision is approved in a two-step process. First, a preliminary pad is approved, and then a final plan is approved. Both preliminary and final plants require a current title, report, or return. A memorandum based on an absurd of title. This all relates just to the final. But I'm. Mentioning this because you, as you can see on the screen the name which has an update to the preliminary title, report, or attorney memorandum. And really we're talking about a title. Report him because that's what was submitted to me. This requirement.

[251:05] But it talks about an update to the preliminary report, because there was a requirement already under the under that preliminary cloud application. So the way i'm gonna go through this today is, i'm gonna do just to show you the side where it's located at to up brief review of the regulatory application history, and then discuss this one key issue with which is defining on that one review criterion. And then I would give you a staff recommendation. So this is an aerial view of this site that we're talking about. and that was subdivided under this final plan approval. It consisted of 2 planet lots. 2 parcels, that. or a planet, a ditch, corridor and an alley. and it's just directly east of Folsom, and between Pine and Spruce Street.

[252:10] The board saw this an application for this project prior to fund for the prior to the final cloud application, because the site of your application was filed and the planning Board approved it in June of 2,019 before the development started. There was a single fan meatballing unit on this entire property, nothing else, and decide, or who approved a redevelopment with 8 to 10 dwelling units. After the site would be approval. There were a few additional steps required, including vacation of the alley that was proposed to be developed with this that was approved by city council, and then technical documents and pre preliminary plan were approved by staff in 2,020 just before staff made a decision on the final plan. So all originally the final plan was approved by Staff.

[253:09] and you are, I think, all familiar with the process final staff. The final flats are typically approved by staff that's followed by a 14 day call up period or a Peter period in which either a member of the Planning Board can call up no decision on the final plan, or it can be appealed by the member by a member of the public. In this case none of the Board members chose to call up Steph's decision, but there was an appear by the public. and because of that, the planning Board held a public hearing on July thirtieth 2020, and ultimately approve the plat. Then Council has an opportunity to call up that approval that did not do so. following the final set approval, neighbouring property owners filed a rule 106. Proceeding

[254:02] a group, 106 proceeding is a proceeding in which somebody can challenge the decision of a governmental body and a quasi judicial proceeding. based on the argument that the body who made the decision either misapplied the law or abuse its discretion. So here the argument was that the city misapplied the law when it found that the title report submitted by the applicant met the final plat requirements of the Border Revised code. The plants are mute that a title report must be based on an abstract of title in 2,021. The District court issued a judgment on that rule 106 action, and ruled in favor of the city. Finding wrote that the city did not misapply the law, and did not use it. It's discretion when it interpreted the plat requirements such that a title report does not have to be based on an abstract of title, and found that the title report that was submitted satisfied code requirements.

[255:13] District Court decisions can be appealed to the to the Colorado Code of appeals, and the scientists in the case chose to do that. So that is where the the decision that we're acting on today came from the quote of appears reviewed the challenge. and first considered the argument that that the plaintiff made that a title of report under the code has to be based on an abstract of title. So that's really a question of interpretation of law, and the court agreed with the District Court that older scope should be interpreted. Such it must be interpreted such that only if an applicant chooses to comply with the code requirement through an attorney memorandum

[256:08] that memorandum has to be based on an abstract of title. But if a title report is submitted that does not have to be based on an abstract of title that was consistent with what the city had argued during the case. The city took the position that this is how the code should be interpreted, and has been interpreted in the past. But there was some evidence in the record that that the Colorado courts of appears to think that it is possible that the city may have misinterpreted the law. so that the title report has had to be based on an abstract of title, and also that the city thought that it was based on an abstract of title, and it wasn't sure what the city's position was, because the record was a little bit unclear on that. and to the court didn't want to make a decision without giving the city another opportunity to make new findings. Now that it has been been determined that the title report doesn't have to be based on an abstract of title

[257:12] so very technical stuff here. So that's the premise of why, why we're here today. and your only key issue is whether the title report that was actually submitted by the applicant needs the final plat requirement under Section 9, 12, 8, c. 2. So in a way. This is an extension of the decision that was previously made by the Planning Board cause of Judicial procedures. You have to make you decision based on the evidence that's in the record. and that was submitted to you. But with the mammal that was here, and and as you know, that consists of. and then all that stuff prepares applicant

[258:00] materials that were submitted with the application. Any testimony that occurred in any evidence that was submitted for the hearing by members of the public. Hello! Could you put up the potential emotion language again? Yeah, I actually haven't gotten to that yet, my last slide. But I I wanted to summarize what the what the evidence in the report is, and I know that's also in the memo, and and there are a lot of attachments. But I have a few slides that summarize the evidence that was there, and then i'll go to the recommendation and the motion language. so the title report that was submitted by the applicant is attached to you. My attachment a. and it identifies the things that are typically part of a title record. In this case it identifies 3 parcels that were to be subdivided in the legal description title to those 3 parcels.

[259:09] as well as who those titles I tested in. So it was for parcel. It's one and 2 folds, and Lsc. And as to parcel 3, that was the ditch corridor parcels, it was full of Lc. And also James Tyrrell. and those people were also then listed as owners on the final flat. What was the I was there in terms of evidence that my show, or the evidence against whether the title report that was submitted and called title Record is so a title report that means that requirements. The title report was issued by a title insurance company. It to includes all the information that's typical to included in such a title record. It's ownership, status, and just discussed encumbrances

[260:01] and other relevant elements to the legal history. It states that it is a title report. and it is not a commitment to ensure one of the things that the plaintiff put a lot of weight on is that it also stated that Fidelity, the insurance company who issued the report assumes no liability under the document, unless a policy of insurance is issued. and that the information is furnished for information and the purposes only. In addition, there was some extensive limited limit of liability language at the end of the report, and to some extent it was contradictory language within the report itself, because it stayed at that. It's limited in scope, and it's not an abstract of title. and I don't think anybody said that it was an abstract of title, but it also most of the things states that it's not a time of report. So that's a little bit odd, and that's all language that's at the end

[261:01] of the title of port. then Staff provided additional information during the staff presentation. It staff provided to you information that the city has in the past found that this type of title report does satisfy the final that requirements. Staff had talked with Fidelity staff and was informed that the report was actually based on the same type of research that fidelity uses to issue tile insurances, and that it's produced in this form, and the purpose is not to ensure the property, but for development review purposes. Steph also stated that these types of reports typically have broad disclaimer language because it's not a policy to ensure, and that was in reference to that all the plate language. At the end of the report they had the contradictory language. and stated that it's not a title report.

[262:00] The applicants attorney testified and mentioned that they have been 4 different statements by the title company; that also more evidence of the validity of tied up the property, including a title, commitment and an actual title insurance policy. and with regard to evidence to the contrary, the neighbors attorney testified and stated that the neighbors dispute the fee simply determined over the title as to the ditch parcels, and argued that no court is determined title, and that because of that in this case title, this the title report. including the language that includes, should not be considered a tile report that meets the Cohen should not be relied on. Step originally like a recommended that the title report does satisfy the requirements of Section 9, 12, 8, c. 2, and has not changed its position.

[263:01] and it's supported by the fact that by its title and form the evidence that it was created based on the same type of research performed for an abstract of Tyler tile insurance. That title insurance itself is not required by the code. It's a title report that it's that is, required. and while the report is not itself, in short, title or create liability for the insurance company. It does present evidence of current ownership of the property. And finally, the code requires that it's a current record, and here it was issued within 30 days of the Boards final plat hearing. And that's good cities. Typical requirement so based on all that step recommends that the Board find that the final that approval was based on on the title report. Actually. I'm losing my my thought here and my threat.

[264:02] That's the motion. I guess. I'm. I'm just going to read it to you, and then i'll open it up to questions and to your discussion. So the the recommended motion language is to find that the file applied approval was based on the title report submitted by the applicant. So the title report provided for purposes of meeting the final plat requirements of Section 9, 12, 8, c. 2 does not have to be based on an abstract of title, and that the title report that was submitted satisfies the front of that requirements of section 9, 12, 8, c. 2, and that the Board therefore refirms its approval of the final plan under Tech Doc, 2,020 0 0 5 is made on July thirtieth, 2,020, and incorporates the staff memorandum as findings effect. Not that I'm: okay here. Anyone Are there? Questions?

[265:03] No. What someone raised? Mark it's kind of I I read the appeals for not all that. That the a good portion of the Appeals Court room. and a a lot of their a lot of the appeals for findings really come down to grammar antecedents present it is, and commas. And my question is. is this one of those things where we need to update our code? And it could be a really it doesn't even need to come. I don't know if it needs to come before planning work with. But we need to update our code to avoid. Yes. misunderstanding of what's required in future.

[266:04] Yeah, that's a good question. Mark for this purpose today. The court directly to make a finding consistent with their finding, and from now on the code should be interpreted consistent with that court ruling. But I agree with you that when we have the opportunity to clarify that language. I think we should do so. Okay, and so has the city incurred legal fees outside. Oh. the city's internal legal staff and office. The city has not hired any outside Council, but I believe the city may have to pay part of the legal piece of the plants, and let me take a quick look, because I think that was at the end of the year.

[267:02] Well, it it's is that is actually they They say you're gonna it it's almost like another issue that that the attorney's fees for for the neighbors. Whether or not the city or the applicant has to pay the the appeal score down that it wasn't fruitless. Their their demands were not triple us. But anyway, I I just curious if we had to go out and hire attorneys outside of our internal stuff. No, we have not Louise Toro. Our litigation attorney has handled this mainly. and it and now i'm just i'm looking at the order, and it actually it was the the applicant has also been involved. and it's a party to the case. And they were seeking attorney's fees

[268:00] from plaintiffs. Hmm. And so that's what I was remembering. So it wasn't actually an order. as it relates to the city. And and so it is, would you? I'm going to say what I think the Appeals court has said, which is. hey? The city did misinterpret, and did you know, should have used a comma like an Oxford comma, so that these modifiers work this way. But we're not. We're not siding with the neighbors, even though we've overturned the lower court's ruling. We're simply saying the city has to go back and do it again. and that's what we're doing right now. Yes, I I think there were 2 challenges. One was based on the interpretation of the law, and how that's supposed to be interpreted, and then how the facts are the second challenges, how the facts are applied to that.

[269:05] and they appellate Cord has so far only ruled on the issue of how the law has to be interpreted and looked at the record and said it. We think it's possible that the city decision is based on a misapplication of the law. Now I can tell you what I believe. The court based that on it was the statement by staff. That said that said that the title report was based on abstract of title research. And then there was another statement that was actually in the call at my meal to city council. So it summarized the Board decision, but it was not actually something that the the Board said. because the Board didn't actually go into a detailed discussion about that. It was more of a summary finding.

[270:04] So it was a combination of those 2 factors that made the Court of appeals, think the city might have actually relied on this false interpretation of the law. So we want to hear what the city has to say now that we tell the city how it has to be interpreted. Okay, those are those are my questions, and I I I'll I'll just make a comment now and then i'll be done that it. This does speak to the the requirement for precision and and and writing of code, the updating of code, and in the use of punctuation and grammar because it the way I read this, it's really that's that's a lot of what this is about. So

[271:00] I'm: all for that precision. Kurt. Yeah. I agree that it would be great to clarify 9, 12, 8, and also the the similar language, and for preliminary plans in 9, 12, 6 in the the Appeals Court decision actually had an interesting history of the code, and it sounds like the code used to be clear in this matter, and then we updated it and made it more confusing, which is unfortunate. Yeah, and it's not the first time that I've actually seen that happen. I think there's an attempt, maybe, to simplify and shorten the language and right. Yes. The other question, though, is about the title report that says it's not a title report. Yeah, that seems problematic. And

[272:00] in going forward, if we get something like that. should we say No, ask for another title, report that doesn't have this confusing this contradictory language in or something like that. Well. I think today you're asked to make a decision on it. If this title report does meet that requirement. Right? Yeah. Sorry I was. I was trying to think about avoiding this similar problems in the future which I am is getting beyond what we're specifically asked to address today. I I guess it would. Again, I'm trying to avoid these these future problems and not getting title reports that say they're not title reports would be helpful. We don't

[273:07] all right, Lisa. I think. What? Tell me fine? That's correctly. How up? What I understood is that by introducing this motion, and passing this motion, in addition to addressing what we were asked to do by the Appellate Court, that we are also laying down case law, such that the code, as currently written, shall be interpreted this way, moving forward, and that, well sure would be nice to make things look real pretty and put commas where we got them, and so on, etc., that this would kind of excuse my French, cover our asses for the moment, and, like, allow us to just move forward. Is that a fair interpretation that that this would then kind of provide that precedent? And this is how the code is interpreted and and lesson until we correct or beautify the code. But we should be fine.

[274:00] Yeah, that's how I generally you would look at it, you know. Cool, then I would like to invite my fellow members of the board. I don't want to shut down conversation. It is now 1033 at night on a Tuesday, unless you have something darn good to say. I would love for us to swiftly move to introducing this and considering, passing it, and not worry so much about how we're going to fix it in the future. Other than that, we definitely want to fix things like this in the future, because it's no fun to have to do this at 1030 at night. All right. Does someone want to make a motion? All right, Mark? Why, don't you make the motion? Wait your your muted mark. I move to Fine that the final platform was based on the title report submitted by the applicant that a title report provided for purposes of meeting the final plaque requirements. A section 9, 12

[275:04] see 2 does not have to be based on an abstract or title. and that the title report that was submitted satisfies the final flat requirements of Section 9 to comma erc. 1,981, and or therefore reaffirms its approval of the final platinum under T E. 2,020 0 0 0 5 as made on July thirtieth. 2020, and incorporates the staff memorandum as findings of fact. Okay, do we have a second? I will. Second. Thank you. Do. Is there any discussion?

[276:02] If no discussion, I will reread the motion, and then we can vote on it. Motion to find that the final plan approval was based on the title report submitted by the applicant, and a title report provided for purposes of meeting the final flat reports. So requirements of Section 9, 12, and 8, c. 2 does not have to be based on abstractive title, and that the title report that was submitted satisfies the final flat requirements of Section 9 over 1,281, and the Board therefore reaffirms its approval of the final flat under tax 2,020 0 0 0 5 as made on July the thirtieth 2,020, and it incorporates the staff memorandum as finding a facts. All right, Ml. Hi. Thank you.

[277:01] Lisa. I mark bye, Laura Yay. Sarah, I I passed the 6 0. Thank you, Hela for walking us through that, and for being such a good lawyer. And if I, if I may just uplift the comment that Kurt made, it sounds like. There is a parallel section of code that is slightly different, but has the same comma problem that would not be fixed by this motion, so just wanted to uplift that I'm: sure Staff is following along. Yeah. And and I I think what Mark was talking about is to in one of our next code updates from. you know. Sometimes we have clean up ordinances where we fix things like this that we find where we can clarify the code. Those both of those coats actions we'll put on our list to clarify. Good. Thank you. All right, Brad. Do you have anything for us? Just this. Thank you again for your time and contribution for the on the community's behalf. I will be seeing all or most of you, tomorrow evening.

[278:07] Not quite sure of the Rsvp. List I did want to mention. There was some discussion earlier in the day about the and Cu's role and responsibility in that, and and this is offered without. you know, expressing an opinion that. But we are getting recent updates on their master plan. which includes some housing, including updating the graduate housing north of the Boulder Creek. so we may have some summaries that we can provide to council in that regard, and just wanted to make you aware of that. So that's all. I've got nothing for me, Thank you. Hello! Anything else you need to tell us? Nothing for me. Thank you. All right. Mark. What do you have for us.

[279:02] I I was going to ask tonight, but it's too late this late tonight, and it at our next meeting, or the that as soon as they. I would love to hear an update on the Alpine Balson project lots of activity there, and people ask me all of that right here on planning board what's actually going to happen there, and I after having been involved in the early stages of it. I I have to say I don't know. I'm not sure exactly. And so I would love, and it doesn't have to be a big presentation or anything but just a verbal update at our next meeting under matters from staff or whatever I would find that helpful, and if anyone else would like that will be great. I I actually can give you a very quick update, which is there. There have been no decisions made as to the programming or functions. In fact, I've got meetings coming up for that at the earliest construction that I've heard on. That is 2,025.

[280:05] Good. Thank you. Okay, Laura I'm not gonna go into any details, but I just want to report back as the airport liaison that I think Staff heard our feedback and have incorporated it to a large extent, and I can give you more details about that at our next meeting, when people are more awake. But I just wanted to go ahead and credit staff and appreciate them and show my gratitude for them listening to us and other folks who gave input and making some changes. So I just wanted to give that really brief update. Okay, Anyone else? No, All right. I am closing out this meeting. Good night, everyone. We'll see you next Tuesday. bye. Thank you.