July 25, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] 2020, July fifth, 2,023. we have a slightly turned around agenda for this evening. We'll do public participation, then dispositions and call ups. And we're going to go to matters. we. The matter. B is off the agenda, so we don't need to worry about that matter a Christopher is going to present to us, and we've set aside no more than an hour for his presentation and questions from the board. So I would really appreciate the boards help in. that you can be with your questions. we will have a presentation in August from Christopher. that'll be a more in-depth presentation or a more complete presentation. So we'll have a second side at the apple and then we will go to our public hearing. Item. i If there are more, there are more than 15 folks planning to in the public planning to speak to the public hearing item which is about intensity standards. we will limit it everyone to 2 min So I'm letting folks know. Now

[1:17] prepare a 3 min statement and a 2 min statement, and we will let you know where we're at when we get to that portion of the meeting. If you, if you are part of the public who will want to listen in or speak to that public hearing. Item. I think if you come, if you don't want to stick through the first hour. Come back at 7 And that would be a good time to rejoin the meeting. Okay, so. Vivian, let's see if anyone says that from the public who wants to participate in public participation, which is your opportunity to speak on any issue that is not a public hearing item today. So if you have comments on anything other than occupancy. please raise your electronic hand.

[2:02] Vivian will walk us through the the regulations. The rules about public participation. Yeah, thank you for that. thanks, Devin, for pulling them up. So thanks everybody from for joining from the public. tonight. We do appreciate you taking your time to attend the planning board meeting. My name is Vivian Castro Woolridge, and I help to facilitate the public engagement parts of these meetings. These rules I'm sharing are in place to help us achieve a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes disruptions. and Sarah mentioned planning board will start with open commons from community members. And there is one public hearing item later today in the agenda we want 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 civic conversations, and that we worked with community to develop these. these rules of engagement, our expectations for meetings

[3:03] and the vision is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue. while at the same time recognizing, we want to make sure everyone participating feels safe and welcome, and we want to ensure that we make space for different viewpoints in our meetings, because we believe it leads to more informed decision making. Next slide. we have a lot of information on our website about our productive atmospheres vision. If you're interested and I'm gonna be a bit specific right now. But what we need to know for the meeting tonight. there are a number of rules of decorum in the Boulder Revised Code, and we have general guidelines that are advisory in nature to share with all of our participants this evening. First, we ask that all remarks and testimony raised tonight be related to city business. Second, we will not allow any participant to make threats, or use any other forms of intimidation against any person in this session. Obscenities, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting, or or makes it difficult or impossible to continue in the moment is prohibited.

[4:01] And we also ask that participants from the public identify themselves by the by, their first and last name. So if you plan to speak, and you, you haven't displayed your full name yet, you can do that. usually by right-clicking on your name. Okay, thanks for popping in there. Devin, can you? I can do it real fast apologies. okay. I got Lisa here. And Mark, I am. No, that's that's fine. okay, so just one more slide. I think there's so we're in the zoom for webinar format. And it allows participants from the public to speak at designated times. And we won't turn on the video for community members because of security concerns. And in the Zoom Platform there's no pre-existing list for signing up to participate. So if you're in the meeting, we welcome you at the appropriate time to raise your hand, you at the bottom of your screen you should see a horizontal menu with 3 clickable items. You can click on the hand, icon

[5:12] and we'll note a call on you. If you have an expanded menu, you can also get to the raise hand icon by clicking on reactions. And I don't see anybody participating by phone. If that changes later, I can explain the like how to how to raise your hand by phone. that's it over to you, Sarah. and I guess we can also ask people to go ahead and raise their hand if they wish to participate in this public comment. part of the meeting. Right? So if just to follow on what Vivian just said. If you want to speak to any issue other than the public agenda item on intensity standards tonight, this is your opportunity. So please raise your electronic hand, and then Vivian will call on you. What about the informational item?

[6:01] Can people speak to that or not? I think, unless Laura Laurel help us, please. We've not had this question. Yeah, yeah. But any items that you can later speak to in the meeting. So public hearings have that. So if someone particularly wants to talk to about older Junction phase 2, you're welcome to do that in this moment as well. all righty, I don't see any hands raised. Okay, great. Well, thank you all, for Lynn just popped up. Yeah. okay, Lynn. You know the drill you have 3 min. Let me just get the timer ready. Sorry. Go ahead, Lynn. The time flew by, and I was on my bike, so I just raised in God, the second exactly the second I was pushing really hard.

[7:07] but I'm 70, but I can do it, you know. So What I wanted to talk about was the demise of Caroline Miller. how she needs to be reinstated. and how this affects the planning board and the whole city council and the whole city government. Because Caroline was a perfectly good to tender of meeting. She went to 30 meetings straight in a row for 2 years, and then the third year she had 2 absences one time, and then a separate time from that. She had another 2 absences. She did not have 3. She was not in a position to be fired. what? She did, what she revealed. Information. She was a a whistleblower. and she got X because of it, and if she can get axed. boy. Oh, boy, it's planning board. It's anybody

[8:04] that this can happen with. Now you want planning board. I know you're not going to be asked, because none of you are really strong advocates, for you know, for the kind of things Caroline Caroline is. And she spoke about stuff like the packet, had incorrect metadata in it. And there were electronic communications that were inappropriate. And the State legislature right now is debating Julie Gonzales. I think, and someone else are debating this issue of of having open records and having mostly with her, with open meetings. and she revealed only under the prompting of Kara Weiner. An interesting way, I thought after she was being asked, and she was responding, and they were questioning her about the fact that Sam Weaver and Rachel friend spoke to Halstein on the Lsbt

[9:07] to ask him what a good multiplier would be, so that, see you South could trade the land, if not acre to acre, then what would be fair for that? That is not a. And she had the audacity to write me a letter and say, Well, what did you think about this like a a. And that isn't the point. The point is, she wasn't supposed to be talking with Sam Wave, or 2 other Council people to with with an open space board of trustees that is illegal, and Julie comes. Alice and another person are fighting to enforce this kind of a thing, and there was also issues of getting people to open space when open space has their own charter. Unlike you that that might not have the same objectives as the City Council and the City Council is a higher order. You're just an advisory board, so it's it's really get her reinstated because it threatens all of you and all the city government.

[10:10] Thanks. Thanks. Thank you. Is there any? Well, I see Laurel just has her hand up something she wants to clarify a point. Go ahead. Yeah. Apologies. I said before that you can talk about anything that's on the Internet of public hearing. that's actually incorrect. Citizens can address any matters not scheduled on the agenda for that meeting. So just as Lynn talked about something that's not actually on our agenda, any citizens a lot to we in on that. So qualities for the confusion. Okay, so for future reference. anything but the public hearing item is share game, as is anything else. They might want to talk about anything that's not on the agenda. I'm sorry. Anything that's not on the agenda for tonight. Yep. So if they want to talk about future agendas or other. Okay, okay, thank you. Laurel.

[11:01] Okay. So now we're going to go through dispositions of planning board, call-ups and continuations call up. Item, 2,449 street Site Review. Minor amendment. Does anyone have questions for staff or want to call it up. I will take that as A, no. Okay. Call up item B, number B letter B, Osmp, half house. Well, replacement questions for staff or call up. Nope, okay. call up. Item C. Use review at 3,000 Pearl Parkway, L. You are 222. Any call ups or questions. Okay. we will now move on to matters from the planning board. As I mentioned the beginning of the meeting, since 2 of our members were not yet online one not yet

[12:04] with us. so they may not have heard. We will. We've given an hour to agenda, item A, which is an update on Boulder Junction. Phase 2. We're going to do a hard stop at at at 7 11 and this is an opportunity to ask some questions, but we will have another opportunity. And August, to return to this topic. item B is no longer an item to discuss. We will still be having the hearing on August eighth on the Millennium Harvest House project. So with that. yes, Mark. So before I heard what Laurel said, and I, just before we move on too far from the public speaking rules. I I misunderstood, or I have a question for laurel.

[13:00] So okay. we have a public hearing item that is entirely understandable, that the public would speak at that public here at the correct time for the public hearing item. But they are not prohibited from speaking to other items that are on the agenda, and anything else other than a public hearing. My apologies. No, I didn't mean to interrupt you. And I also didn't introduce myself, for at the record. So I'm laurel. I'm with the city attorney's office at the City of Boulder. So under our rules. There's a section called Citizen Participation in the order, and it says a citizen may address any matters not scheduled on the agenda for that meeting. So that means they can talk about future things. They can talk about things related to planning anything they wish to. As long as it's not on the agenda. Okay, is that same rule

[14:00] in effect for council. I do not know the answer to that, but it looks like Brad Mueller's hand is up, so maybe he has a little more experience with the Council. We can only speak to it. But during the public comment people period. the intent is that people could speak about any item they want for the 2 or 3 min that are allotted the when. There's a matters of staff or something like that. Those aren't open for public comments. So the public sometimes does speak on those items. but that that's not so much the intent. but I think Mark is parsing that nuance where people do sometimes speak to items that are not public hearing items. even though they're on the agenda. So it's technically not allowed by our rules, but for what? Chris is going to speak to that will come back for a public hearing in the future. So there is still an opportunity for the public to win at some point.

[15:03] Okay, thank you so much. Yes, Kurt. I I won't take any any more time on this. But it it would be nice at some point to clarify that just because there is often a need for people, there's no other opportunity in a lot of cases for people to speak other than it's. Maybe we can add that to our agenda, our agenda for our retreat. Laura. I I just want to third, that that also raised my eyebrows. That has not been our practice for the year that I've been on planning board it has been. People can speak to any item except for the public hearing. Item, whether it's on the agenda or not. which makes sense to me from a public participation standpoint. So I'm wondering if maybe there's some some confusion or or something mistake in the rules. because that's not how city council does it. And that's not how we've done it. Okay? So we let's revisit that at at a later date. I appreciate all the comments. Okay, Brad, just so you know, your hand is still up.

[16:00] Okay, we will move on now to the matters. Item, updates planning board on the book. Actually, before I even say that if you're planning to speak to the public item when we get to it. please note that if there are more than 15 people we will limit it to 2 min. If it's less than 15, we'll have 3 min. So just, I just want you to be forewarned because being for warned is for armed. Okay agenda title, update to planning board on the Boulder Junction phase 2 project and proposed amendments to the Transit Village Area plan. We're starting at 6 16 and we are going to stop at 716 on this topic. Thanks, Christopher. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Thank you. Planning board members. My name is Chris for Johnson. I'm the comprehensive planning manager. as chairperson Silver I mentioned. I'm gonna provide an Update on older Junction days to go ahead and get my screen shared so we can move things along at a timely clip.

[17:03] So hopefully you should be just seeing the slide show there. I as I. I'm going to take a lead and and do all of the presentation this evening. But certainly we would not have made as much progress if we had as we have on this project without the help of Chris Wranglos and Becca Hebrew being our project team on this project. So I just quick overview of what I'll cover in the presentation. I will give everybody an update on the progress that we have made so far in the Boulder Junction Junction phase 2 Talk a little bit about what we've heard through all of our community outreach over the last several months. And then really the the heart of the matter for you this evening, and then ultimately, when they come back in August. our proposed amendments to the Transit village area plan. So we have a preliminary set of those that we would love to get your feedback on. I will quickly review the next steps in schedule here for the next couple of months, as we move towards hopefully approval of those amendments, and then save plenty of time for discussion and questions that you may have

[18:13] so overall project, progress, progress, just as a reminder what we're talking about is an area that is within the Transit village area plan. This is a a plan that was adopted back in 2,007. It guides future changes in this area of holder for Boulder Junction, generally bound on the north by Belmont Road, Foothills Parkway to the east, the Burnley to Northern Santa Fe Railroad to the south, and boulder farmers ditch, and then also Thirtieth Street, then on the west. The vision that was established in the area plan back in 2,007 envisions, Boulder Junction as a lively and engaging place, with a range of uses attracting a broad diversity of ages, incomes, and ethnicities. It refers to a charming chaos with a variety of building, sizes, styles, and densities. I'm also seeing this referred to as messy vitality. just as a side note city wide and neighborhood scale, public spaces being included in this particular area, and then also references something which you know. Maybe this term is reflective of 2,007. But the notion of an Eco village that emphasizes alternative energy sustainability, walking, biking, and possibly car free areas.

[19:27] So the intention of our work now in 2,022 is not really to revisit the overall vision for this area, but to make some strategic updates to the, to some of the key components of the plan on knowing that the the world has changed and Boulder has changed them quite a bit in the last 15 years. So this is what the area of the phase one, which is basically the west side of the railroad track. This is what it used to look like Pre. T. Back in 2,005. And this is all the progress that has been paid so far. And actually, this photograph is a little bit out of date as much of that development there at the corner of thirtieth and pearl is reaching completion. You can see the phase. One area

[20:12] really is substantially complete, as has been mostly built out. Infrastructure has been included. And so that is why we are now moving into the phase 2 area But as I mentioned, the community's needs have really changed over the last 15 years, and so is it worth the opportunity to crack the area plan, open a bit and look at some revisions. The other thing that I want to point out is that some considerations and opportunities within this phase, 2 area which is east of the railroad tracks. and some things that Staff has really been trying to think about throughout this process is that this is a fairly different animal. That phase one is, as you saw in those the the image earlier phase one was, there was a lot of vacant land. Actually the city owned a large portion of that land, and then worked with older housing partners to develop affordable housing

[21:05] on the phase. 2 side, it's a much different story. There's there's multiple existing properties and owners. There's very few vacant areas. There's a number of vibrant local businesses. the city does not own a lot of land in this area except for the Goose Creek, Greenway, that runs east west, basically through the center of this area. So we have to really think about how we can plan for and anticipate kind of a much more incremental change. And there's going to be some intermediate conditions here in this area that you know, may go on for a period of time. The good news is that the east boulders of community plan that was just recently completed last year really offers a lot of very relevant policies and planning framework that we can that we can work from. So we have. we have been looking at the Transit village area plan specifically at 3 key components. So we're looking at amendments to the Land Use plan, the transportation connections plan, and then the urban design and character elements of the plan itself.

[22:07] This is the overall timeline. So we got started. really, back at the end of 2,022, and then really launched formally at the beginning of the year. We've worked through the background inventory and the phase one substantial completion report. I've worked through a number of sort of these assessments and develop some alternatives that we reviewed with a number of community members and focus groups in city council and a study session. And now we are moving towards this preferred approach and hopefully into the plan amendment an adoption process here. hopefully starting in August with all of you. So what we have heard through the public outreach and and activities that we have done. There's been a number of different focus group meetings. We have 4 different focus groups. that we created one of what we call daily users. So these were people that live and work in the area property business owners is a second group advocacy groups and then the fourth was the design and development community.

[23:13] So we had hosted a number of focus group meetings and open houses and online questionnaires that dovetailed with those open houses to essentially ask similar questions a number of different site tours and outreach events, and then also have formed the What Kurt will know of as the multi board working group. He is your planning board liaison to that group. And really, that's an opportunity for us to bring for bring together liaisons from a number of different boards across the city to have a a bit more of a a conversation with with different perspectives. As we move through this process. as I mentioned, we also had a study session, the City Council back in June. So a very, very high, level summary of what we've heard through the process. in the phase one area some of the things that people like or responded well to was, there's a a range of different residential types and sizes that are offered at A at A, you know, fairly broad range of prices. There's a mix of different uses across the area and overall. There's a fairly well connected mobility network and walk. Ability is pretty good.

[24:21] some of the things that people disliked is that it feels maybe a bit cold and corporate, and the architecture is flat. In some, in some cases. there's a lack of green public space and tree canopy, so it feels more urban than maybe it should at that sort of 4 and 5 story height limit and also just overall. It's missing kind of a unifying sense of place and character. And so that's something that we've not. We really want to try to address in the phase 2 area. So some of the desires that people have talked about in terms of what phase 2 might do slightly differently than phase one There's a very strong voice about supporting a lot of the existing and then also encouraging new local and small businesses

[25:05] in particular. This the phase 2 side, is an area that has a number of light industrial and service type of uses. So how do we continue to to promote those going forward? really looking to try to provide some additional green space and outdoor areas looking for an opportunity to allow more housing and excuse opportunities. the current Transit village area plan actually limits residential uses and a very large portion of the phase, 2 area so opening that up and and making that more flexible continuing to build out the like a pedestrian network and trying to find a way to make this feel a bit more like older, you know. Is there a way to create some some more eclectic, funky type of, you know, type of places where they just feel a bit more organic and feature, and maybe not quite so contract. So in the City Council study session again, broad overview of some of the feedback we heard. We had proposed that it proposed a number of different alternatives

[26:09] for land Use options, and the direction from City Council was to explore. And you, Tod, which is the mixed-use transit working and Development Land use category throughout this entire area to allow the greatest level of flexibility. But also, you know, caveat it with an opportunity or or a desire to preserve and enhance opportunities for light, industrial and service type of uses looking for ways to use the transportation connections to not only enhance the network within the area, also to external locations, but also to break down some of the larger larger blocks. This is a fairly sort of suburban landscape in terms of office buildings and parking lots and roads. So using some of those bike and pet connections to break down those larger blocks in particular, looking at the southern area. It's not fairly limited in terms of connectivity because of the railroad. So looking for ways that we can enhance connectivity out of that area.

[27:08] And then also, they agreed with the approach to developing under the design framework that could refine the land, use outcomes in these different sort of different locations across the phase 2 area. And also do I identify future outdoor that that we also are working with? Eps? I don't know. I can planning systems. There are a market research firm an economic firm. As a consultant to do some market study work. They have some preliminary findings. We included a bit of information for you to review. They are continuing to work on much more refined market outcomes that they'll be delivering to us here in the next couple of weeks, and we'll be incorporating into the package for any public hearings coming forward. But a couple of just key trends overall market support where residential is very likely to remain strong. actually, the phase one area represents about 33% of all the multi unit residential that's been added in the last 10 or so years

[28:13] retail demands really going to be tied to that residential development. Right now the rents within the phase one area are much lower than the city wide average. So that sort of indicates that there's a softness and demand for retail. And the phase one area. considering actually portions of that are still under construction and not fully occupied yet. industrial uses in boulder, as I'm sure all of you are aware that The nature of that is changing. you know, pretty pretty dramatically over all the city has seen, and then lost those industrial and flex space since 2,010. A lot of the surrounding cities around us have seen an increase. the phase 2 area currently represents about 6 or so of the industrial space city wide. So that's just kind of a point of a point of fact. There that it's not a. It's not a huge amount of of the industrial space. But it's it's it's also not just completely and significant.

[29:10] And then finally, office demand. I think we're all still in our as to what office looks like. coming out of Covid, and with hybrid work and and just different efficiencies of using office space. interestingly enough, for rent. In the phase, one area are actually higher than city wide average, and more similar to downtown. It's partly, I think, just due, because these are. These are new buildings and sort of class. A office space in that office demand going forward is likely, you know, to be considerably lower than our free pandemic levels for at least some period of time. I see you've got your hand up. Would you like to ask a quick question? It's just a follow up to the industrial uses the statistics that there has been a net loss of industrial flex spaces. 2,010. Does that include? We projected net loss in like East polar subcommunity plan? Or is that a number? That's only about what has actually physically disappeared?

[30:05] I I believe that is an actual number. So, not not anticipating planned changes. All right. Well, in order to stay on track in terms of timing, I do want to dive into the proposed amendments here, and we've kind of framed this up to express what we heard from the community through the process. And then how how we have tried to address this in the proposed changes. So, as I mentioned above, you know, really, this looking for flexibility to allow for housing across the phase, 2 area, a mix of uses, and perhaps more intensity than having originally been anticipated within the Transit village area plan. supporting light industrial and surface uses, and then really building in opportunities for more green areas and gathering spaces. So we've tried to address that by applying that M. You to use some. It is the most flexible land use category we have, and it's applied to most of the phase. 2 area

[31:08] we did in terms of a nod towards the light industrial and service uses we've actually currently proposing Ny, which is next use industrial to the central portion around World pearl. It's important to note that this land use category still allows for residential, but it does prioritize other types of uses like light industrial and services on the ground floor. and then the Goose Creek corridor. We have identified that to have the land use category pkuo, which is park, urban, or other really to kind of crystallize the desire for some more park, like enhancements along Goose Creek, as opposed to just sort of the storm and flood purpose that it serves today. So this is a an overview from a a graphic standpoint of kind of what that looks like, you can see the Mu to be applied to the northern and southern portions the Mbi applied along with Pearl, where there are a lot of existing industrial and service uses in that particular area.

[32:09] Pku Pkuo on Goose Creek. And then there's actually a tiny little sliver of open space development rights or restrictions for a small scenic easement that Osmp actually holds down along Pearl Parkway. So that's that's more of a cleanup item. But I want to make sure to draw your attention to that. I do want to clarify quickly. Just you know this, there's been a lot of I think debate and sort of split support amongst groups that we've talked to about using Ny. Versus in the to that central portion. if I were to explain the difference between the 2, I you know, looking at the Boulder valley. Comprehensive plan descriptions. Really, the first first sentence, I think, is most most critical. Where in you to the uses, say, is that it consists predominantly of light industrial use on the ground floors.

[33:07] So that's really the key difference quite honestly. the types of uses that are allowed in both of these is very, very similar. They both allow for residential. They both allow for live industrial and services and retail, and all those other compliments uses. So there's just some nuance really in terms of that particularly that ground floor, and what you know, what can and cannot sort of happen there. in between those 2 uses, and just as as a point of reference in terms of some of the estimates we've made from the modeling we've done. If we were to go with M. Utod instead of M. Ui for that central portion that would allow for approximately 200 additional homes within that particular location. but also would would result in perhaps about 250 fewer jobs over. So again, those are all just based on assumptions. And of course, assuming that all of those areas would would redevelop at some point. but wanted to provide that. And again, another point of information.

[34:10] Didn't you have a question? Yeah. my understanding is, we have not yet drawn up the zoom districts corresponding to these land uses. Is that correct? for nui? Actually, the zone district, then, typically would apply in. There is something called Ims index through industrial service, I believe, so that that does exist. But it's true that M. Utod as part of implementation of the East Boulder sub-community plan. It's actually a project that's going to be kicking off in the next couple of weeks. which is great, and there currently is not a zone district that is a perfect match. there's there's a couple that that work pretty well. But The hope is that through that implementation process to update the form based code would be to perhaps consider a new district that that could be applied to that new Tood area.

[35:04] Great. Thank you. Yeah. Good question. Great. Thank you. So transportation connections. we have heard about, of course, enhancing that internal pedestrian and bicycle network, using those connections, break down larger blocks. And then one thing that came up as well just with internal conversations with our Transportation and mobility department and others is really to try to balance some of the ideas with with, you know, real real world feasibility. when the Transit Village area plan was developed 15 years ago. There are a few. a few lines on the on the map that really, realistically, would be very, very challenging from a feasibility, standpoint, engineering or or cost or otherwise. So we tried to make some some key revisions there to just present a transportation connections plan that that we think is reasonable and and can be constructed. So we've focused a lot of the connections on people as opposed to vehicular connections. We've added and included several new multi-use pads, sidewalks, and then revised. some of those in feasible or redundant connections.

[36:13] So this is the this is the revised transportation connections plan. You can see a number of Multi use paths and that sort of dark green dash line on western northwestern area leading to that red star is the location of where eventually potential rail transit station would be located. So there's a number of connections leading to that. there are a few vehicular connections in that northern portion to kind of build out that grid a little bit, and and take that from a more suburban, you know, type of loops and cul de sacs, and and create a bit more of a grid there and then. the few additional multi-use as again sort of along the southern side and

[37:02] connections. And we're buying some of the alignments just based on a better understanding of of some of the grade changes that exist out there and and other barriers. The final final element is design character. So really, we've heard about utilizing this Creek as an amenity in this particular area, I finding ways to identify gathering spaces and and really thinking about retail viability. I think one of the one of the key comments we heard about phase one is that retail feels like it's spread throughout the entire area as opposed to being more focused on highly active locations where that retail might actually be a bit more successful. So it's something we've taken into account. And then, really, just this notion of trying to keep this area, you know, fun and funky and finding ways to do that going forward. So we've created a very strong pedestrian focus along Goose Creek with a actually an opportunity for a sort of signature. Sculptural bridge crossing at that location identified multiple outdoor space locations. of a variety of different sort of sizes and and and opportunities for outcomes.

[38:07] We've identified a couple of retail notes an activity areas that that could apply for or or where retail, we feel like would be more viable and and not applied it everywhere. And then, also, there's gonna be a number of future steps to refine some of the architectural character. And what some of the the material quality of of these areas look like. So one thing that we have identified that we feel like is very complementary to the transportation connections. Plan is a system of pedestrian corridors, and so we've identified 2 of those lining both the north and south sides of Goose Creek, and and also a number down in the very southern portion to help break up some of the large parcels that are in the southern portion of these 2, and these are really intended to be something more more than what we get in our our standard design and construction. details that that would apply to our typical transportation connections. Really, these are seen as.

[39:07] and it enhanced urban spaces with a variety of amenities, materials, and landscape, and a couple of you know, image ideas. There, you know, one more urban on the top, and one that perhaps starts to introduce a lot more trees and green. So these are just ideas. But something to help, you know. Get the get the juices welling a bit. the gathering spaces we've identified. There are 6 of those kind of across the phase, 2 area, 3 larger ones, one at that rail station, one at what would be that pedestrian bridge crossing, and then one the south area, and then 3 smaller ones as well. and then tried to highlight identify in the in the red there, where some of those retail nodes might be most successful. I will say that's still a bit of a an unanswered question at this point we're still refining our thinking there. But when we had the discussions with our focus groups, the the one area where there was there was alignment across all those groups. was at that future rail station. That there is certainly would be an opportunity for some a retail node back location.

[40:15] And then, finally, as you may remember, from the East Boulder subcommunity plan. There is this concept of place types that help to kind of further refine the land, use categories and provide some performance expectations of what those outcomes may look like. So we've applied 3 of those to this particular area. And we think that's especially. For if we ultimately we on using Mu Tod across the entire area because it'll it'll help to create a little bit more refinement for some of these these different areas. So when we reviewed this with our focus groups and then also with the multi board working group earlier this month. generally, there was an overall support for the proposed amendments. I do think that there is a bit of a The proof is in the pudding, you know, feeling that that we want to make sure that these become a reality and the programs in place to make that happen.

[41:08] as I mentioned, there's some split opinion about M. Ui versus on old Curl. we continue to just get consistent comments about the need for pocket parks and green space. So I'm thinking about how we can continue to build those in enabling more architectural creativity and a general agreement with focusing the retail around some activity nodes one couple of feedback that we got from Tila to aim our liaison from the Transportation Advisory Board. was actually that in the previous plan and the original team that there's a number of underpass locations that have been identified for multi-use paths and her direction. And we'll be actually having a discussion with Tam in early August about this, but really her direction is to look at, perhaps using more enhanced, accurate crossings as opposed to building all of those under passes. They are

[42:04] complex, they're expensive. And there may be better opportunities to actually share space between bicycles and others as opposed to really separating those 2 systems. The one great thing is that we did hear from a lot of our focus group members. really, the vast majority, except for one or 2, that there is a desire to stay involved in the process. So I think we've built a lot of trust with this group and hopefully are moving things forward. So that's a summary of the amendments. just in terms of very quickly next steps we are, you know, here here this evening, giving you a quick update on on where where we've landed. Our hope is to return on August 20 s. for a hearing of those plan amendments our our team is working diligently to actually pull together the the actual amendment to the plan itself that we will, of course, be providing as part of the packet to you for that that hearing in August.

[43:03] and then, if that if that does go forward. we received some recommendations from all of you. We would hope to go to city Council in September. And this is really just the first step So updating the plan is is kind of creating the menu, and we've got to write the recipes and figure out how to make the menu. So there will be future steps to update the comprehensive land. Use map congrats, a plan, land use map and the transportation master plan. that would require approval process with Tab and this group and and the City Council as well. We need to work through just the implementation of all the major infrastructure needs of timing, and how that will be funded. There's also, as as Kurt mentioned, there's a number of zoning and regulation updates that will need to be making to really guide redevelopment. and then I'd say, a really important point is as related to small and local businesses is working through with our community vitality department. What programs and what support we can offer to encourage those to continue. As I mentioned, there's a number of local businesses in the area. So if portions of this start to redevelop, how do we help support those those businesses to move into those new spaces? over time.

[44:20] send with that We will go to key discussion questions for all of you. All right, Christopher. Thank you. We have about 35 min to ask questions or to give comments feedback. So I appreciate if everyone would be concise in their comments. And if you hear someone ask and have their question and answered, please don't ask again. Ask the same question again. All right, hands, please. Who has that question or comments? I know this crew. I know people do raise your hand. Okay, there you go, Mark. I can. I can flip back to any slides.

[45:03] Oh, okay. thanks. That was a a, a great and fast pace presentation. There are a couple of things that that you said along the way that I I wanted to ask about the cul de sac as part of the grid. I I'm curious. Why, we're thinking in this particular kind of dense urban form. Maybe I miss her. Are are you advocating for multiple call to sacks within that 2 as part of the grid. no, actually, we would be Just grab my little spotlight here. So these these orange alignment here. If you can see that. those would be, do local roads essentially those coldest acts would go away. This would probably be the only one that would remain But we would add to this grid. I will say there was also some discussion about whether this place in this loop, and whether or not there would be an opportunity to actually make that more of a grid in some fashion, and, you know, remove this kind of parcel from the island of of of roadway here. So I think that's a features discussion with our transportation team about what? What feasibility that might look like.

[46:23] Right. Thank you for that clarification. So you also mentioned the materiality, the material, all of the thematically of the buildings within T back to. So most. So I this is again, I I always get confused with this. Most are all of T. That one was built under form base code. Is that correct. it's actually the opposite. There are, I believe, one or 2 projects that were developed under the form based code. Most were done through Site Review, and I do know that there was one that technically went through Site Review, but was kind of a test case for the form based code.

[47:08] Okay, so then under T, that 2, with the lessons that we learned from using form base code which my general impression in T back one was that that was successful. How will form base code? And maybe you don't know yet, or you haven't decided, or is part of the community discussion. But how would form base code be applied into that to what's the plan? Currently? Yeah, it's a great question. we we I will say, we don't have a a formal decision as to whether or not we will apply for base code in the phase 2 area or not. I do think that our inclination is to do so, and and really to use the the process that Kathleen King will be leading for developing form, base code for East Boulder. that has a lot of similarities in terms of

[48:09] how light industrial and office type of uses can be redeveloped. over time. And so I think we're going to learn a lot through that process, and and would hope to apply some similar lessons learned here. as well. Okay. I also know that in T. V. One. And I've I've mentioned this on more than one occasion. That 30 Fourth Street south of Belmont is really an exceptional street cross section that doesn't, that it's an example of something that can be that doesn't exist. as far as I know, anywhere else in Boulder. But I think it's a. It's a super forward looking design. It's very pleasant. have you? Do you have plans to have the street

[49:03] cross sections and T. That to be that kind of narrow, pedestrian oriented cars are allowed, but they're the guess sort of feel that 30 Fourth Street does in T back one. I think. Generally my response would be, yes, I do think that there is some. There is definitely still work to be done in terms of the implementation plan. As to refining what those 3 cross sections would look like, and then those will be future steps for us as we as we move forward with with hopefully getting the plan amendment approved. That would be one of those initial steps is is really that dive into the infrastructure improvements and what those should look like I do think that there is a very strong desire for the phase. 2 area, which currently is very vehicular and car dominated to transition towards something that is much more pedestrian and bicycle oriented.

[50:04] Do you mind if we go to Laura just and we'll come? Sure I I was just gonna make a final comment. And I'm done. I I'm comment. And then we'll go to Laura. I I just want to support the input from the tab number Tel Aviv in that our fascination. and with underpasses I think can many times we can provide at great crossings that are safe, just as safe. It may be safer, and certainly less expensive, allowing us to use those funds in other ways to again enhance different modes of transport other than the car. So I I support her comments, and I hope you take those to heart and thank you for a great presentation. Alright. Thank you, Laura.

[51:00] Thank you. I'll be brief. I'll just say briefly, Christopher, I love what the team has done. It seems like you have very much listened. You have done extensive public outreach to a variety of stakeholder groups. I'm sorry I'm getting a notification about my hand. I'll lower my hand. and I I really appreciated your presentation. I thought it was very balanced and acknowledging some of the strengths and some of the weaknesses and things that you're looking at, and how you've tried to address comments so excellent work by staff. In my opinion. Here I'm very interested to hear what Kurt has to say, as the representative of the multi board working group. But from from my perspective, really great work here. I especially love the conversation that you're having about green space and the bike and pedestrian network, and the pesos to make this area feel more active, more lively. That's one of the comments we get about phase one a lot is that you know it. It it it feels like it has a lot of potential like. If it were in a more populated area. If there were more people using it, it would be very attractive and cool and lively. And the thing that kind of stands out to people is that it can feel kind of empty sometimes. So I love that you're thinking about ways to make phase 2

[52:14] more of a draw to people and have more gathering spaces and more green space, especially and more bike pet-friendly. So really love that agree with Tila and Mark about the at at grade crossings. It feels like under passes, have some disadvantages, and are very expensive. So if there's not a compelling safety need for underpasses. I'm supportive of the accurate crossing idea. And lastly, I wanted to comment on the mixed use industrial, which is one of your key questions for us and say that I am supportive of having that strip of mixed use industrial, even though it sounds like it might take down the housing. Count a little bit. The housing potential. You all know that I'm very pro housing and like, see a lot of housing. But that concern about losing light industrial and service activities and businesses was really prominent in the East Boulder conversation, too. And I think we really need to honor that that we don't want all of those uses to go away, and if we don't zone for them, residential is a a use that creates higher profit margins. And so it will go away if we don't specifically

[53:17] zone for it. So I love the applying the place types and applying that mixed use industrial category that call for ground floor industrial and service uses. Those are my comments. Thank you. I'm gonna call on myself, and then I'll call an Ml, so I want to build on what Laura just said about the not so much and ui, but that protecting the light industrial I had concerns with East Boulder subcommittee plans, and I have concerns here that even in Ui will result in the disappearance of certain types of light industrial. because there are certain types of light. Industrial people are not going to want to live on top of. And I think we really really need to that. The reason I asked the question about is that is that net loss of light industrial

[54:05] reflect the gigantic decisions that were made, and East Boulder subcommunity plan. And the answer is, No, no, I think our losses are probably in of light industrial. It's probably greater than We acknowledge in our statistics, because we can only count what has actually happened versus what is projected to happen. So I'm actually a little uncomfortable with having mixed use that the only, and not setting aside some space that really is for light industrial. So that's comment number one, common number 2 is what I always comment about with these area plans, which is, please, please, please, some free range trees, not just graded trees. it is. Those trees do not grow. The grated trees do not grow for very long. They die quickly. You need. If you're going to have an urban, a very dense urban environment, as you do with the T. One.

[55:02] you gotta allow trees to grow otherwise it feels exactly the way people have described it, which is sterile, and not all that appealing and not very pleasant to walk through which something we want to encourage people to do so. Those are my comments. And now we will call on Ml. thank you, Sarah. and thank you, Christopher, for A very comprehensive. I I enjoyed the the presentation. it touched on. I think, so many key factors. so there are a couple of things I I am and backing all of the comments made about industrial. And I think that the idea of an an industrial use on the ground floor and a different use. Whether it be an office or a

[56:04] residents on top is not really viable. You one of the slides you talked about what's real and what isn't, and I think that that is not real. And when we think about true industrial. it exists back there, and I don't believe that the current direction is granting that enough space to actually survive. So that would be a comment is, maybe it's a it's a different place type. something that needs to be identified that would anchor the 2 possibility of of an industrial use. the second comment I have is. there is a real art to making pedestrian corridors vital. And I I appreciate that it's on the table as

[57:03] acknowledging that they carry a lot of weight. There are extraordinary examples all over in in any vibrant city about that, and I think that the concerns about the people, the fun that's have it there there. But It needs to probably ripping off of phase one where it's like, okay, what is this? So I think to have You know the arrows and stars pointed to the pedestrian corridors. It will be critical to the success of this as a pedestrian focused area. and lastly, my I and this is, you know, just a wondering. I think you said that this is mostly private ownership. And so what? What is the city thinking? What is? What are we thinking? We'll jump, start. The directions that we're looking at is has their

[58:04] is this for the public area along this creek that will help jump. Start some of these ideas. What? Yeah, that that that's a great question. And I think, well, a couple of thoughts. We there has been a few property on there that has reached out to us and express some interest. you know, obviously in the process. But also, you know, learning about what could be, and and I think, starting to have some ideas about some redevelopment potential. So I do think there's a couple of a couple of projects that could you know, conceivably be be a bit of a catalyst. I also think that as part of this you know the next phase of this work, and where we work through the implementation of what those infrastructure needs are. What are the capital improvements that the city can get behind, that those will be discussions, you know, with our storm water and flood. the division with Parks and recreation Department about what you know. What kind of

[59:07] you know capital projects. Can we be looking at in our 6 year cip down the road that could, you know, improve, make improvements along this week. And then also, I think realistically, because there's so much of a privately and ownership scenario here. There's gonna need to be some partnerships, and and the city is not going to be able to do a lot of these things on their own. And so I do think that there's going to be some opportunities, for you know, if there happens to be a larger redevelopment project coming in. What opportunities is there for, you know, a developer or a for a public private partnership to do some of these things. So these are all great questions and things that unfortunately I don't have answers for at this moment, but but certainly things for us to be keeping on the radar as we forward. Thank you so much, Christopher. Okay, thank you. Ml, so Lisa. And then, George, and before you start speaking, leave that we. Now I just want to remind people who are waiting to speak to the public agenda. Item, when we go above 15 people we will be having mint 2 min comments not 3 min. So just prepare yourselves. Okay, Lisa. You're next. And then George. And then Kurt.

[60:17] yeah, I'll try to be brief, I'm just kind of echoing a lot about other folks that it's really exciting to see older Junction to at this point and that we're getting to where it's gonna hopefully be a thing sometime soon. I agree with where, and as appropriate trying to keep some of that light industrial, not just to preserve light industrial. But I think it is part of the unique character of this area. you know. So I I like having the services, and I also think one, and as we can keep some of that personality, I think it really does add to the district. transportation connections, I know, are always really difficult. and we're still trying to figure out our relationship with our TV and what our TV is. And is it moving forward? but I would just encourage us to look for ways to

[61:02] activate that transportation, perhaps in partnership with them, and perhaps not if if we just can't get it to where it needs to be with them. And then, yeah, you know, I I think I'm trying to think of a way to say this. That is nice. I think that the the first I I I think it's interesting to look at the first part of Boulder Junction. which in many ways, I think, was incredibly successful, and getting a lot of housing and pretty densely, and getting some affordable housing, and so on. And we also have a lot of lessons learned from that. And specifically, I would look at that urban design element. and the way that those spaces are or aren't activated, the way that the plaza I, in my opinion, is not activated the way that we thought it isn't really legible. from major thoroughfares, or people know to go there, you know, if there's activity, you you can't see it all that. Well, The way that the bollards keep getting taken out, you know. I I think we have some really valuable learning that we got from what worked and and maybe didn't quite go as we wish it did with Folder Junction, the first part Vaulter Junction, and then I'd like to see that applied to the Volt Junction to and also perhaps

[62:15] there might be ways to, even though to, you know, on the other side of the road tracks, to to address some of those challenges over there and Boulder Junction one, and strengthen the first part as we went, and so you'll get there. But That that would be my plea as this moves forward. Thank you, Lisa George, and then, Kurt, and if we keep on scheduled we will actually be done at 7 60. Great! I'll make mine super brief. Thanks for the great presentation. I just wanted to throw my weight behind the the comments that Lisa just made. as a as as well in particular, is what Ml, made about the the the light industrial and really considering how how that's mixed in verse. making sure that it has

[63:00] the realistic space. to be supported appropriately and not lose too much more of it. So thank you. and I'll that's it. Sure, George. Thank you, Kurt. You are our last last commenter. Great! Thank you. Thanks to all my fellow board members for their insightful comments just quickly about the multi board working group. We had a great conversation last week talking quite a bit about transportation design we talked about some of the other elements of design. We talked a little bit about the park spaces. There was also, I believe, some discussion about what works best in retail, whether it should be nodes or more linear and so I think that might be something that would be worth taking up still in the future. but it was a it was a good conversation. I thought it was very useful to get input from a bunch of different perspectives. And hopefully, Staff felt the same way. I also have some mark up on the the maps that I think is too difficult to try to relate verbally. But Christopher, if I can just send you those to get my comments in. Would that be appropriate?

[64:21] That would be great. Yeah, we would really appreciate that great. Thank you. my goodness. unless someone has the final comment. We have actually completed this portion of our meeting early. So unless someone has a hand up and I'm lo to see a hand up. But we do have free speech here. okay, so we are done with this section of the meeting. Christopher. Thank you for that wonderful presentation, and my colleagues for your great suggestions and ideas. I suggest we take a 5 min, break or do a 10 min break. We'll come back at 714 again. for folks who are planning to speak at the meeting as a about the public hearing

[65:10] right now we have we just have now we have 18. So it's going to be 2 min per person. So you have 10 min to kind of edit down and we will return at 7, 14. Thank you. And may I ask for staff when you put up the note about when we'll be back from break, could you? If it's easy to edit, add that it will be 2 min each for comment just on that slide. So anyone who joins can see. Thank you. It's a great idea, Lisa. Thank you. Alright. See you back in 10 min.

[66:30] It looks good call. Can't see your notes or anything in case you're wondering. I'm sorry you're saying you can see my notes. Yeah, exactly. Thank you. I was just gonna put up this. I'm looking for the slide that alerts people. Oh, good! Devin's got it.

[67:00] Thanks, Devin Kevin. If you can slightly edit that to be 2 min per person. That is perfection itself. Thank you.

[74:55] members of the board. If you're in hearing distance of your computers.

[75:00] please come back. Lisa, George and Ml, if you're around. So she pretty faces. Excellent. George. All right. Well, there's 6 of us. We'll get started. Okay, we are back and we are starting public hearing the one public hearing. Item we have. which is a public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed ordinance, 8, 585, amending chapter 9, over 8 intensity standards, brc. 1,981, increasing the number of persons that may occupy a dwelling unit and setting forth related details. and before I hand it over to Carl. I just want to remind the folks who are hoping to who will be will be speaking during open comment, that you have 2 min and not 3.

[76:12] All right. Thank you very much. And, Carl, take it away. Very good Good evening, board members. My name is Carl Giler. I'm a senior policy adviser with planning and development services, city or boulder before the board tonight is ordinance 85 85 relating to changes to the city's occupancy restrictions. So just as a reminder, this is a city council initiated project that was commenced in early 2,022 at the City Council retreat. up on the slide is the problem statement, that, I think, is really applying to many of the code change projects that we're working on now, among other endeavors, basically to address the rising cost of housing in the city of Boulder. this is something that's being experienced across the entire country.

[77:03] What the Council has asked us to do is to perform a comparative analysis of other communities. since there are a lot of analogs to look at. develop a model occupancy approach and then solicit community input for changes to our code. the goals and objectives that we had outlined for council was to review city occupancy standards of other peer communities based on the best practices from other communities. Prepare options that would be appropriate to boulder and also considering simple land use code amendments that would provide greater housing opportunities in the community while preserving neighborhood character and established neighborhoods, and that those changes in the community So we've been focusing on on a number of different communities to to see how they they address occupancy. We talked with planning board about this in April. We did an extensive review of 60 communities the Board will remember, so that has informed our our advancement of this project. So the purpose of tonight and and the chair read the title of of the ordinance. But it's basically to hold a public hearing on ordinance 85, 85,

[78:14] and then discuss occupants, the occupancy ordinance, and make a recommendation to city council. So the questions that we have for the Board tonight? Or does the Planning Board find that that the proposed ordinance implements, the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Conference of plan. And, secondly, does the Planning Board recommend any modifications to the draft ordinance so just wanted to start at the high level? I believe the board has been monitoring the the State bill that was being considered in Colorado relating to land use issues it touched on a lot of things that we're working on now, locally related to housing types allowed, allowing more types of housing types in the in areas that are typically single family looking at a to use as well as occupancy. So we just wanted to start

[79:12] by saying that this is something that has been recognized at the State and national level. And that's why the State had kind of taken up the endeavor to to create some changes that would apply to localities relating to the Housing crisis. so the Senate Bill I did not pass it. Had it passed we'd be in a situation where potentially occupancy might not even be allowable under State code. But that's not the case. It did not pass. But we just wanted to provide that update to the planning board. We've also, in the last few months have been looking at trying to look up data, trying to get studies, commentaries and articles that relate to the housing prices to see what they say. what we've seen is kind of a a broad band of perspectives on this issue.

[80:00] there are some analogs where by adding housing we there is not been a drop in housing prices as expected. Again, this, a lot of these changes are relatively new. and you know I think it'll take time to see what the what the changes are going to be. But what lot of the studies do say that I think resonates is that zoning restrictions do a greatly limit housing availability? and that what they're a lot of the studies say is that by loosening up zoning codes and allowing other housing opportunities that can help affect the or reduce the housing costs by adding opportunities. so obviously bolder, like some other communities, have even higher challenges based on limited land. So you know, we looked at communities in the Bay area. Obviously, limited land area with open space in the bay. Things like that, and a high demand for living in that community makes it even harder to address housing costs. So in communities like Boulder, I think the the key here is to remember that there has to be a multi pronged approach at trying to affect or basically try to resolve the housing crisis by adding availability.

[81:20] So communities that have done that with similar issues are in Washington, Oregon, and California. where there's actually been past State legislation and court rulings many of which have made occupancy illegal. There's even a a court case in and near, not nearby, but Iowa. That made occupancy illegal. So it's things like that that have been happening in recent years. we did reach out to a number of the communities particularly in Washington and Oregon to see if the changes to occupancy regulations have affected housing costs. There was only one community that that noted that their apartment housing have been had gone down since they

[82:09] re eliminated their occupancy rules, but most of the communities have been responding, saying that the the changes are still relatively fresh. So they've not gotten any data that speaks to a lowering housing cost. but there are some analogs that we've looked at that that do say it. So we've seen kind of across the board. it. It's different in different communities. So just gonna start again at what is occupancy? I think a lot of us are familiar with these signs that you see in buildings. And you're walking around the community about maximum occupancy that that's really relating to building code. So the building code for safety purposes has occupancy limits. Just so that in case there's like some sort of emergency, there needs to be. you know, a lot of people leaving a building that it could be done safely. So there are limits on how many people can be in a building. But since the 1960, some communities, particularly those with universities and students that can impact neighborhoods have

[83:08] adopted additional occupancy limits in their their zoning codes. A lot of the stated purposes of these occupancy codes is to avoid an over concentration of people to mitigate any kind of impacts from parking or noise. But we've also heard some motivations are also rooted in discrimination against people of color and different lifestyles from occupancy regulations. It's something that's stated in the city of Boulder racial equity plan. So I'll briefly go over the current occupancy limits of the city of Boulder. it's very much like other communities where there's basically there's you can have a family in a dwelling unit. There's no limitation on how many members of a family by a court ruling in the 19 seventies? and if it's not a family, then there's a maximum number of unrelated persons per unit.

[84:04] So members of the family, plus 2 additional persons, and then in the low density zone. So that's the public zone, the Agricultural Zone, rural, residential, residential estate, and low density residential. It's a maximum of 3 unrelated persons, and then in all other zones, it's for unrelated persons. and remember that these are all ores. So there's also, or 2 persons and any of their children by blood, marriage, guardianship, including children and and their an adoption. so there's also separate regulations for accessory dwelling units and co-ops and group living uses. We're not making any changes to that section. So. there are. There are certain specified specifications in the code that you can check. But we're not proposing any changes to that. I also want to just highlight the definition of family. It's very broad. in the city of Boulder code it does include domestic partnerships and same sex marriage. It does go, you know, deep into like family relations. So Our assessment is that there don't need to be any changes to the definition city council had highlighted. This is something we should look at and see what the community thought. But we don't. We don't find that there's any changes that need to happen to the family definition.

[85:29] This is a map that shows the 2 distinct areas of where the the, the, the unrelated person's limits are. So you can see, most of the area of the city is in the orange, which is the lower density areas of the city. So those are held to the 3 unrelated people the green areas, which are all the other zones are at 4 under the current regulations. So we went to city Council on March ninth, and we presented them with a number of options as they requested. It's when we also talked to the Council about all the different other communities that we looked at. We also presented all this to planning board in April, but but gave them a number of options. What Council had told us to do is move forward with option B, which is exploring an increase to 4 or to 5 unrelated citywide. So that's what we've moved forward on.

[86:27] So looking at impacts from occupancy. Obviously, you know, there, there are some valid concerns. of increasing occupancy. what we've heard from the community is on street parking, availability, increased activity in the neighborhoods. maintenance issues, parties and noise. particularly in areas around the university. This is not uncommon among other communities that we talk to that have universities in town, a lot of the communities that we talk to in Washington and Oregon, and even Minneapolis have have really made a policy change that

[87:05] by getting rid of the occupancy regulations their focus has been more on on handling the enforcement issues directly rather than linking them to how many people are in a unit? this is largely because of the challenges that our Enforcement officers have, and going to a unit and finding out exactly how many people actually live there who's related? Who's not there? There are a number of challenges that they have to deal with in these complaints. so a lot of communities have been kind of moving away from that and just kind of focusing on. If there are specific parking impacts. How do you address that? So today, in the city of boulder police handles, noise and parking issues in the right of way? whereas planning and development services does deal with occupancy or illegal dwelling units and property maintenance. So in recent years, active enforcement has been paused largely due to the pandemic and some staff constraints that we have within the department.

[88:06] we do still address complaints in occupancy. So if there are accounts where there's over occupancy in an area it does have to be addressed. If there is a complaint. and it's something that's typically a remedied at the next leasing cycle so that people don't have to be booted out. while they're living in the unit. if there are instances of life safety issues which we have had. those have to be handled immediately. If if there's a threatening situation where someone's living in an unsafe condition that has to be remedied immediately. So we've really focused on community engagement over the last few months to get the sentiments from the community on this this particular topic. We know it's a it's a it's a hot topic in the city or boulder, and has been for many years. we've continued engagement with a number of neighborhood groups. particularly around the the University. So University Hill, Martin Acres, we actually went out to Aurora East block party to talk to people there. We've met with Plan Boulder. we've gone to a number of meetings with the Hill Revitalization Working Group.

[89:23] to get the word out to students, which are obviously, you know, a a stakeholder in this as well. We've gone to the Dean's Leadership and Values Committee, which includes a representatives from the student government. to get a can even broader perspective. We've been talking to the community connectors and residents. we've reached out to a number of neighborhood representatives and and different groups that have been suggested to us as stakeholders. We've had office hours virtual and in person to help answer questions we've heard feedback at a housing advisory board and planning board meetings in the past.

[90:00] and we also did a be heard boulder questionnaire, which I'll talk a bit more about. There's a lot of detail. and a lot of diverse thoughts on this topic. so we actually have 2 attachments to the memo that go into a a lot of detail on what we've heard over the last few months. So we've said this before. we use be heard boulder a lot. it's we we do recognize. It's it's a questionnaire. It's not a statistically valid survey. It's just one tool that we use, among others, to receive feedback and try to get a general gauges of what the sentiments and trends are. in the community. We've been able to to broadcast it pretty widely. The questionnaire was open from April 20 seventh to May 20 sixth. not sure based on other questionnaires. But we've we've received a pretty historic amount of responses about over 2,000 We received over a thousand written comments. on these topics. We do also acknowledge that there are multiple submissions from the same computer. This could be, if you know, there's members of a family that are using the same computer. But it also might be people that are submitting more than once. So we acknowledged that.

[91:14] And we factor that in to what we've heard. But if you want to read the the the real detailed responses on the the questionnaire attachment, see contains that. So we've talked to a number of the folks like I said. When we talk to the university adjacent neighborhoods we've heard concerns that if occupancy is increased it'll drive out families it'll benefit landlords who will charge the same, if not more. There's concerns that there will be impacts to neighborhoods that will ultimately not achieve what what it, what we're trying to work towards like helping me on housed or or trying to mitigate housing costs. When we talk to Aurora East, which is more of a student mixed with property owner. neighborhood. We we have heard from students that were largely in support of more housing options. when we talked to homeowners they weren't necessarily concerned with occupancy per se, but they were concerned with additional parking impacts. That particular neighborhood

[92:22] is impacted by folks that park there that live in the dorms nearby, and also some folks that park in that neighborhood, and then take the bus that might drive in from out of town. we heard a mixed response also from the Hill Revitalization group. we've heard again a number of student perspectives that things need to be made easier for students that it's a real challenge for them to afford to to live in boulder and many have to commute in And then there were others that you know brought the the concern that you know occupancy should not be increased without guarantees for affordability. When we talked to the Dean's leadership and Values Committee. Obviously students, there were. They felt that many students are very much affected by the the the lack of affordability and housing, and many have to hold jobs or multiple jobs to pay for their housing to be in boulder there's a lot of housing and security for students. They don't know. some of them are living in over occupied conditions and could be, you know, evicted. if there's a complaint.

[93:26] And often students. They. They want to voice their concerns to council on boards, but tend to be, you know, involved in other things, and that takes them away from speaking to the leadership. when we talk to the community connectors and residents. they didn't spend a whole lot of time talking specifically about occupancy, just that they acknowledged that there were some discriminatory history related to occupancy when it first came online in the 1960 S. We broadly heard support from them that that the occupancy limit should be removed.

[94:03] When we talk to some of the community leaders, we also heard from someone who was actually in the middle of a of being evicted. they were living in a unit. There was a complaint about it being over occupied, and they're now struggling, or we're struggling to find housing after that instance. we heard some support for 5 unrelated citywide And then we heard, other impact or input that at university adjacent neighborhoods should be accepted out from any increases. So, jumping to the the be her boulder responses. This is just obviously like a generalization of what we saw. But looking at the responses, there was more support for 4 unrelated citywide than 5 with the majority showing strongly support or somewhat support. when we looked at look, the 5 unrelated There was. It was more even

[95:03] Between and then there was there was a higher number of definitely do not support when it came to the 5 a majority of the respondents did not support removing occupancy requirements entirely. Most of the respondents indicated that they were homeowners. About a third indicated that they were renters. There was more support for the changes among renters and younger participants. But more than half of the respondents felt that the current occupancy regulations should not be left as they are. So we went to Housing Advisory Board on April 20 sixth. we'll be going there tomorrow night to get a recommendation on the ordinance all the members, except for one, felt that the occupancy role should be changed. the one member that didn't support it felt that increasing occupancy would not increase affordability, and that the focus should be more on allowing more co-ops rather than the 10 that are permitted each year. most acknowledged that loosening the roles was the right trajectory

[96:09] And then there was one member of have that expressed concern about corporate entities buying up properties to take advantage of, of, of the increased rent income, but noted that this should not be necessarily a zoning issue, but something that should be handled and licensing. I'm not gonna read through all the bullet points since you're the planning board, and you were at this discussion. But on April eighteenth we discussed occupancy. I would just say that it was very mixed. what the Board thought about changing the occupancy rules. Excuse me. okay, that's better. So 3 members express support for changing the occupancy Regs, and you can see the bullet points for the reasons they they supported it. There were 2 members that I would say, were firmly against increasing occupancy limits, based on impacts to neighborhood character and some of the points that I've already gone over, and I would say that there were 2 planning board members that were in the middle on the topic, and that there needed to be more data, to support making changes.

[97:25] So we, we conveyed all this information, all the community engagement. all the date data studies, analog from other communities to take a minute and get yourself some water I I I think I'm okay for the moment. Sure lot to say So on June fifteenth we presented all the information to City Council And then asked counsel some questions about whether we should move forward with 4 unrelated or 5 unrelated We. We conveyed all the public feedback that we'd received all the feedback from planning board and Housing Advisory Board

[98:09] and the direction that Council gave us was to perceive, on preparing an ordinance, to increase the number of occupants to 5 unrelated citywide 1. One thing they brought up that was relatively new was a concern related to non-conforming uses particularly on the hill, where you have densities on certain sites that are more than what's allowed under their current code. There was concern that if the occupancy were increased in each of those units that that would greatly increase the impacts on that neighborhood, and that's something that they asked us to look into and come back with some code language that would address that. So that's what we've done. So I'm going to jump into the content of proposed ordinance. 85, 85 What it proposes is to increase

[99:01] the occupancy limit throughout the city from the 3 and 4 unrelated depending on zoning district that we have now up to a uniform 5 unrelated persons and then in a commence, or it way it would go from 2 to 3 persons and any of their children by blood, marriage guardianship. including foster children or adoption. This is something that Council asks specifically as well to be included in the ordinance And then in similar fashion, we've looked at efficiency living units, and we're proposing an increase from 2 occupants to 3 occupants. So one thing that gets a little confusing or a lot confusing is non-conformities. So I I think I'm going to go through a number of different scenarios that I think will help the board. But the thing to think about is that there is non-conforming occupancy. And then there's non-conforming uses.

[100:01] And when you look at the land, use code, the non-conforming use definition does not include occupancy. There's a special section in the occupancy section that's already in the code. That section 9, 8, 5 c. That relates to nonconforming occupancy. And what that really means is a dwelling unit that in itself has a non-conforming occupancy greater than what the current code allows. So if they had an occupancy in the past, that's higher than the 3 or 4 that we have. Now, it's considered nonconforming occupancy. Non-conforming uses is different. That's more like if there's a housing type that's on a site that's not an allowable use. Or if there's a density like a triplex on a site that only allows a single family home, that's a non conforming use. So I'll talk more about this as we go into the next few slides.

[101:05] So ultimately, what we're proposing to address, what Council had asked related to nonconforming uses is adding a new 9, 8, 5 d. where we deal with basically freezing the occupancy limit in units that are in nonconforming uses, so that you don't have. For instance. you might have a non-conforming triplex on a site, and it has conforming occupancy per unit 3 per unit. So in a triplex that would be 9 occupants on that site. The concern is, if the ordinance permits each unit to go from 3 to 5, that that site would go from 9 occupants to a total of 15 occupants. 5 in each unit. The ordinance sets before the board tonight, wouldn't it? Would not allow that. So I'll I'll talk more about those options.

[102:06] So these are some scenarios. I've broken it down into 4 scenarios that I'm hoping will help. And the left side basically shows a single family example. And the right side shows a multi-family example. each square is a dwelling unit. and then, if it's green, it's conforming. and if it's red, it's non-conforming. If that helps. So if you look at the single family example on the left. it allows 3 unrelated people in the unit. If the ordinance is passed in a conforming unit. it would go up to 5. As it's drafted. so the same would happen in a multi family example. So in a in the multi family example, you can see it. It's in a zone that allows for unrelated per unit.

[103:01] If the ordinance passes it, it can go to 5 in each unit in conforming units. When we go to scenario 2. This is showing non-conforming to conforming. So there are going to be instances where in a you have a legal, non-conforming occupancy today that becomes conforming by the changes in the ordinance. So you can see on the left. It's 5 unrelated today which doesn't meet our code, but it's legal, nonconforming. But if the ordinance passes and goes to 5, it then becomes a conforming unit. So in the not in the multi-family example, you see the same thing. So there might be some instances where there's attached units, 5 in each unit are non-conforming. Today they become conforming with passage of of the ordinance.

[104:00] So in this particular example, we're looking at nonconforming to non-conforming, this is where it exceeds 5. So there are some examples of where there might be occupancy of 6 in a dwelling unit, and then, after the ordinance, it would continue to be non conforming. So if it continues to be non conforming, it's subject to the existing standards that are in the code, and 9, 8 5 c. Same same for the multi family example. So here's the last scenario that I was just talking about. So this is in a non conforming use. This is where the number of units on a site exceeds what is allowed by the code. So even if you have in this case a 6 unit building, maybe where 2 units are allowed, it's considered a nonconforming use. And even if the occupancy and each unit is 3 which conforms to the code. what we're trying to convey in this slide is that if the ordinance passes to 5, it's not an automatic increase in each of those units to 5,

[105:09] it would stay 3, because it's a nonconforming use. So in the land use code, we actually have a definition for expansion of a Nonconforming use. it includes occupancy. So what that means is that to go from 3 to 5 it would be considered an expansion, and that would require a nonconforming use review. So if we didn't include a provision in the code to prevent that, people could come in and ask for a nonconforming user view increase occupancy. And if if staff or planning Board felt that it met the criteria in the code they could increase the occupancy to 4 or 5. What we're proposing at the request of Council is that that be prevented? so that's what section 985 basically says in in attachment, a

[106:01] is that it would basically freeze any increase. It wouldn't allow any requests for a nonconforming user view. It just wouldn't allow it on in instances of nonconforming uses. So this is the language that's actually in the code. that I wanted to illustrate, and I wanted to highlight the the first sentence in subsection, one, because it's a little bit different than what is in the code. We wanted to basically say that there might be a higher occupancy that's allowed per unit in subsection. C, so we just updated the language there. But basically what this does is, it applies the current code to any non-conforming uses there they would. It would freeze them as it is today in nonconforming uses. So that's what 9, 8, 5 d. Does. And I'm I'm happy to answer any questions on this. I know it's I know it's complicated. So there's 2 options that are in the code. option a is what's represented in an attachment. A,

[107:05] it basically just applies. It's the same way we do it with the code today citywide for all these different uses. If the Board was inclined, or if there were members that felt like there should be a recommendation to just limit this non-conforming restriction to only areas adjacent to the university. That's option. B. If so, if folks felt that that nonconforming use restriction doesn't need to be applied citywide. It would be option. B. We're recommending option A, just because it would be a a more simplified, straightforward application of the code. So we've we've included a in-depth analysis in the code that speaks to that, we find that what we've prepared in the ordinance would meet the the project purpose statement and the goals and objectives by limiting the amount of impacts that can happen, particularly in areas that are nonconforming.

[108:02] we feel that what is in the ordinance would would move forward on a number of different Bvcp policies relating to adding housing. you know, relating to that jobs, housing and balance. and preservation and support for residential neighborhoods by having that freeze and then also meeting our housing policies by including local solutions or preserving existing housing stock. Obviously increasing occupancy allows the use of existing housing stock. we think it meets all these policies. So we're recommending approval. this is the staff recommendation that we've included in the packet. we can come back to this just to talk about next steps real quick. we're going to Housing Advisory Board tomorrow night to get their recommendations to city council. and then first reading of the ordinance is set for August third at City Council. There's no public hearing The public hearing will be on August seventeenth on this particular ordinance.

[109:02] So that concludes my presentation, happy to answer any questions. Right, Carl. Thank you so much. Lisa, before I call on you. I forgot to do something at the beginning of the meeting which I am now going to do. So let me just make sure I'm using the correct language. Hold on. and I apologize for being gone. For a moment I was talking to Laurel. so I need to ask if anyone on the board sorry has any disclosures that they feel they should make visa V. This ordinance, so this this item. any conflicts of interest they feel they should. let us know about Kurt. And then, Lisa, what was your hand up about? A conflict? No, okay. So Kurt. sure, I just wanted to disclose. I own 2 rental properties in boulder Both of them are 2 and 3 bedrooms, and they are in multi family zone, so they are currently allow for unrelated people. I never rent to, even for unrelated, I rent to 2 or 3 unrelated at most. And so any increase would not affect me in any way.

[110:22] Okay, and I'm just gonna ask a couple of questions really quick, clarifying question, just to make sure. Thank you for sharing that on the record. I just want to make sure. Can you be an impartial judge on this matter? Can you just speak to that a little bit for the record? Yes, I can. Thanks. Okay. Kurt, I don't. I don't want to put you on the spot to do. You feel you should also tell us about your involvement with bedrooms? sure. Yeah, I was involved with the bedrooms are people initiative and campaign for that, and was a strong supporter. and that, as we know you know, 50 to 48 and So

[111:03] just to be okay. And and then just to clarify again for the record. can you let us know if you're so, can be an an impartial decision Maker. Is there anything else you need to disclose? Yeah, my involvement, I mean, I I think I learned quite a bit through my involvement from through in bedroom. Certain people but I don't think that my involvement that that involvement per se affects my decision making in this matter. Thank you. And Mark, you raised your hand as well. yes, when? I don't own residential rental properties on the commercial. But I I did actively campaign for collect signatures for contribute to The bedrooms are for people campaign. So that is a criteria that needs to be discussed that I want to develop to that now.

[112:13] Great, thank you very much. so this, this is just like disclosures on the record. So I'm just gonna follow up and and again ask, Do you? You can be an a partial decision maker. Is there anything else you need to discuss? Yes, I think I can be an impartial decision maker, and I can't think of anything else I need to disclose. Great, thank you, mark anyone else before we go to questions. All right. Also, Lisa, you are first oops. Got your your buds in? Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Wonderful. okay, so I just I just wanna make sure that I understand, Carl. And I think you, you explain it beautifully. And we also got deep into the code. And so I just want to make sure I understand.

[113:08] So in a zone. And and I'm I'm being particular in using the zone I live in. So in a zone like Rl. 2. In my case. a bunch of townhouses. But I think it's a a zoning district that also covers duplexes, triplexes, and so on. Would every unit, regardless of square footage and bedrooms under the proposed language, be able to have up to 5 unrelated people in it? yes, if it's a conf, if it's conforming to density. Okay? And so do you have any information on how many like, how how common is it? For? What what do you mean by conforming with density, I guess. Could you start there, please? If it's not a non conforming, you say it could go up to the 5 per unit. I'd say the vast majority of Rl, 2 is developed in the seventies and is conforming. So I'd say there's a high likelihood that it would be conforming. Okay, okay, that's what I think, too, that all those would be

[114:12] I'll have more to say about that later. But I think that that was my question. So so a 2 bedroom, 900 square foot unit could have up to 5. So you students packed into it by a landlord who wanted that rent. for example. Yes. thank you. Hey? George, Laura Kurt, mark? Ml. yeah, thank you. quick question on the surveys and engagement could could you just clarify for me, as it relates to the discussion between 4 and 5 that W. Was there was there majority support for for 5, for 4. I I know you covered it, but you could. You just dive into that background a little bit more in detail, as on the public engagement relative to this, I mean, with respect to the questionnaire again, we don't look at the questionnaire like like a statistically valid survey. So you know you take it with a grain of salt. I I I think we looked at

[115:21] the responses to it, and you know there are themes that you can draw from those questionnaires that we think are helpful. And the theme we we saw was that there seemed to be more support for 4 on related city-wide, then the 5, when when you looked at people that submitted results for 5 it there was a majority for for it was it was more 50, 50 for the 5, and there was more submissions that said definitely, Do not support for the 5.

[116:00] that said, you know, we also look at other feedback. you know. So there are certain folks we talked to in groups that were firmly for the 5. So why did Staff conclude that 5 should be the number for the proposed ordinance, and not for we had asked. We had conveyed all this information to city council on June fifteenth, and ask them specifically when we prepare the ordinance, should we prepare it for 4 or 5 The Council directed us to move forward with 5. So that's what we included in the packet. Okay, so this is this is a, this is a majority of council who is directed this 5 not necessarily directly related to the feedback. From the that was the the feedback we got for the direction we got from council, based on the information we gave them. Okay, Laura, you're next, and then Kurt, mark, ml. thank you. 3 quick questions. One Carl. I appreciated you, noting the limitations of the be heard boulder questionnaire, which I think goes for every be heard boulder questionnaire.

[117:09] And you specifically noted that you there were 300 responses submitted from one email address were those. No, no. 300 responses where they were from. one email just might have responded several times. It's not one responded 300 times. not not just one singular computer, but just any kind of multiple submissions from the same like that tallied up to about 300. second question. You noted that one of the hab members had concern about investors buying properties. but they said that they thought that should be handled, not through occupancy, but through licensing. Can you explain what their thought was there about how that could be handled via licensing? I don't have to be actually elaborated on how it should be handled. Specifically, I think they just they they noted it as a concern, but felt like they supported the zoning change, but that it that that

[118:13] that concern should be addressed, but not through zoning that, that's all. They they noted to me. Okay. and that might or might not relate to my last question, which is, you know some of the comments that we got. I think clearly. One of the main concerns that people have about this occupancy change is that it is not in any way tied to affordability right? That this, the idea that it would just directly be a per bedroom charge, and if you're paying $1,200 for a bedroom. Now you would still pay $1,200, except there'd be 5 of you instead of 404 of you in a unit. I'm not sure that that's exactly how it would work. But let's let's assume that that is. did Staff consider. I know you're trying to make this a simple ordinance change. But did you consider or see any models of where increased occupancy could be tied to affordability whereby you couldn't just add a bedroom and charge the same amount that you're already charging per bedroom. We we looked at that when we were looking at

[119:13] other communities. all the example there. There weren't many examples of that number one throughout the country. Again, we looked at 60 communities. some examples of where they we didn't find any examples where it was tied to affordability at all. we did find some that we're tied it to owner, occupancy. and there their experiences, or that it was extremely difficult to administer enforcement was challenging, and most of them were actually either they either eliminated it and got rid of that requirement or are in the process of getting rid of that requirement. So one example is is Madison. They they had like, if you wanted to have, you could have. It's a 2

[120:06] unrelated limit in the single family zones, but you could go to 3 if it was own or occupied. They they eliminated that because of the of the challenges with it. So again, not all. I I didn't find any examples where they were tied to affordability, and I didn't find any examples where? those were. Those types of processes were successful. Okay, I I'll just note that I know that we did do something similar with our A to to say, you know, if you make it an affordable 80, you get extra benefits by doing that. And I didn't know if there were any creative ideas about how to apply a similar model to occupancy, that if you do affordable occupancy, you get you get additional occupancy, or something like that. that would have to be submitted and reviewed. we'd have to have a fee for it. There'd have to be deed restrictions that get added onto it. So we we were trying to avoid

[121:11] again. We were instructed to to move forward with a a simple solution, and that was far from Thank you. And I just chined in on that. Add to what Carl said, 1 one very big difference between what we're able to do with the to use versus our department is going to touch it as part of a building permit. whereas with the occupancy that largely it's been given an unknown to us. people do have to get a rental license, though, so I think the the concern is mostly with for rent units rather than ownership units property owner step to get a. They run a license, but individual renters do not, and they tell me, go.

[122:01] including the number of them. Yes, yes, I just was thinking in terms of We already have a rental licensing process where there are certain requirements that a homeowner has to meet or a property owner has to meet in order to rent out their property, including some very stringent environmental standards. I might add for sustainability reasons. So it seems like if we were super motivated to try to tie rental occupancy to affordability. We have that mechanism specifically for rental units which seems to be where the main concern is coming from not so much about. I own my house, and I have a big family, or I'm polyanorous, or I invite another family to come, live with me that seems like less of a concern than the concern around investor owned properties trying to pack people in by the bedroom. I I just wanted to draw that distinction between 8 years and and what Karl was saying. No, very helpful, Brad, thank you. thank you, Brett, thank you, Laura, and she'll go to Max, Hi, Max!

[123:01] Hi, Max! All right, we're going to go to Kurt. Then mark, then. Ml. great, thank you. I wanna follow up sort of along the lines of where Lisa is going. So this, the the limits on non conforming uses apply to lots that are smaller than the minimum required lots is that right based on is a lot or parcel that does not meet the density requirements. In chapter 9, 8, it may or may not relate to the lot size. It really just has to do with the number of units that are on a lot. It might be non-conforming by virtue of the of the lot size. But in any case, it's it's really like, if you have a lot that the zoning only allows like 15 units on it, and it has 20. It puts it in that non-conforming use category. Okay, so let me ask a specific question. There is a an Rl, one lot that has a house, and a lot size is 6,000 square feet, which is less than the minimum required 7,000 square feet. So that is a lot or parcel that does not meet the density requirements of chapter 9. We would consider that a non-standard parcel in the definition of non conforming use. It doesn't. It doesn't include

[124:23] a single family home on a non-standard lot. So, okay, so what is this clause and option? A say that the or is a lot or parcel that does not meet the density requirements of chapter 9. A intensive. What is that clause doing then? If it's not applying to 6,000 square foot R. One lots. I mean, it's really trying to get at those properties, particularly on the hill where you have rooming units or

[125:01] or you know, 5 units on a site that only allows a single family home. it's limiting how much the occupancy can increase in that particular a lot. But isn't that covered by the first part of the sentence. A non-conforming residential use that is not permitted by 961 scheduled, permitted land uses. because the second part specifically talks about the lot or parcel. It does not meet the density requirements, so I mean, I believe you. But it just. Oh, boy, if I read this, I would say. if it's not a 7,000 square foot lot in our one, then this non-conforming uses again. There. There is a specific statement in the Nonconforming uses definition that explicitly excludes single family homes on lots that are less than the minimum lot size. If it's just a single family home, it's not considered a a non conforming use

[126:12] because it was written with the implicit person purpose of not making so many lots within the city of Boulder, nonconforming uses, because so many lots in the single family zones don't meet that minimum wage that was done intentionally. Okay? Well, I mean, maybe this is clear. I am not aware. maybe this is clear to the lawyers. It that doesn't seem super clear to me. okay. So my next question is about the El. You limits those. do do those or do those not apply to families. If you want to have? If you've got a family, and you want to have currently say.

[127:06] where the limit is? 2. If you've got a couple and a kid, does that allow in any of you? Yeah, the the elus have specific standards because of their size. So it currently is just 2 persons. so we are proposing some flexibility there to go to 3. it doesn't. It's not equivalent to a family. And any you okay. gotcha? thank you. And then my last question, maybe, is more to Brad, I guess. But you mentioned that the police and force noise and some other kinds of violations, and then code enforcement, I think, who enforces some of the other things trash and so on.

[128:00] I'm just wondering if there's been discussion between like Pms and police and not ways to unify those enforcement efforts? Or is there communication about that? And so on. It just it seems like a little bit of a, maybe a a potential gap in between the 2. Yeah, the short answer. But without getting into a lot of administrative inside baseball kind of stuff. is. Yes, to clarify code. Compliance is a division within planning and development services. It's responsible for life, safety and zoning enforcement. So that's going to be everything from short and long-term rental licensing to violations of the building code to use violations. commercial and a residential zoom district, for example. and we've got a full time staff that does that code enforcement in police is a unit, I guess would be the right term that follows

[129:07] up on weeds and trash and snow removal and bear cans and things that are associated with on site property related nuances to offsite neighbors, and such. There is a close and historic relationship between the 2. the divisions operationally, and they do work well together. but we also recognize that organizationally, things do change over time. We are looking at different ways to communicate through a number of different enforcement functions throughout the city. certainly not to unify them. But you know, appreciating the fact that there's enforcement around the energy code storm, water, flood control. you know, there, there, there are many, many different enforcement functions by.

[130:00] etc. through the department. So I hope that answers your question. Yeah, that's awful. Thank you very much. Thank you, Kurt. Mark. And then Ml, and then I'll call on my first. I I want to say, thanks to Carl. I I think tackling this great we've lost you, Mark. For some reason. I don't know what's going on. You're not. You're not muted, but we can't hear you try again. And now you're muted all right. We'll go on, and we'll come back to you. Okay, ml, you you you're next. Thank you. so my. let me see. Carl, I'm there you are. I couldn't find you. Sorry I had to look at you, though. There was a question about the occupancy being linked to support financial bedrooms or or anything, and as this orders is written.

[131:06] It is an Iable that it ever has been so. My question. would be, is there for rentals? Would there be any mechanisms to have a rental occupancy tied to number of bedrooms or square footage, something of that nature, so that we don't over stuff people in rentals. which is, I think the big concern with this increase is that you know more people than might be. Is there any needs to do to differentiate between occupancy in general and rental occupancy that would be tied to a bedroom. I think that certainly could be done. It's not the direction we went in. When we looked at

[132:03] all the other communities there were few examples that did it by floor area. I think we thought that what they had done with Floria was, was somewhat complicated and got it And some of the reasons that the bedrooms are for people initiative was complicated, and and might have lost some support was related to the number of bedrooms or floor area. So we didn't go that route. with these changes. It's something that you know we'd have to look at and figure out tying it to rental. to understand how they might address their update uses based on this. So what what the landlords have to say about allowing more people in there.

[133:01] Yeah, we We talked to bar ha about this, and they brought this particular issue up at their board meeting, so the feedback that we heard from them was that landlords would be open to renegotiating leases after September. to recognize whatever change the Council adopts and that they have that flexibility. And I've also offered to speak to bar ha! And speak to landlords if they have any questions on that but That's the feedback we heard is that they? They would have more flexibility to do that. Was there? an indication that there would be a big increase or an increase in rental income. because now they completely charge per person, not per bedroom or per

[134:04] square footage, or for any other requirement, so they could have a small house and have 5 people in it for us. They didn't give us that information about you know what they would be charging. Right? okay. Well, it would just be interesting to see if if the concern about more people than a a place could potentially should potentially hold. be tied to a ripple. a a rental agreement. so that it is tied to or square footage. I mean that that is the difference between people putting sophas on their porch and having, you know, the backyard have over overfill overflowing with

[135:01] the stuff that doesn't fit in the unit. And and you know the cars and all that. Anyway, I think there's a relationship between size and the number of people. and it may not be an issue in a single family house where the family, you know, has got of the big Nanny, and you know whatever but it might be in a rental situation. and that's and those are my questions. Thank you so much. Thanks, Amel. I'm Mark. Can we hear you? Well, let's see. Can you hear me now? Okay, all right. I I was saying, first kudos to Karl for tackling an issue that I'm sure makes really almost no one happy. So I I'm for you took a lot of to with you out there. So anyway, I appreciate your work on this. And you bringing this to us in this form? My first question is,

[136:02] can we limit the occupancy for a family based on any issue at all. I mean, based on the court ruling and the definition of family. I think my answer is is, no There are some, and maybe I'll need some help from the attorneys on this. But there are some parts of our occupancy standards that relate to dependence. You know, where, you know, there is a limit on the number of dependence. in certain scenarios. So that's obviously a place where the code is limiting family to some extent. and does. But our, it's our rental licensing that would take care of health and safety issues, ie. Non egress basements

[137:05] poorly ventilated furnace rooms whatever it might be. That's our rental code and rental licensing that addresses those health and safety issues is that. And it's largely the building code, you know, like rental units get inspected, you know, and and that's where they have to meet the building code occupancy. you know, standards. so a. As I read the survey results. it was somewhat a little less than half. or homeowners. But or no, I'm sorry that less than a little more than half of home owners, but only about a third or renters. But yet it, my understanding is, renters make up more than half of the population of the city. Is that right? Do I have those numbers right?

[138:06] And though I I I kind of wasn't planning on on going to this final question. But you. You made a point of saying that you met with Plan Boulder. Amongst the groups you met with. Did you meet with their pro housing counterparts which could be bedrooms are for people bolder housing network, any graduate student alliance, any other renters, rights, groups, etc. we reached out to almost all of those groups. I I actually didn't hear back from them. To be honest. Yeah. all right. Great. Okay, that's that's all my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. I I have a few questions, and they tend to be follow ups to other questions that have already been raised. So the el, the efficiency living units. I was was also a issue. That

[139:04] sort of caught my eye, and Carl and I have an exchange previous to the meeting. And I. So I want to repeat that exchange and then go into my question. So the increase from 2 people in an EU to 3 It struck me. I was like. is that 3 adults? And I realize that we're we have to use persons. and Carl's response was, Well, the intention is for it to be a family to adults and a child, and maybe an adult and 2 children. I'm not really sure but the language of the of the of the ordinance. It doesn't make that clear. And I'm just curious. if we can or should make the ordinance language more specific. so that it is understood that this is not intended to be for 3 unrelated adults.

[140:04] just because that could put a landlord in a uncomfortable position if he, if he or she rents out an Elu to 3 adults, and then another, the Leu. 3 more adults, I mean the point. I think the rules are. I don't need boulder rules. I think the property, the management sort of regulations are. If you rent a particular type of unit to a particular number of people. You have to make that a possibility for other renters in the exact same type of unit. Is that correct? Yeah. I mean, I I think, with the issue of El uses because of the smaller size, the code is more restrictive about who could be there. And and our our thinking of going to 3. Is that intent of allowing a couple and a a child? We necessarily can we specify that? So that it's it's it's clear what the purpose of that increases. For because that just seems to me like a valuable

[141:07] detail. I'm I'm going to defer to to laurel on that. Yeah, this is something that Karl and I spoke about before this meeting. So legally, it's it's possible. But I think the problem is, it would be really hard to enforce. It's one of those things like, okay. When when a child goes up and they turn 18, you know, to the out of the house, or or how do we enforce that with staff? it's just so. It's another level that we don't currently have the ability to do. And and Brad or Charles can chime in on the actual enforcement piece more than I can. So legally, it's possible. But it's a little bit more of a a difficult thing with the Enforcement side of things. so I don't know if Brad was to try in or not or give more contacts there. Oh, yeah, I I'm happy to, I think. you know again, the the clear tie in is to the building code allowance, and we need to acknowledge that that's a universal building code that you know the city adopts.

[142:01] The scenario of 2 plus a child is the likely scenario in a scenario. But it's it's not the only one and the the bottom line is, there's 0 way to know when somebody brand somebody grows up into non-compliance. you have 2 adults and a 17 year old, and the next year you have a 18 year old, or the code were written to say 21 year, whatever that is. yo. that that would make that living situation out illegal. which is really just a recipe for neighbors. you know, webinizing that back to to to impact neighbors because of that change that kind of thing. So we we have significant administrative concerns with that approach. And, Charles, maybe you can elaborate. I'm not sure I'm particularly in that robot that's that's perfect. Again, my head immediately goes to

[143:01] a as you've couched it. Bread the administrative concerns on how we would track this, and as people age out. I'm not sure that we would be effective. you know, even if we had a a level of self disclosure. that we're tied to rental licensing. I'm not exactly sure how we would be able to stay on top of that in a meaningful way that to me I I appreciate the explanation. I will wait for comment commentary later. But if we're if we're not specific about a family with a child of some age, then we have to talk about parking needs, and I realize that there are a number of people on the board who like, who cares where no one's going to have cars, and that may be true someday. But if you suddenly go from the the regulations are, if I'm not mistaken, every Elu, there's one person or 2 persons now has to have one parking space. Is that correct one for L. You? Well, if you go to 3 people and let's assume. It's because we can't we? It seems to be a challenge to

[144:07] to specify a family with a kid or parent with 2 kids. You could end up needing 2 parking spaces which then creates. I mean, I I feel like there's a challenge here with how the city might be thinking through additional parking challenges as occupancy increases. And I'm specifically talking about elus. But you know, I think it could impact other dwelling units as well, and I'm especially in the part, the very dense apartment buildings that keep, that are are generally what gets approved here in Boulder. How have you guys been thinking about the cause and effect in terms of parking requirements, parking reductions, parking needs.

[145:00] So maybe if I can jump in with that one pro, and then if you can elaborate. But this is not a a new scenario to us in the sense that under current regulations a a family has unlimited number of children, right that that can live in in the household that can be a rental household. We have plenty of rentals in town that have families with children, and those children are often teenagers, and they each have a car. So it's not an unusual scenario to us. to have a a household that has 4, 5, 6 cars. That's when we get into coke compliance or quote enforcement, I guess would be the right one in parking enforcement. you know if there is illegal targeting or or parking on the streets. Now, it will offer up to that. We have preliminarily scoped out the possibility of doing an update to both the zoning well, the zoning code next year for parking, and that we've had preliminary talks with whether there is a role for the neighborhood parking program

[146:06] to be more than a parking management tool for areas where there's, you know, spill over parking such as near the university or to talk about, and whether there is a role for that kind of parking program prospectively, as we think about new development. but I do just want to share with the board that that the scenario, there being multiple cars in a household, is not a new one to us. but a lot of what's getting built. Now, our apartment buildings that have by definition a specific number of parking spaces because we've given them parking reductions often. And I'm gonna be sure I'm not. I'm I'm not trying to argue. Point. I just want to. I appreciate that you guys are trying to think that through.

[147:01] okay. So I think all my questions have been answered. Thank you, Fred. George has his hand up. and if anyone else has additional questions put your hands up now, otherwise we will then go to public comment to family. So in an Elu scenario. if you had a mother in there with 2 kids, or they, you know. that would that would that would be permitted under the current rules, anyways, right? Because there, there's they're they're a family. So I I'm I'm a little confused. What we're you provision. It is stricter than the typical provision. So technically, under the current provisions a a a mother couldn't have 2 kids in an Elu It is more strict, based on the size. Currently.

[148:05] Okay, all right. I, okay. So I'm sorry that that that that's helpful and just kind of clarifying out. So that's a I appreciate that. It's a little bit confusing. Thank you. Okay, so if no other hands. 5, 4, 3, 2, one. Okay. Great. Thank you all. thank you, Carl, very much. Don't go far away, because I'm sure we'll have questions when we get to our discussion. Well, now, gonna go to a public comment. and if you have, if you want to speak, please raise your electronic hand as that a number of times prior to this moment, everyone will have 2 min. and I will have Vivian call on people. So remember, if you're not your hand up, we don't know you want to speak. So please put up your electronic hand.

[149:00] And also there's a couple of people who don't have their full name posted. So if you want to speak, please add your last name, so I'll just go down the list. We'll start with Rosie Vivian. please go ahead and you have 2 min. Thank you. Hi! There! My name is Rosie Vivian. I support raising occupancy limits city wide to 5. Simply put, it opens up housing options for people, whoever they might be. Mark was so eloquent at the April eighteenth meeting about the role of government and planning board, and I hope everyone remembers his comments on this new code edition. It's going against the whole idea of simplicity, simplification of the codes, and exactly why we need statewide rules that eliminate occupancy altogether. It's way too granular and complicated for the average person to understand how many parcels did this apply to? Can we just approve the 5 people and strike this new, overly complicated addition? I don't think the sky will fall as some fear

[150:02] the multiple votes from the same computer invalidates the data gathered. That is just I, a reality. Some of the concerns I heard raised at the last meeting on April eighteenth to 5. Logic? If no one questions the infrastructure. When a family of 5 moves into a house, then why would we make? Why would it make sense, or even be fair to question the infrastructure? When 5 people live together, however, they wanted to find their relationship. 5 is 5. It's time to remove any judgment. And what if from this equation. it's a huge land area that we can share buildings and infrastructure with more people? I've heard even more delay to tactics tonight. The codes have requirements for bedrooms for safety. So that's not on the table right now. Parking be addressed with neighborhood parking permits, and is a separate issue, probably best handled by other boards. Complaints have been few. The naysayers have failed to provide any data to support their fears.

[151:03] Earlier this year I testified at the State capital and strong support of Sb. 23 to 13, which proposed to eliminate occupancy in its entirety. I was also asked by Aa. Colorado to write an opinion piece in support of the bill that was published in their Newsletter. I believe that this is the future for Colorado. It's time to act on this simple change that can really help people. The work has been done on this. Now, thank you. Thank you, Rosie. You're gone over your 2 min. Thank you very much for your comments. Much appreciated. Yeah. And just a reminder to please watch the timer and try to stick to the 2 min. okay. Next we have Carlston Nasser, followed by Eric Budd. Charleston. Please go ahead. Carlson. We can't hear you.

[152:00] Yeah, I can start the timer, and you have to unmute from your end as well. So I've given you the permission to speak. Let me okay. I I am involved in the business of student housing in Boulder have been for the past 4 years, and I deeply understand the dynamics in the city and the importance of providing safe housing to all. I I 1 point that I want to raise. and I being monitoring the discussions in the University Hill Neighborhood Association. a question that I have in a comment that I have is related to the exclusion of the University Hill, which is, completely unfair to the rest of the city if there is to be any exclusion, and secondly. the idea that non-conforming units should also be excluded from this city wide increase in occupancy limits. It's the logical, in my view, and the reason is.

[153:03] there are many single family dwellings with 2 bedrooms, much smaller living area and number of bedrooms than non-conforming duplexes and rightplexes in the city. Why will those single family dwelling units benefit from the increase to 5 4 or 5 occupants. If the multi units will not. It is a distorted logic that is being applied with this exclusion of the non-conforming multi- units, I I think I made myself clear. But if there is any question 30 s, I would like to help, I'll try to help in answer. Thank you so much. Okay, we'll move on to Eric. Bud, please go ahead, Eric. You have 2 min thank you. I live in Boulder I've been working on this issue for almost 10 years now. and these very extreme

[154:06] occupancy limitations have been in place in Boulder for over 50 years, and now is the time to move forward. I think I was also down to the capital, and testified in favor of a Sb. 23 to 113 to end these and these laws entirely, because they are entirely based on the relationship between the people living there. This is nothing about safety. This is nothing about health. This is nothing about any of these things that planning board does. This is actually just a law that regulates people who are simply not related to one another, and I think that context is very important. And about the particulars of this proposal. you know, I've listened to this entire process. That city council has talked about what they want, and you know they said very clearly that they wanted a policy that was simple and that could be implemented citywide. And if there's a majority of support for 5 people, and what I see was.

[155:08] you know, they they basically said that they were not looking for exclusions for certain part of town like the hill. But with this this non-conforming use provision, it essentially is, eliminating a number of units on the hill. specifically on this. And it's really listening to the presentation tonight. It's just it's not clear to me why that should be a policy. we have. We live in a college town, and we have down zoned the hill to make it, you know, essentially, put less housing there when it's really designed to have more housing. That's the neighborhood that we build. So I could say more. But those are the biggest points, and I hope you all approve this and move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming

[156:00] and speaking. Next we have Lisa Sweeney Moran, followed by Jan Morsel. Lisa. Please go ahead in 2 min. Hi, there! Lisa Sweeney! Moran! I'm the executive director of Mother House in the lodge to home with shelters here in boulder that serve women, transgender folks, single parents and children. Occupancy is one of the biggest obstacles we face in terms of housing families. We all like to talk about keeping families out of homelessness and secure in their housing. But for single parents. With small children the options are incredibly limited. Many single parents are hoping to share housing in order to stay close to their jobs. Their day cares, their elementary schools, but they can't risk violating occupancy laws and losing housing, having cps get involved or getting an eviction on their records. We want people who are living and raising their children in the city to stay here, and we badly need to keep more kids in our public schools, more hourly workers in our retail and service industries and more young families in our neighborhoods. But right now. Housing makes it nearly impossible for new families to come here, or for existing families to stay.

[157:05] Our families would love the option, to live together, to raise their kids together and to stay as part of our community. Please consider making it easier for not only 5 unrelated individuals to share housing, but also for minors to not count towards the numbers of people accounted and occupancy standards. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Next we have Jan Morsell. Just go ahead. You have 2 min. See? Hi! Good evening. I hope you can hear me. Yes, My name is Jan Morzel. I live at 2075 uplands. I've been a resident of Boulder almost 40 years. I'm a self, confessed older white male who actually owns the house, and we also rent out units over my 40 years. I also have to confess I have lived in almost all units of type of units in boulder. including sleeping in a park, renting a mobile home house, sitting.

[158:05] renting, and now also renting out on my own to other people. I am enthusiastically for the 5. In fact, I am encouraging to to, to to voice you as planning board members your support for unlimited and completely eliminating this bizarre occupancy limit as far as I can tell, from the last study session with city council, they were actually up to 4 people that were either in favor of no limits or moving towards that. we are moving too slow. We used to pride ourselves to be a leader in in many areas to create a great, livable, welcoming city. Now we are limping behind, and I believe it's just a matter of time until the State will actually outlaw this like it should be. It should be simply illegal to limit and make a distinction between whether you're married or not. It makes absolutely no sense.

[159:03] We should uncouple occupancy versus the impact. We can certainly work in the impact. I just want to quickly mention my street that I know really well, and you're welcome to come to upland on the side of Nineteenth Street. I know every household. We have about 64 residents right now. 21 of us are non code compliant now. They could probably apply. But I'm telling you a third of the people that live there do not fall under the current code. Please eliminate that. Thank you. Next we have Amy Haywood, followed by Chelsea Castayano. please go ahead, Amy. You have 2 min. Where do you? Can you hear me? Yes. you can't. Okay, yeah, that's good. I agree with what Carl referred to. in no occupancy in Washington, Oregon, and California. they still seem to be surviving pretty well.

[160:03] I think it's discriminatory to single individuals that they can only cohabit with 2 or 3 or 4 other unrelated individuals. Cohabiting helps the wage costs by sharing food utilities and offers affordability in an exorbitant housing crisis and provides a sense of community or quote unquote family ish through cohabitation. Secondly, it is environmentally essential that we start to share, that we share living spaces, utilities to save our planet rather than have 2 or 3 individuals only in a large home, using heat, electricity, and a large footprint, but that we can, you know, share housing and lower the footprints that could be created to create housing.

[161:02] I find it very interesting that one can have an unlimited number of garages or cars, but that we cannot put a priority on housing people. I am interested in starting an initiative that converts garages for cars into garage ads to house people. unlimited garages are for people. That's what I think. And this initiative would be partially subsidized, I hope, by the city of Boulder, to initiate more affordable housing in fill that does not in any way grossly change the visible or physical ambiance of our community and city. It is a free country. If you can afford to live in a single family home with just you or just you and your partner, or please please wrap it up. Please drop up. You do your partner and your family, you may. Why deny other people?

[162:04] Thank you. Next we have Chelsea Castellano, followed by Lisa Spalding. Please go ahead, Chelsea. Hello, Chelsea Castellano. I am here tonight to encourage you to support allowing 5 unrelated people to share housing. While there are many reasons to support this change, I want to highlight for one in Boulder. We often site that addressing climate change is important to us. According to the United Nations buildings are responsible for more than 40% of global energy use. And one third of global greenhouse gas emissions, making it illegal for people to live in. The bed bedrooms and buildings that already exist is unacceptable for a city that wants to be a leader on climate. to Boulder's current occupancy limits reduce the positive impacts that were just passed with the A to use, because occupancy limits are set at the property level, but increasing the limit to 5 at the property level, we can ensure that people who are unrelated have more equal rights to have and benefit from ads.

[163:08] 3 of you are concerned about health and safety of those who are sharing housing. These are clear and definitive answers to those well-meaning concerns, as staff have reiterated to several times, health and safety codes always take precedence and supersede occupancy limits. For example, right now we have many studio apartments across folder, where the occupancy limit is for. And we are not currently worried about health and safety in those cases, because health and safety goes our take President. And for I think it's important for you to know that the first occupancy limits were enacted in 1,870 in San Francisco, at the request of the Anti Cooley Association, during a time when bigotry against Asian Americans without an all time high. Once these insidious laws were enacted. They were disproportionately enforced in Chinatown, where Low paid. Single working Chinese men had no choice but to share rooms. Since 1,870 occupancy laws have to continue to be used as a tool to limit housing options for immigrants, Lgbtq people, communities of color and working class people, and it is beyond time to end the harm, the cause. And I just want to please encourage you all

[164:12] to stop saying that anyone is packing anyone into a home. It is dehumanizing and wrong. Adults choose where they live, and unrelated people sharing a home should not be left, raise so just want to encourage other people to go ahead and raise your hand. Now, if if you wish to speak, Lisa, please go ahead. You have 2 min. Lisa Spalding. Thank you, Lisa Spalding, representing the University Hill Neighborhood Association. Residents of University Hill, believe you will understand that any changes to our current occupancy limits requires an approach that acknowledges neighborhoods across the city are different, and any proposed changes demand a nuanced approach. The city Council majority is proposal for a one. Size fits all increase in occupancy to 5 unrelated occupants per dwelling unit. Citywide does not reflect thoughtful city planning.

[165:17] however, the current version of ordinance, 85, 85, which you are reviewing grapples with a very serious issue of legal nonconforming properties that already contribute to a much greater than normal population density in neighborhoods there were originally single family neighborhoods, then up, zoned, then down zone like the hill Gosgrove, Whittier, and Newlands, and this created the non-conforming properties. We urge you to support option a which would effectively freeze the occupancy of nonconforming uses to its current limits, regardless of the increases that would apply to other non performing units. This or other conforming units. Sorry this would prevent the other problems that would occur in down zone neighborhoods throughout the city. Option B. Would only apply to neighborhoods surrounding the University, which would be better than nothing. But we'd be a less efficient way of dealing with this problem.

[166:14] rental properties and rl, one zone on the hill are 44% legal non-conforming properties. Many of the properties are subdivided into multiple units. They're in poor condition. If occupancy is increased, the health and safety of tenants will rapidly deteriorate, and the caring capacity, the neighborhood will be overwhelmed also. We can't talk. I haven't enough time to talk about it, but there is no affordability linked into this, and that is crucial. Thank you, Lisa Lynn Siegel, you have 2 min. Please go ahead. Agree with Lisa And what I think we need in Boulder is communal, multi-generational housing, a new architectural model for mainstream housing all over town because people need each other. And and I'm not supporting this. Okay? And I've had up to 17 people in my house at one time

[167:20] 17. Count him. and I'm not supporting this. I haven't had any complaints or anything, so it's great. but my concern is how much square footage you have per person. The the efficiency units on Pearl Street. 2206, and lifting, parking restrictions for that space is just very similar to this situation of over over occupancy and parking issues. and I don't support, you know, 2,206, because they're those. Each body uses transportation. It doesn't matter if they have the car garage. It matters that they exist.

[168:09] and you know my dad was here in 48, and 30,000 people were here, and this is too much of a good thing. Let's see you and see you needs to be regulated, especially in the in the hill area, you know. See, you doesn't pay their way. I went on. A capital investments projects tour with the Transportation Department at Thirtieth and Colorado this week 13 million dollars. See? You paid a lousy 3 million. They should have been paying for that whole project. We are funding them. They need to cap their popular student population. And we need to. We completely renovate communal, multi-generational housing with architects like Rosie Vivian could design places that are correct for actually housing multiple families in large.

[169:07] Okay, I do not see any other hands raised. This is just please go ahead. Please raise your hand. This is your chance to speak. Okay. no more hands. So why don't thank you all from the public, for your comments really appreciate it. And the apologies for rushing you off. the All right, we're going to take a if it's okay, we'll take a 5 min break, and then we'll come back to board. Discussion. we are going to really try to end by 1030 tonight. So get your comments like super, clear, super, concise, and and we will. I'll try to manage this meeting so that we end at a reasonable time. We'll be back in 5 min

[174:38] planning board members. beautiful faces starting to pop up. Fabulous, fabulous. Mark and Lisa, are you there? There's Lisa Mark, is there? Perfect? Okay. all right. So we are back for discussion.

[175:03] again. It is my hope for all of our sakes and the sake of staff that we can wrap this up by 1030, and maybe a gentle reminder that our job is not to send something 7, 0, or 0 7 to council. We may disagree on this, and we'll send something with some votes to council, and that is fine. So the 2 key we've been presented with 2 key issues. And why don't we quickly or not so quickly? Let's let's use those as a starting point for our discussion. And again, please let's all try to be concise. So key issue number one. Does the planning board find that the proposed ordinance implements the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Comp plan as always, raise your electronic hand if you'd like to speak to this issue number one. Mark, you raised your hand. I got it, Mark, and maybe what makes sense is just to

[176:04] Let's all just stay me unmuted so that we can. we don't have to like fiddle with the computer when we're can, can we? Can we throw it up on the screen so we can. Or Devin can do it. I think. There we go. There we go, just the 2, the 2 questions, Carl and Mark, you can start chatting now if you want to. Okay. So oh. getting my notes over here. Want to be okay. Here we go, all right. so this is a. This is obviously a contentious issue. But for me, as I've considered it over the last several years. It it's becoming a simpler issue because it is a moral issue.

[177:02] And it is about what the the question is. what is the role of government. And I think that that is primarily the health and safety of of of it of our residents. and I find there is little to no efficacy, and treating our failures and code enforcement and parking reform by trying to govern or criminalize people based on familiar relationships. It it. It truly doesn't make sense. And I I, when it really got to the kind of absurdity of trying to govern, based on this familiar relationship standard And when I heard bread and Charles talking about well, you know, if you know when someone ages out, what's the definition of a child except for well, you know you ask a mother what the definition of a child is you'll you'll get a pretty quick answer.

[178:10] and I think that it. It also becomes kind of absurd when I I read the definition of a family. and it mentions someone by half blood. And so well, where's the quarter blood. Where is 1? 8? Where it's it's it. It becomes kind of silly and outrageous that in 2,023 we are governing, and in fact, criminalizing people based on this kind of a distinction of familiar status. It feels it, it feels very outdated and kind of terrible. And so, in answer to the question of, does this, does this ordinance fulfill the values of the BBC and I can site specific things within the BBC. But I prefer to site the core values which is

[179:07] the the key elements under core values of our adopted comprehensive plan is a welcoming, inclusive and diverse community infill that supports evolution to a more sustainable urban form. a diversity of housing types and price ranges and physical health, safety and well-being. And I can't imagine, what would that more negatively affect your health, safety, and well being than if you can't find the appropriate house. and there's nothing like not finding appropriate housing to drive our current crisis for people that are in the house. and I I also look at look to the States like California, Oregon and Washington and our Governor and his legislation that would have simply simplified this even more. And I respect staff and and and our Council for saying, I want a simple solution that is understood and enforceable. And it's funny. when it's a moral issue.

[180:23] I think that it is It's hard to say. Well, 5 is 5 is good, 3 was bad, because it's all bad to govern on this basis, but I will say I am for progress, and going from our current state to a state of 5. I I guess it's an improvement, but it's a it's it's progress. But again, progress on what should be eliminated. So that's That's my comments on that first question. And you are you?

[181:00] Yeah, thank you. could, if possible. I know we're talking about proposed ordinance implements, adopted policies. Vvc, P. Could you go back to the slide, please, Carl, or whoever is driving that kinda has those enumerated on the side. Thank you so much. so I have a lot of empathy for aspects of this I'm not I. I agree that occupancy limits. we're enacted in very interesting ways. Often racist way is often very intentionally in university towns to control a bunch of other things that aren't directly related to occupancy, and that they're a very broad brush thing that I don't particularly enjoy. So I'm I'm open and amenable broadly to the idea of addressing occupancy limits. I think I think they have equity issues, and I think they're not an elegant solution. what concerns me about this as written, you know, and I'm somebody who lives in Rl. 2 is that I don't see this as written, as preserving and supporting residential neighborhoods.

[182:01] I don't actually see it, addressing affordable housing or preserving, existing housing stock, or providing housing for a full range of households. I think what it does, you know, and and I'm thinking of of 2 bedroom units adjacent to me that are that are quite small and and and and let me also say that I I wasn't particularly on any one side, for bedrooms are for people, but in many ways I think that the concept of bedrooms are for people was a more elegant solution than than this is because, as I see it, you could literally, you know, and and I don't think, you know, I don't think people like Kurt are going to do this. I don't think local landlords will be incentivized because they are local, but we have a lot of banks that own rental stock and boulder. We have a lot of absentee landlords. and when you can, you know, pack 4 people into a 2 bedroom or 5 people into a 3 or whatever. And I I hear people saying, Oh, don't call it packing people in. I think that's really going to happen with students. And we're going to lose residential neighborhoods. Because. you know, if you can charge a thousand dollars per head or 900, 800, whatever the going market rate is, it's really hard to say no to that cash flow.

[183:11] So I I I guess I just wish that this were differently structured. I do think I would feel a bit more comfortable with it with 4, or if there was some kind of a relationship between square footage and number of occupants, or you know, I think I'm always asking some interesting questions. And I I appreciate what Bark just said about like, you know, how do you legislate or control what a family is? How do you define what it is, or how people see themselves. And and I think that that's a really good point. But turning back to what I'm I'm always talking about, you know, is, is there functionally a difference. you know, in in how this works in terms of an investor. you know, a, an an investment property and the way that people are going to treat that? Not not, you know. I think smart landlords, but but some people will, and I think it is different.

[184:00] so I I I just I have a lot of concerns with this as as it is, and I and I don't find it consistent with multiple BBC Paul, see policies. I am also not a fan of occupancy limits as they are. I just. I just don't find this a good solution. that's where I am on it. Thank you, Lisa George. I I'm just gonna keep my comments brief and say, I second everything that we said, just said, Thank you. of course. Kurt. thanks. And thanks to Mark for framing this in terms of a moral issue, because I really do think that it is that to me, based on the data that I've seen. it's really as much or more about housing security than as it is about housing affordability, because I believe that the a. A. A very significant number of the houses or dwelling units that people want to rent to larger number of of

[185:12] a of people already are rented that way, either either implicitly or explicitly. I think a lot of times it happens under the table, like the landlord says, oh, you can only have 3 people, you know. But If you have friends over. don't tell me or that sort of thing, and it ends up being over occupied. And so those people who are not on the lease have neither rights nor responsibilities, and they can be kicked out in any time, basically based on the single phone call to full to code enforcement. And to me, that is a serious human rights issue. And and just not something that we should be supporting in boulder. So I I I I view this as much as a matter of housing security as of housing affordability. It certainly affects most people who are

[186:19] at the or most in need of relatively affordable housing, because people don't share housing if in general don't share housing, if they don't have to for financial reasons, right? Some people just want to live with other people by and large. If you can rent an apartment by yourself, you'll do it, or with fewer people you'll do it. And so the people who are sharing housing are those who have are doing it out of and and have a great You know our, our, our most at the margins of the market rate housing stock in the in the city, and so so that again.

[187:10] it ends up as an equity, a a human rights issue, that we should be supporting those people and giving them options and having security to the extent that we possibly can. So all that said to say that I support this. Thank you, Mark Kurt. Sorry. I think I saw Ml's hand, and then Laura. So, Mlvin Laura! I think Laura was before me. Sarah, go ahead and somebody keeps doing my erasing my hand off. I like I have some. I I would like to speak. I'll go ahead. Okay, thank you. So. Mark, thank you for going to the big picture of the

[188:00] I would say that that is what is driving more so than these specific policies is is driving sort of the flavor of the B Cdp compliance on this for me. So I it's a it's an interesting. It's an interesting situation. with people having a lot of good and logical ways to look at it on both sides of the fence here. But I think at the end of the day. I I think it does meet the Bdcp big vision that we're a welcoming, diverse. innovative community. And let's find ways to keep ourselves that way.

[189:05] Alright. Thanks. Em out, Laura. I also agree with and very much appreciated the way that Mark framed it in terms of the Bbcp core values. I also think that it is supportive of of these policies that are listed here. I think it does help preserve additional existing housing stock in that It! Houses are less likely to get torn down if they are rented out in a profitable way. torn down and turned into something that can be sold for a a higher monetary value. and I do think it is supportive of housing for a full range of households. That's one of the explicit goals in this occupancy reform is that there are people who are finding creative ways to live with each other that do not fit our our current occupancy definitions. And this would be expanding that a little bit, for you know what people have mentioned polyamorous families. G, L. Mit, Ctl and Lgbtq families. you know, the comparison was made to immigrant families, and we have a similar situation with working families that might need to combine 2 households together, 2

[190:08] in order to be able to afford housing here. So I think it does help provide housing for a full range of households. It does help preserve existing housing stock and provide local solutions to affordable housing. I think it is supportive of existing neighborhoods that are less likely to get redeveloped if they can be you know, we make more efficient and fill use of our existing housing stock, and I do think it provides more housing for people that might have jobs here and help contribute to that jobs housing balance. So I appreciated Staff's analysis here, and also agree with Mark and Ml. That this is broadly supportive of the Ppc. Vision. Great Laura, thank you very much. So I stand with Lisa and George. On this I have a different take, then, staff on the Bbcp alignments. I don't believe this advances 7.0 one local solutions to housing affordability, or 7 dot. O 2 for have affordable housing goals.

[191:04] because there's little to no evidence that from cities that have increased occupancy, that it actually either addresses affordability or availability. In fact, there was recently, I think, in June of this year the Urban Institute published a still published research that looked at zoning reforms across the country from the last 10 to 15 years, and what they found was at the zoning reforms introduced over the past deck of I'm quoting here. But over the past decade and municipalities across the country are associated with a very small increase in housing supply. and with but without a reduction in housing costs or greater availability of lower cost units. So while I appreciate the that the folks from bedrooms have tried to reframe this. This came to the city as an affordability solution.

[192:03] and I don't think it actually will achieve the address. The problem we say we're trying to address I also think it does not proposal with, does not support 5, 7, 0 8 preserving existing housing stock. especially for low, moderate middle income household. in part, because it's gonna create a landlord, institutional investor, open season on a single family homes that can be turned into return on investment cash cows reducing even further the availability of housing for low and middle income. Families who, we know from our housing studies generally want either a single family home or a town home that they can live in, and for many preferably own. So that is my position on this. let's go to question number 2, and then we'll we'll discuss whole thing. So question number 2 is, does the Planning board recommend any modifications to the draft ordinance?

[193:10] Laura? You have your hand up. Yes, so I'm ready to support the draft ordinance. If I were going to suggest any change it would be in line with my previous comments. I'm seeing this notification. This is really annoying. That Zoom is doing this about. Lower your hand, or we're going to cancel you. Sorry if I were going to suggest any changes or or additional recommendations, it would be a recommendation to go ahead and pass this ordinance, change it to 5 across citywide with the non-conforming option a that staff have suggested and then explore changes to rental licenses such that in order to get the additional occupancy. landlords would have to agree to some measure of affordability, and I don't know what that looks like, but I know that we can do it. It sounds like we can do it. And so, if people are really concerned about the affordability aspect of this and the idea that landlords or investors are going to snap up houses and then start charging exorbitant amounts by the bedroom.

[194:12] We can handle that problem through our rental licensing program. Every homeowner that wants or or investor who wants to rent out a property is required to get a rental license to put that rental license number in their advertising for their for their rental units, and there are lots of restrictions on what that has to look like. Their health and safety restrictions, their environmental sustainability restrictions. And it feels like we could potentially put some affordability restrictions subject to any kind of legal review, right? Like, if we can't do it, we can't do it. But I would suggest at least exploring it. If that affordability element for rentals is something that the city is quite worried about, and that does seem to be one of the major objections that we have heard. So that would be my suggestion for a recommendation. Thank you, Laura. Appreciate the articulateness of that. ml, you are next. And then, Lisa.

[195:02] thank you, Sarah. So I the comments that I'm interested in making have to do with the El use in and I'm not sure how to speak specifically to this ordinance. it's I think it's under these definitions. anyway. the for purposes of the density limits. Blah blah blah to efficiency. Living units consist cost you 2. One dwelling in this is what's in the ordinance as proposed. So, my, my, I I think the thing I'm wondering is if it's put to 5 per dwelling unit. Does that mean that it's 5 to 2 efficiency? Yeah, for 2? El use, Carl, can you interpret that for me? it would not. The 5 wouldn't apply to El Use. There's a special section for el use. that currently is 2.

[196:07] And and and the proposal, yeah, was going to 3. So like 2 elus would be 6 occupants under the proposal. Right? so does language. There need to be changed to make it clear, or a anyway, I I mean the the the 2 eel is counting as one dwelling unit. The the code is pretty clear that it's for the purposes of calculating density you count to El Use as a dwelling unit. But it that doesn't apply broadly throughout the code. And we've we've we've applied back consistently. Okay, well, it just seems to be in this particular ordinance that keeps the El use having upgraded to 3. So the question I have about the use or the the thought I have about It's 475 square feet, Max.

[197:07] at 2 p. 4, 75. Correct for 75 square feet. Max, for 2 people. That's 237.5 square feet per person. That includes half a bathroom and half a kitchen. If you put 3 people in, that's 158 square feet per person. That includes a third of the kitchen in the third of a bathroom a. The code requirement for an auto space is 9 foot by 18, but that's 162 square feet. So an auto is would be. requirement would be bigger amount of space. Then 3 people in an El you. So if we're talking about life, safety and code and not getting ourselves into

[198:00] I I'm not sure what the right word is, Into interesting a territory about how we're inhabiting our buildings, I think 3 people and an El. You will be a challenge. and I remember the discussion, for here about the intent is that it would be a family. Would there be a way to use the term adult in the case of El news. and then define adult so that it could be 2 adults and 3 persons, Max and adult being defined. You know I I've looked it up. It's it's got anywhere from at age 16. You're no longer a child, or you're considering it to. However that would be, but at least that would give some direction to the intent the increase that it can be for a family?

[199:02] because otherwise I think 3 adults in there. I I think that could be quite. I have an 80, you in the back of my house, and it's just under 500 square feet. So it's probably actually yeah, it's a studio apartment. I would never have 3 adults back there. It would be a disaster. So I'm I question that part of the ordinance, and I would propose that if you're gonna go to 3 that you try to work something out where we're talking about 2 adults and 3 persons, and then to find adults so that it is It is very clear what we're trying to do. Otherwise I think it becomes an untenable living situation and difficult. so that that's my comment. I I don't. You know. I think it's a. It's a great attempt to try to solve a difficult problem. occupancy minutes So that would be my suggestion. Thank you.

[200:06] Thank you. And, Eml, can I just ask you a question because I'm trying to take some notes here and see if I can come up with some language that might work for everyone. and what I'm trying here is these would be Elu This is a a a clod. and to find so it's we're not telling Staff how to do it. We're we're framing A, A, A suggestion and defines clearly elu occupancy specifically to serve families. Is that something? I'm not saying that the lawyers will say that the right thing or staff will say, That's the right thing. But does that capture what you are trying to convey. I think 3 adults would be a challenge that would. That's really my biggest concern. I think 3 adults in it. I think that is, each person getting a parking space. We give more room to a card, and we go to each person in that. El. You and I think that that is is

[201:04] dangerous. I I don't think we should do that. I think that we should be a little more clear that the intent of this isn't to actual crowd a situation. It's it's, in fact, to allow maybe more opportunities. And that's that diversity of housing. So, however, that goes, I just think 3 adults is wrong, and and I read, person, ell you, but not be related adults, so that we, if it's over the hump of an 18 year old who turns 19. I my guess is that most families by that point will have moved into a larger part. Does that kind of capture like you're not opposed to 3. If it's a family, you know, one adult, 2 kids or 2 adults, one kids, it's the 3 unrelated adults that concerned you. Yeah, and that, and even the related adults. I think the fact that 3 adults is just. And and you know, Carl kind of spoke to this, that the intent was to support, you know, a small family.

[202:15] and I that would have to adults in a and a non adult. I don't know what the language would be. But I'm in full agreement. Once I did the math we saw the square footage. It's like Gosh! I I think, that we should try not to get ourselves into a We're all living in a tent type of a situation, I think that that is would be a challenge. Life, safety. All right. Ml, thanks, I I'm I'm trying to take some notes here and put all the ideas into something, and we'll swing back to it. Lisa, and then Kurt, and then Mark and then me. Thank you, Sarah. yeah, I I completely agree with Ml. On on 3 adults, regardless of their

[203:03] relational or lack of relational status. You know that it's too many an Al you But I could see like a couple or a single parent with like a small child or baby. And yeah, so I I agree with that. Thank you. Amel, I I don't think we're necessarily gonna get there on this, and we're more on like how we would modify it. But I would just say that in a perfect world that sure like to get another couple of years of data from other cities on how this is actually going? Because I have, I have my doubts, and if I'm proven wrong, then great. Maybe I'd be super pro I also just want to say and and I don't know the most elegant way to do it. But I I would propose some kind of a modification related. you know, to even larger units, which I think is off of Ml's Point, you know, if you've got a 900 square foot unit. And you know, 4 or 5 adult 5 adults in there. You know, you're running into these same issues that we just described with the Elu So you know, I would recommend some kind of a modification around, you know, a minimum number of square feet. Maybe it's not even a bedroom, but just like a certain number of square feet that you have to have per adult living in a house, and I would recommend that, not from an occupancy limit, or trying to legislate what a family is or isn't, or who should or should be living with each other, but strictly from a health and safety and public welfare.

[204:23] a matter which should be top line for any planning body to be thinking about. we just survived a pandemic more, maybe coming. you know, we haven't been hit by flu and over 100 years. We're bit overdue. Sorry to traumatize everyone again. you know. But but you know it it there. There is a certain point at which I think it becomes an issue in terms of how many people, and I think the sides and age of people. It does kind of start to matter as well. and then protections for families are are also quite robust, you know. It's not legal. and I'm not saying that landlords don't do a legal thing sometimes, but it's not legal to discriminate against a family, you know, who's seeking housing And so without us necessarily getting too involved in it. In a city way. There, there are Federal protections for families. you know, if people are housing multiple small children in a room or something like that.

[205:11] so I'm I'm more concerned about it as people get older and larger, and and spaces are very tight. So I'd I'd I'd be interested in modification that said something about that from a healthy public offer. Perspective. I think that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Lisa. Okay, I think I said, Kurt. And then Mark. yeah. First of all, I just like to remind us all that there are health and safety limitations in terms of square footage per person. Those already exist in the building code. They are developed by people who know a whole lot more about health and safety than I do. Certainly. and I would not. I would not deign to second guess those. I think that those have been developed over many, many years based on lots of data and lots of experience. And and those

[206:09] should we, we should consider those to be appropriate unless there's really good reason to believe that they're not. If if those are not appropriate, then what else in the building code is not appropriate, right? But I don't think we should be second guessing all of that. We should also keep in mind that you know. People have freedom hopefully, people have freedom of of how to live the way they want to live. Most people the bad, I would say the vast majority of people are not interested in living 3 people in an EU I. I think that that would be an extremely rare situation even probably 2 people in an E. But you know. who are we to say that the occasional person or set of 3 people who feel that that works for them should not be allowed to do that. that to me. Just feels like

[207:08] unnecessary in State intervention, in people's private lines in terms of the other parts of the ordinance. I would. Well, first of all, as I was sort of suggesting in my questions, I'm concerned about the wording of the option option A and option B and I trust Carl and the team to to to get that right. But I just wanna to flag that again, and make sure that it's clear to everybody that that some standard thoughts and parcels are not are not excluded from from these schools. And I would. I mean, I think, either of the Nonconforming use

[208:07] provisions is it's it's complicated and you know, the part of the goal. At least part of my hope was to actually simplify these rules it this definitely makes it more complicated. but I think that option B would be a better choice. The I read through all of the comments from the be heard, boulder survey, other than the ones that were many repetitions of people submitting the same thing. and every single one of those that was expressing concern about people living together was in the context of students. So that is the concern in this in the community. And so we, I feel that we should not be imposing undo restrictions on zoom districts that are not even close to the University, where there's a a low proportion of of students. Even option B is just restricting, based on

[209:16] on the zoning district. So it includes R. One, for example, which R. One is, you know, all over the city. So it's actually much more option. B excludes much more than just around the university, but at least it allows for greater occupancy in areas that are not close to the university. So I would be in support of that one if we're going to include one of those nonconforming use options. Thank you. So Mark. And then George. And then I'm going to speak. Okay, I concur with Kurt in regard to the health and safety code and the expertise that has been used to to make that code up and also go back to a question that I asked Carl, and that was, can we limit occupancy for a family

[210:17] in any respect? And and as my what I understood from that, and what I understand is Federal law. The answer is, no So And Karl correct me. What like right now, if I'm if I'm wrong, but is essentially Federal law. That says we can't. We can't say well. you know this person that he's a big 17 year old, so he can't be in an EU with his parents. It it just it just doesn't work. And it it would be That wouldn't comport with Federal Federal law you couldn't do that. Is that correct girl I mean, I'll I'll defer to the attorneys on on the point of an Ellu, because I know that the code is, is pretty strict about

[211:01] the the number of people in an Elu, and it also does limit dependence. But as far as the definition of family. Yes, we cannot restrict the size of a family. so did you want me to chime in? Sorry, just to clarify a little bit. I totally agree with Karl. What Carl said, the difference here is, even in other areas where families are part of single family homes or whatever they solve, to meet building code requirements and safety requirements. So you're still allowed to have that like overly on top, right? But but there's not a yeah, anyway. Okay, I just want to be clear that that we can't go making code, that that violates Federal law as much as it seems attractive to at times. in a as as far as suggested changes. I concur with my suggestion change, and I noted this when our our conversation about occupancy like so many things, devolved into a conversation about parking and cars.

[212:07] And I. My request would be that we apply this level of effort and thought to parking reform and take it away from community vitality so that we can have this level of reform on on car storage that we're we're talking about for a house. So that's my only suggestion. Thank you. Alright, thank you. Mark George and me. And then, Laura. thank you. First I I I concur with what? I know kind of referenced around el use I think, would be in some kind of important distinction to put in there. I'm also concerned in general, that that the goal of this being a in the statements being around this being a moral issue.

[213:02] there are a lot of things that play in this community. the biggest one is, see you and the other biggest one is middle income families that we're losing in boulder. And I think those 2 things are at odds. And unfortunately, I think a lot of the divisiveness around what we're trying to accomplish this that has those playing against each other to to the point where we're creating sort of a no win situation. and so I I the the the the things I would be supportive of is is something to the extent of what Ml. Mentioned, as it relates to el use, as it relates to the 5 you know, for those that are saying it's a moral issue. I don't know why you'd vote for 5, because you're not. You're not solving your moral issue

[214:02] and for those of us that you know are are are opposed to. You know what happens when you could put to Lisa's example, you could put 5 students in a 2 bedroom unit. and how that displaces a family trying to seek some sort of affordable housing. And it's interesting, right, because the affordability issue is I I it's it's on. It's unclear that it will create any affordability. It may on a per person level, create some affordability for students, for instance. but at the same standpoint it will make those same things less affordable for families, because now they have to compete against that. And so I'm concerned that we're we're really not accomplishing anything that anybody wants

[215:03] here. and so I I'm of the opinion I I'd rather I'd rather see our city push cu for more housing, because this is what's what we're trying to solve. I think that that's that's been dramatically overlooked here. I know it's not related to the ordinance. but I think we've I I think we're dancing around a much bigger issue. and I think this will take us backwards. In our hopes to get some middle income housing that's affordable for some people. And so, if I was to be a supportive of anything. I would I would try to cap it at 4 rather than 5, because in in the spirit of trying to create something to move something forward in the community. I know everyone wants that here. me as well. Right. I don't think we want to block anything. But at the same time

[216:03] we've got, we've got to balance all these concerns. And to that point I think that's the moral issue that we're facing is we've got to balance all the concerns and not just weigh one group over another and and try to create something that will work for our entire community. Thank you. Thanks, George. All right, I'm going to speak. And then Laura. So I agree with George. And for me, what I would want to see changed is in the proposed ordinance is that would be 4, not 5 I think the public has actually spoken both through the rejection of the ballot measure, and then in the in the various engagements that the staff has presented to us. Seems like everybody is comfortable with going up a bit, but there isn't a majority support for 5. So it seems a little weird that we're thinking about 5. I I think option. A seems to make the most sense, and staff recommends it. And

[217:07] so for option option a And I'm trying, and I really do appreciate Laura's effort to to propose research into a affordability mechanism. But I I wouldn't be comfortable with the research happens, and then they can't do it. So. But we've already passed 5. So I I think we I think doing some research, and would be very, very helpful. But I into whether there can be an affordability mechanism, but I wouldn't want to propose that we move forward with 5, and if we can't find a mechanism well, so be it. I think that would be a mistake. and I also think we need to clarify the EU allowances. And the language I came up with was And again. This is a a clause, not a complete sentence, because I'm trying to put it into a into a draft motion.

[218:07] and clarify is the eel you allowances to reflect Boulder's intention to serve small families. and that then puts in the record what the intention is without prohibiting 3 adults who might choose to rent a 475 square foot. el you together. so that's my take on it. I and I think after Laura speaks. Maybe we'll go around once more, but then I think we do. It would make sense to move to some motion making and just take some votes, and and we'll see where we are. Laura. Thank you. I just wanted to ask a question in line with Kurt's comments about building code, health and safety. So my question is for Carl with the El Use. If it went to 3 people unspecified just 3 people per EU. Would that run into any problems with health and safety codes as we define it.

[219:13] The 3 that we're proposing for the Elu is actually informed by that the fact that The building code does allow. 3 in an EU I I think the way the building code reads is you in an Elu. It's one person for every 220 square feet or portion there of. so it ends up, being 2.1 or something which defaults to 3 I can double check. You know that with our building code folks. But again, I've talked to them about this, and they've noted that the code would allow. 3. Thank you. okay, your hand was up. And now it's gone. Sorry. I just very quickly want to agree with George. The the sort of the fundamental problem here is that we

[220:05] have a a deep lack of supply of housing, and that does pit segments of the market against each other, and that I think that is the basic problem that we're running up against. So I agree with you on that. Okay. Mark did both electronic and your own hand. I I I was so focused on reading. I have. I have what I hope is a quick question for Karl. So Staff is given us language for motion to just approve the ordinance. Okay? And then we've been discussing option A and option B tonight. And I I find them slightly confusing. But I'm not gonna delve back into this, although we have some an awful lot of time on E. O's. And like 4 or 5 people in the you, anyway. My question is in the last paragraph below option B.

[221:03] It says it should be noted that up either option A or B, and maybe it should be neither if if neither option A or B were included in the ordinance. etc., etc. What I get from that is, if if we didn't adopt option A or B, and we just adopted the ordinance. the A non-conforming you. So I have a house with 4 bedrooms, but it's not. It's not conforming and I'm currently limited to 3 unrelated people in that house that use my my. My limit of 3 would not change until I came before, and I talked to the planning department and asked for a an adjustment, an expansion of my nonconforming use, and hence that would be a potential planning board call up. Item, is that correct?

[222:03] Okay, so it is option A or option B, or neither the option. and in which case neither does it just mean 5 everywhere, even non-conforming uses. It means I've got to ask for an expansion of nonconforming use. That's right. That helps me a great deal. Thank you So I we're going to Laura. I just wanted to make a process suggestion. That, I think is probably where you're going, Sarah, but I just wanted to put this on a table. It seems like the big decisions before us. And, Sarah, I really appreciate what you said at the beginning of we don't have to have unanimity. We can send something to to counsel with. A clear signal of this was, you know, this was 3 to 4. This was 5 to 2. I think that's fine. I think the big choices are 4 or 5 right councils already expressed a preference, but that doesn't prevent us from expressing a different preference, 4 or 5

[223:01] option, a option B or neither. As Mark just pointed out, we could pull on that, whether we want to put additional language on the EU, and then I think the other thing on the table was my suggestion about researching a way to tie an increase in rental occupancy to some kind of affordability provision the same way that we did with the A to use and do that through rental licensing, and see if there's support for that. I would support that. Whether we go with 4 or 5, I think that should be researched. So I think I don't know if there were other things that people wanted to add or condition. I accept that it may be voted down or not even seconded. But I'd like very much to make this motion, and then let's see how it how it falls out. So I sent it already to Devin, who may or may not already have put it up. okay, so I'm proposing a motion. That Planning board recommends that city Council adopt ordinance 8, 585, amending chapter 9 over 8 intensity standards, Brc. 1,981,

[224:11] increasing the number of persons that may occupy a dwelling in it, and setting forth related details with the following conditions. option, a regarding non-conforming uses, city-wide general occupancy. Restrictions are limited to 4 unrelated, unrelated persons. and clarifies the EU allowances to reflect Folder's intention to serve small families or to serve families. Maybe we don't need small in there, but I'm trying to capture what both Brad and Carl said, with the intention, without trying to solve for the problem that the other problems that they also brought up. So that is my motion. is there a second? Sarah, before I second, or don't second, would it be possible, staff to look at option a again, please.

[225:09] I'll pull it up here. Thanks, Carl. I can get it in the packet, too. I just want to make sure that we can stare at that language, since it's, you know, specifically called out, Here is it legal to put that motion language in the chat? Or is that prohibited? Well, I had to send it to to a Devin to put on the shared. I mean how I I actually wanted to copy and paste a little bit. It's in the it is in the chat. So you pull it from there. Thank you, Carl. I I know that this is also in the package. Just nice to have visual recall. Look at it. But yeah, I mean, basically, option. A is just applying the language that's in the code today to non-conforming uses option. B is only different, that

[226:10] it only a A applies to the zones that are around the university. And I I could make an argument doesn't mean I'm correct, but I can make an argument that much like when you press down on a balloon filled with water. you're gonna end up having the challenges of student housing spread across the city, both as the city grow, as I'm sorry as the university expands. and apparently they don't have enough housing even for their freshmen, the incoming freshman class but also as limitations are placed on the neighborhoods around the university, which I think need to happen. But once you do that, the problem is going to the the. The bulge is gonna spread out

[227:07] So sorry. I feel like I'm repeating a question here. It's just a question I I need to get straight my own brain, so I can second or not second, or someone else can decide the second or not. Second. So, optioning. I'm back to being confused, I apologize for my confusion around the print. Parenthetical, citywide, non-conforming uses, so would option A make it, so that in all these the zones listed in A, B, C, and so on. As long as it was a confirming use, like, for example, a town home built in the 1970, S. Could you still have 5 unrelated. the in a conforming use. Yep, okay. So this would only apply to the non-conforming. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Karl, for repeating for? Pdf, I can just say as I'm understanding it. The problem is that, like in areas around the university, you might have a lot that was originally a single family house, and then it was subdivided into 4 or 5 units. And now it's a non conforming

[228:07] lot in that zone, and each of those 4 or 5 units could then go up to 5 people, and that was an a concern that was expressed both by the public and by City council. City council asked you to look into this. And so this is the solution that is proposed specifically for those nonconforming sort of subdivided lots that are already over, occupied according to their zone. Okay, so this motion on the floor or on the table is there a second? I'll I'll second it. Okay, George has seconded it. we can open for discussion, or we can just vote on it, and then, if it fails, we'll go to the next motion. so, Ml, and then Lisa. I have. So Carl. both option A and Option B are for non-conforming uses. The primary difference is the

[229:01] only impact. The areas close to the university. For as option a any neighborhood that's been upselled in down zone and has these remnants of not conforming legal, non-conforming buildings is that correct? That's correct. So one is city wide, and one is exactly like it says right here, city-wide. And well, this just I'm sorry. Small clarification, though, Karl, I think you said it applies anywhere you have these zones. These are the zones that are adjacent to the university. But there's Rl. One in other places of the city that are not near the university or may not have non-conforming use. Yeah, we just included the zones that are around the university. But if that zone elsewhere in the city would also be limited. if it happens to have non-conforming uses. I'm sorry Lisa was next, and then I'll call on you. I'm sorry Lisa was next, and then I'll call on you. I'm sorry I'm just trying to. No, no, I'm I'm a delinquent who left my hand up. It is sorry. It's it's the process problem already.

[230:06] Kurt, you're at your turn. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Is there discussion? Devin? Can you put up the motion that's on the table, please. Devin? Thank you. Okay. is there more commentary. Laura? So just want to call to everybody's attention and clarify that with this motion we would, as planning board, be recommending a 4 person occupancy, limit, citywide rather than a 5 person as city council, as staff to explore and city Council kind of already rejected the 4 person by a majority vote. But we could make a different recommendation as planning board. Okay, so we have a second. I do not see any more hands up, Lisa.

[231:01] Okay, now, my hands. Actually, I'm sorry. so, and I'll put it down right now, so don't forget I like where it's going. I think it's true, you know. Council might just be like, Oh, we want 5, and you know that they get to do what they want to do, and they are elected. I mean, I I it still feels like Boulder becomes a really interesting market to buy a house, and then, you know, and again, like I, I I'm actually not concerned about Kurt or Ml. Or whatever, or people who have plenty of money making a decision. But I think you students are very cash strapped. And I I just I I just I have concerns about it. trying to think of. I have any kind of a friendly I you know I I think this is the tricky thing with occupancy. Right is, how do you address the the lack of fairness in the ways at which you can discriminate and hurt people

[232:00] in a city that has the green belt and a high restriction, and I'm not getting into all of that, because I think there's good reasons why we have those. you know. I I I I guess I'm I'm I'm just going to raise, and I'm not saying I'm in the boarding order against it, or anything yet that I don't think it addresses that issue of kind of incentivizing some behaviors that I see as being really damaging to the missing middle and really damaging to, you know, families and folks who want to live in Boulder. It worries me. But before I go to Georgia or late, Laura, can I just ask a question of Lisa? Yeah, please go ahead. If we had a if there was a separate motion that tried to capture Laura's objective of looking, trying to develop a mechanism for affordability for that. I liked that idea. I thought I thought that was an interesting idea. I mean, I I haven't vetted it from legality or or functionality or anything. But I think it's a really interesting notion that if you're going to go above

[233:02] and I don't know. I, Laura, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but but above whatever it was, the old documents, your apartment are above 3 or something, and and again, and and I don't want to turn this into a bedrooms are for people a referendum or anything. But there wasn't elegance to that notion right to the idea of you have the square footage. You have a bedroom. There are concerns about packing a lot of people, especially students or somebody else, into a small space. and so yeah, I mean, if there was some way to maybe tie it and say, Hey, you know, if if you're gonna try to get a bunch of people into a small area. Well, then, you shall not. You know I I and I don't know what we tie that number to, but you know it's going to be cheaper for them. I think that that would have something of a chilling effect on on speculative. You know. speculative investment property owners, you know, really, really kind of trying to turn into a pretty intense tenement situation, and I'll also say that I have not done my due diligence or homework. On looking into what?

[234:04] the existing restrictions, requirements would be around health, safety, and, you know, square footage and all that which may address this to some extent, for perhaps not enough. I think we, said George. Then, Laura, and then Mark, and then maybe we'll go to a vote on this particular motion. Yeah, I'm kind of pushing myself here to get some kind of compromise that I could agree to on the table. And so that's that's why I seconded this motion from my perspective. Obviously, I'm not the motion maker, but I would also be supportive of some kind of affordability that we could put in here. That wouldn't be uterus, but would sort of balance that concern, because that's. I think affordability is what we're trying to achieve here. to some extent, and we have to balance the affordability for middle income versus the affordability for students. along with all the health and safety things. but again I I I

[235:09] I would love to if if someone had ideas around that, I will certainly be open to hearing them. obviously, I'm not the motion maker, but I I did want to put that on the table. Thank you. Okay, Laura. Whatever happens with this motion, if it gets voted up or get or voted down, and I am going to vote down on it, not because I don't appreciate the desire to come to compromise, but because I would like to send a clear signal that some of us support 5 rather than 4 Whatever happens with this motion or subsequent motions, I am going to offer a separate recommendation. I have some draft language here. planning board recommends that staff and city council explore revising city rental license requirements to require affordability in exchange for additional occupancy for rental properties. Something like that. and I'm going to put that on the table as a separate motion. So I just wanted to let folks know that.

[236:20] Who even that. I think the people who put bedrooms are for people forward, the people who are in favor of 5. They also care about affordability, and I I know that probably some folks will disagree with me and want simplicity, and not to complicate things and just go ahead and pass additional occupancy, and I can support that. But I do think that it'd be worthwhile for staff and city council to explore. Hey, is there some way that we can tie some affordability to this for me, my votes not contingent upon that. But I think it's a good idea to to really look into. And I think we want that. So I don't know why we wouldn't look into it. Thank you, Laura. Okay, Mark. And then Lisa. I I just simply want to point out that the motion as is drafted now.

[237:06] it, it gets us back into. this. The vigorities of families. What's a family? And specifically small families? to? To me it's it's too big and and doesn't accomplish the goals of either simplification or kind of eliminating the familiar status out of the whole equation. Okay, thank you. Mark. Lisa. yeah. I I need to think through this so that nobody, you know is like you said you were fine with that, but what I would say is, if if we could find some way, and and I like kind of the direction that you were talking about. Laura of, you know, saying, hey? And and I think we would. And sorry, Mark, this kind of this. This doesn't address what you're just talking about. It goes the other direction. But I think we would have to in some way, shape or form. as current code requires. You know, exempt families. Right? We're families are protected. but you know, if if we're looking at

[238:05] unrelated, or whatever above. and we can make put in some requirement for affordability. and I don't know exactly how we do that to me in many ways. And again, I'd kind of like, and maybe Staff has some information on on restrictions that current health and safety requires for a square footage, or you know, I I haven't dug into it. to me. I I wouldn't be as concerned about 4 versus 5 people, because it removes a lot of that drive and desire to, you know, to really get people in there, you know, so like, for me, at least, I I still think for is a more sensible number to start with. I think that we heard more support from that from the community. and I'm really loath to not listen to the community when we take the trouble to go out and talk to them, because that makes them stop talking to us. But anyway, I'm I'm just saying, you know, if we put something like that in, then I think I would be more like, okay, fine, like whatever I don't know for versus 5 really matters that much. provided that we have something in there. You know that that tries to just the supportability issue and speculative.

[239:08] so a question for you, Lisa. So Laura's language is not a requirement. It's a expert by which I mean it's a it recommends the city explore. and that if they can't find a way, then they're okay. They can't find a way. and I would want stronger language, and that a recommendation would not be strong enough for me to to vote for it personally. But that may not matter. We may have enough folks anyway, with her without me. But but I would need like. I need something that okay. So I let me let me just put this out there. which is we could add language to. We could take away the words small families and just leave families, because what and that mark, just as we're just trying to address the Elu question, which is why it's

[240:07] attached to the Elu component. and then add a phrase, and that don't type anything yet, but add a phrase of for a cloth that says and requires affordability requires. I I just don't know that the city can do this, but requires a mechanism to guarantee affordability for the additional resident above current allowances as of 72523. Yeah. And I think it's fine if it costs a bit more right? I mean, it's more wear and tear in the house is more trouble for the land, or they're executing more leases, you know. But I just you know, I I I'm very concerned about what is being incentivized under the proposed language, not this proposed language with the original.

[241:07] Okay, so I am. I'm fine with adding cause such as the one I just spoke. I just said a laurel laurel. You have your hand up. Yeah. The only thing I was gonna say is, if you are going to add language to make sure it's an amendment. So if you do go down that road. Just yeah. There. There has been no phone or amendment made that we. The motion has been made in second to network discussing right? Just discussing. Yeah. But if you want to move forward with it. Okay. so you may be able to see Sara, but I just want to mention that Kurt has his hand up. Oh, sorry! Correct. Your your wall is yellow. I didn't see your yellow hand. Oh, sorry I need to repay my walls. Yes, just just the upper corner. Yeah, right? I just wanted to say that I I think what Laura is suggesting is intriguing. I I'm certainly I'm a hundred percent in support of

[242:04] affordability. I would not support something that would work. They would add a requirement. Because there's there's so many unknowns. We have no idea whether this would be possible, or legal, or whatever, and so I would not support anything that framed it as a requirement. I would love to have a recommendation that this, the city, look into this. So that's interesting. So here's my suggestion. There's a vote on this motion, and then, if it is voted down. Then we will start messing around with it. and all right. So I'm going to restate the motion planning board. Recommend city count, and you make this a little bit bigger. Devin. I'm sorry my eyesight is going. Thank you. Okay. Heading board recommends that city Council adopt ordinance 8, 585, amending chapter 9, over 8. Intensity standards, Brc. 1,981, increasing the number of persons that may occupy a dwelling unit and setting forth related details with the following conditions.

[243:13] option, a regarding non-conforming uses, city-wide general occupancy. Restrictions are limited to 4 unrelated persons, and clarifies the EU allowances to reflect Boulder's intention to serve families. Get rid of the words small. Okay. So the motion has been restated. this would be, I think, the moment when, if someone wanted to offer an amendment, is that correct? Laurel? Is that correct? If someone wants to offer an amendment, now is the time. Yeah, usually you do it before you restate it. But if somebody wants to offer an amendment to this, or should we just vote on this first, go to under. Okay. Kurt. No

[244:00] Ml. and all. No Laura. No. George. Yes. Lisa. no. Mark. Sarah is a yes, so it fails 2 to 5, all right. So who has a next motion? Who has the next motion? Kurt? Sorry. so I would. We lost the language, but I would move something that was analogous. We're placing sorry I'm asking Devin to put the language back up, please. Okay, yeah. And also, Kurt, you, you do not have to do this. But if you wanted to take like 30 or seconds or 60 s to take this languages drafted and and type it up, and then send it to Devin sometimes that can be a little more efficient. But you don't have to do that. You can also read it into the record. It's just that, sometimes

[245:08] depending on how your brain works. It might be a nicer way to get it in front of everybody's. Hi, boss? okay, sure, that's fine. I mean. What I was gonna suggest is a very simple change. It's it's changing the foreign related to 5 unrelated. eliminating the the section about the elus and then, including Laura's recommendation at the end. And I don't have the exact wording for that. it's in the chat. And, Kurt. I don't think you need to say, general occupancy restrictions are limited to 5 that's already in Staff's ordinance that's already in the ordinance. So I think you can just end it as at option a. and then you could include my recommendation as well if you like. Good bye. So you're including that as a recommendation and not mandatory.

[246:03] Devin. You can delete after citywide the general occupancy through persons. Oh, yeah. you you don't need. You don't even need the 500, because I think it's part of the original languages drafted by staff. So I will read the motion, and then someone can second it or not, and then we will discuss ending board. Okay. thank you. Any board recommends that City Council adopt ordinance, 885, amending chapter 988. Intensity standards. Erc. 1,981, increasing the number of persons that may occupy a dwelling unit, and setting forth related details with the following conditions, option, a regarding non-conforming uses city-wide. and that city and that staff and the city council explore revising the city rental license requirements to require affordability in exchange for additional occupancy beyond existing allowances as the July 2,023 for rental properties.

[247:08] Is there a second? I will second. Okay, Laura. Seconds commentary. I know I have a comment. But I'll I'll go first of people. Don't mind. My concern about this is that we increase without the guarantee of an affordability mechanism. and then we don't solve the problems that Lisa and George have been speaking to. So that's my comment. ml. thank you, Sarah. so I have a question, Kurt. in option. 8. Why did you select an option versus? No option which would require any non conforming that wants to increase its occupant teaching to have a This keeps the occupancy.

[248:06] let me see. Option a keep the occupancy kind of reduced. So I'm just curious as to why, option a versus doing neither and requiring a review case by case rather than putting a blanket out there. And I direct respond. yes, of course. Okay. I was putting this out primarily because it seems other than the addition of the affordability provision. This seems closest to what Council actually is. M seems to be moving towards. So I just wanted to get a vote on this and see how planning board felt about it. I I I thought it would be good to get input to city council on the as as much as possible. The thing that they're considering.

[249:11] Okay, Laura. And then Mark. So I want to speak to option A, and also the a statement that Sarah made about this doesn't solve the problem that Lisa and George identified, which I agree it doesn't. So not necessarily. Anyway, it doesn't guarantee it. But option a. I liked option a. Because I think it is responsive to what I think city Council is responding to, which is those those neighborhoods that are closest to the University. and they have some real issues with nonconforming properties that are already a source of increased density in their neighborhoods. that that some folks are finding problematic for all the reasons that they have talked about, and if you have multiple units in a building that's already non conforming, and then you let them have additional occupancy. It. It does have an impact on their neighborhoods, and I think we

[250:03] as board, have compassion for those things. Not for me. Personally, I don't think it. It impacts my view on occupancy citywide, but I think that we can be responsive to that particular concern in a smart way, and I think this does respond to that concern. I, personally am not super concerned about, People? Voluntarily signing up to live in super crowded conditions. I don't think a lot of people will do that, and I don't think that the market will trend that way. you know we're not Tokyo. I think that people can find housing that meets their needs. But there are some people that are gonna be okay with living 3 people in an ALU or 5 people in a 3 bedroom apartment. When I was a student. I lived in one dorm room with my roommate, and and we had, you know, significant others that spent a significant amount of time with us, and that that was fine for a period of my life. I would not choose that for the rest of my life, so I think that we can have flexibility for people's different housing arrangements. But I do think that option a responds to that specific concern in a smart way, and then addressing the specific. You know the fact that my, the recommendation at the end here about exploring.

[251:15] making a mandatory change to rental licensing, to require affordability in exchange for that additional occupancy. I do think that that's something that city council will be amenable to to looking into, and that if we can make it work we probably will. I know they want to do something simple, and do it now with the council that we have in place, but I think that the new Council will probably also, I can't imagine anybody's going to get elected in Boulder that doesn't care about housing and affordability. So I do think that this will get followed up on. I think it was just the way that this Board of very diverse people, who were appointed by very Diversity councils, and we come with very different perspectives. We all kind of recognize this affordability problem. And if we can find a way to solve it in a smart way, we're going to do that. And so I think making this recommendation for me is sufficient. And I wouldn't want it to be a required thing, because I do think that we need to increase occupancy, no matter what. That's that's where I'm coming from.

[252:10] Okay, thank you, Laura. I think it was Mark. the George and ml. so I while I sympathize with the effort to increase affordability by exploring. changing the rental licensing requirements. What I I think this would do would be to create a whole nother level of complexity. That because you're you're saying as of July as of now. the current occupancy limits are here and in place, and and that we would delay implementation of additional occupancy until Council explores, revising the licensing requirement to require affordability in exchange for additional occupancy. Hence A is complex and

[253:11] the it's much delayed. And I I, my sense of this Council, is there are certain things on their agenda that they want to get done before November, and this is one of them, and so unless I'm reading this wrong I, I will not be supporting this in. In. In addition. I will have a motion that does not use option A or B to to address and on conformance. Okay, thank you, mark and just a reminder. Our again, our job is not to reaffirm or or deny city councils. Can I just ask a question as a colleague on that. Just a a point of clarification from Staff.

[254:08] Karl, are you with us? Yeah, thank you. So my question is, if we did include this language about exploring the revising the city rental licenses, in your opinion. Would that require a delay in implementing the occupancy change? If we also approved an occupancy change, or could it be retroactively a change to the rental licenses? I mean, I think it depends on whether what Council says. I. I think if planning board includes that in the motion we would convey that to council. But as we're in the process of bringing the ordinance to council, we wouldn't have a solution. you know, for when Council acts on it, so Council would have to decide whether to defer action on the ordinance until a solution is found, or they may pass it and tell us to to explore it as planning board as

[255:02] requested, and then we might follow up on it later. Whether it reply would apply Russia, or actively, you know, generally. if a new restriction were put in on R to licenses, it would be an effect. 30 days after that subsequent ordinance. So it kind of just depends on what city council does. Okay? So it would not necessarily require a delay in implementation only if council wanted to delay it so that this solution could be figured out. Okay, thank you. Okay. George. Ml. I think actually, the order is the other way around. It's Ml, me. And then Kurt. okay, well, thank you. I I option a I think somebody, or that option A is not the one that is dealing with areas adjacent to the university.

[256:07] so it isn't specifically targeting the concerns that people in those neighborhoods had option. A is city wide. But I think the clarification that Carl gave us on both A and B is that you know R. L. One and the URL's are the the the biggest zoning in the city. and they're included in both of these options. So just because it says, adjacent to the university, if if Carl that I misunderstand. Rl, one is in many places the besides the University, and it would be subject to the same non conformance. That's correct. so let me see, that was one comment I had. And

[257:04] I am curious about the are we able to have the same law, i. E. Whatever occupancy we agreed on applied differently. So across the city it's applied. Yes, you have a bigger occupancy as of this ordinance, but if you have a rental license, it's going to be applied differently, can we? Can that happen? Is that. can it be applied differently? So requirements on it as a rental versus just home ownership? Yeah, I might have to defer to our legal counsel on that. Yeah, I think it's something that we would have to explore and make sure we aren't you causing any issues under any other State or Federal law. So I don't have the answer right now. But it's something we would explore. Thank you. Yeah. I think we we had had a question about the same law being interpreted differently under different circumstances, as not being a a good way to proceed. But, anyway, those are my 2 comments on on this as as it stands. Thank you. Thank you. Ml, okay. So, George. Then Kurt. And then I'm gonna call the motion, and let's see what we get.

[258:21] So I appreciate the the concept of of trying to add affordability in here. I think I'm with Lisa, and that the the the 4 or 5 at the end of the day for me doesn't matter so much if affordability was mandated. And if students weren't competing with families. and the idea of just putting explore in here, unfortunately, to the point where someone wants to, let's say to to the point, is brought up about council and wanting to get this done right and pushing this through and then exploring it later means it's not going to happen. and it means it's going to be a free for all.

[259:02] And I actually think in many ways this is, if if if if we have 5, I think it's actually worse than bedrooms or for people, it could be a worse outcome than what the community expected. And the community voted that down. so for me. I this just doesn't I? I guess I want to signal. That I don't think I occupancy is is is not necessarily a limiter for me, but as a limiter is the issue around creating this competitive environment where families will lose the student, the the the the students occupy these places everywhere. and the the university is not pushed to build housing for the students. and bolder loses in that equation big time. so that's why I wouldn't vote for this. If there was a mandate of affordability where we could. try to try to balance that equation, I I I before thank you.

[260:06] Your current. you'll unless someone desperately needs to add something. You'll be the last, and then we'll vote on this motion. Okay, So 2 things to respond to mark, but my intent in adding Laura's affordability language was not to make the the. The occupancy changes contingent on that, because we don't know what is possible, and what you know is legal, and so on. So to to me. Those are separate things. If we can get the affordability. That's great. But I I have no idea whether that's possible, and who would require a ton more thinking. And then and then just a a point of process. I think that there hasn't been a second on this. no, we did second it. We did. I second did it, Kirk.

[261:02] all right, unless someone is desperate to add something. I'm gonna restate the motion and go to a vote. All right. Planning board. Recommend that city council adopt ordinance 8, 5, 8, 5, amending chapter 9, over 8 intensity standards, Brc. 1,981, increasing the number of persons that may occupy a dwelling unit. and setting forth related details with the following conditions, option, a regarding nonconforming uses city wide, and that staff and city council explore revising city rental license requirements to require affordability and exchange for additional occupancy beyond existing allowances, as of July 2,023 for rental properties. All right. Lisa. No. no. mark. no. George Laura. Yes. Ml.

[262:00] no. Kurt. Yes. Sarah's a no. So it fails 2 to 5. Is that correct? Whoever's keeping track? Yes. okay, thank you. Okay. So here's I. Here's what I would recommend as our last option is to vote on the motion recommended by Staff. and if it fails, we've sent a clear message to to City Council, and then we can also consider Laura's separate proposal. so if that is okay with everyone. I'm sorry. I just I I'm I I will. madam, chair I move. and I'll read my motion language. So I would like to make a motion. Can you actually cut and paste it and send it to. I mean, so he can. While you're reading it. I sent it to Devin, and I put it in the chat both. Oh, okay.

[263:05] okay. I move. Planning Board recommends that city Council adopt organized 85 85, amending chapter 9, dash 8 intensity standards. Brc. 1,981 increasing the number of persons in the occupy a dwelling unit and setting forth related details. Additionally planning board recommends one against adoption. adopting either option A or B regarding Nonconforming. Use. 2 additional enforcement of behavior by any city resident that violates our code with specific attention to code violations for noise, trash, and parking. 3. The Council explore revising civil city rental license requirements to require affordability in exchange for additional occupancy beyond existing allowance, as of July 2,023 for rental properties.

[264:03] Okay, thank you, Mark, do we have a second? Okay, do we have discussion, or can we? I mean, I've real. I think we've alright. Laura has something she wants to say. Laura, I want to ask Mark, can you speak to? Why you have a condition, one against adopting either option A or option. B regarding Nonconforming use. because I I find that the the limitations and option A or B for non-conforming use doesn't really speak to it. There. There is a an incredible mishmash of nonconforming uses all over the city because of our up, zoning and down, zoning and zoning back up again, etc., and that it it it would. I think there would be situations where a landlord would have a perfectly wonderful unit that would allow for greater occupancy, and they would be denied under A or B and and there are other cases where

[265:14] anyway, I think there would be cases where it it, it might make complete sense. And what makes complete sense to me is that they come to staff, and they say we want. She, my unit has 6 bedrooms is non-conforming. but I want I want to have a 5 person occupancy as per the code, and I'm willing to go through a use review to get there. Thanks, Mark. Lisa. Yeah. And I know you're very aware of this, Sarah. So this this isn't for you Just quick time check. We are 5 min till 1030. I will be signing off at 1030 sharp. I encourage anyone else who wants to leave to also leave them, including staff. You probably can't, you should and And so I just wanted to rate that I I don't want to put a big damper on it. You don't necessarily need me. Got quorum without me. but just heads up, and maybe we can move some voting along a bit without Stephen. Conversation too much. Okay, thank you so much, Lisa Kurt. I don't want to cut you off, but in, if if it's not something you said before.

[266:18] Maybe just say ditto to something. okay. I am going to call the motion, and then we'll vote on it. Planning board recommends that city council adopt ordinance. 8, 5, 8, 5, amending chapter 9, over 8. Intensity standards, Brc. 1,981. Increasing the number of persons that may occupy a dwelling unit and setting forth related details. Additionally planning board recommends one against adopting either option A or B regarding nonconforming use to additional enforcement of behavior by any city residents that violates our code with specific attention to code violations for noise, trash, and parking. 3. That city council explore revising city rental license requirements to require affordability and exchange for additional occupancy beyond existing allowances, as of July 2,023 for rental properties.

[267:10] I'm gonna go. Oh, yes, I I'm sorry, Sarah. But. Mark, do you mean additional enforcement of behavior? I mean, that's like encouraging it. A additional. Okay, Is that the way other people I I I didn't read it that way. Ml, I read it as code, vile enforcement of code violations. Yeah, I I read as enforcing behavior that violates. So that is behavior in violation of code. Right? It's not saying reinforcement of behavior is saying enforcement. You could say enforcement against behavior by any city that violates we change of to in against that fix it?

[268:01] I think that would be. Yes. planning board recommends at City Council. I'm going to notice in my sleep by the end of it. Planning Board recommends that City Council adopt ordinance, 8,585, amending chapter 910, the standards, Brc. 1,981, and preaching the number of persons that may occupy a dwelling unit and setting forth related details. Additionally, planning board recommends one against adopting either option A or B regarding non-conforming use to additional enforcement against behavior by any city resident that violates our code with specific attention to code violations for noise, trash, and parking. 3. That city council explore revising city rental license requirements to acquire affordability in exchange for additional occupancy beyond existing allowances, as of July the 2,023 for rental properties. Hurt? Yes. Ml, yes. Lisa. no.

[269:01] George. mark Laura. Yes. Sarah is a no, so it passes 4, 3. We did it. We did do something, that is for sure. Okay. we are done with this public hearing. Item, Lisa. Go to sleep. and I believe I have to go back. Look at the agenda. okay, we are done. Have me for 1 min. Okay, Brad, is there a deep breath calendar, check anything? Nope, just appreciate your time. we are working through those items I sent in my email in terms of the retreat and meeting schedule in August. But stay tuned on that. Thank you. Thank you. Devin any. I'm sorry, Charles. First anything. Devin anything. Okay? I I do want to add one last thing, and just a great big thanks to Carl for what has been a a monumental task, regardless of

[270:09] you know, it's it's ultimate for mutations. So on the topic that nobody loves. All right. I declare this meeting closed, everyone go home and go to sleep. We've got them by 1030. Thanks, Aaron, through this. Appreciate it.