Thread by @shayshinecastle

#Boulder city council retreat Day 2: Starting in 1 min

Starting the first priority topic tonight: Occupancy reform.
Yates is presenting on that.

He's starting with a 2016 retreat list:
Bandshell update
Camping ban statistics
Mobile food truck ordinance
Portland trip (to learn about homelessness)
Mediation
Middle-income housing strategy
Beer pong tables on the Hill
P dog relocation
Public participation
Head tax

Sound familiar?

Back to the present, Yates is starting the occupancy discussion by turning it over to Speer, who will elaborate on her ideas for stronger renter protections.

Speer: This was just trying to acknowledge that a majority of us on council are homeowners, even tho a majority of the city are renters.

And not everybody *wants* be to a homeowner.

Recognizing that, what can we do "to make renting as feasible and safe as possible for those in our community who choose to do that or who don't have a choice?" Speer asks.

Second part of this, Speer says, is acknowledging that people are frustrated with a portion of our renters "who maybe are not mature enough to be living on their own yet."

Since most of us on council aren't renters, the best way forward is a working group, Speer says, who can spend time together thinking about this issue.

Speer: "I don't think it needs to happen tomorrow, but I do think some time in the next 2 years we need to spend time getting input from renters."

Boulder does have, or should have, a tenant group under the No Eviction Without Representation ballot measure, which voters passed in 2020.

But it's scope is *slightly* more limited. Though it could be expanded.

NRV: Some work on this ongoing with landlords and property mgt groups, plus the Uni Hill revitalization work.

"Not everybody wants to be a homeowner, not every renter is disturbing the peace, not every landlord is not doing the right thing. It's a series of carrots and sticks."

Friend asking how the NEWR tenant group fits into this.

Or could fit into this.

Kurt Firnhaber: They provide input on policy and implementation of rental and legal assistance. That's been v helpful.

That group is *all* renters, tho. Purposely no rep from landlords or property mgrs.

Brockett: I wonder if we might tap their expertise, since that's a great group already stood up to work on eviction prevention.

NRV: I think we can handle this within work that's already going on. But that's up to council.

Speer is OK with that.
"The only thing I'd ask of council again is that we are really conscious, as we make decisions, that we are representing an under-represented group."

Now: Occupancy limits

"What we heard from many people, including people who voted against" Bedrooms Are For People in November, "is we do need to address occupancy," Yates.

We are not proposing a do-over of that ballot measure, Yates says, but we can do reform somewhat differently.

First reference to carrying capacity! Drink! (Coffee)

"Should Bedrooms even be the measure of occupancy?" Yates asks. "Should we have a fixed number, like we do now?"

Secondly: The definition of family, which is currently "discriminatory to groups of people who live together non-traditionally," Yates says.

Third: Uneven impacts among neighborhoods, given the distribution of student rentals. Should there be a citywide law that has some exceptions for areas close to CU?

Lastly: Affordability.
Does increased occupancy guarantee affordability?

Yates framing this as a both sides kinda thing, as in: People who think more occupancy doesn't equal more affordability are just as right as people who think occupancy = more affordability.

There is *slightly* more evidence to the later. Letting more ppl live in a home *does* correlate with lower rents.

Research on this is not thorough or rigorous. But there is *no* evidence that increasing occupancy increases rents.

Yates: "Let's put a model out there and let the community say if they love it or hate it. Then, at some point and time pass an ordinance to change our current occupancy law."

Benjamin: I'd add some specificity so staff has direction. Proposes a higher occupancy limit: 5 ppl

And allowing up to 2 families to share a house. "Especially in light of the Marshall Fire."

Other Benjamin suggestions:
Does a neighborhood parking program make sense with higher occupancy?
And a quick timeline: Q2 study session, with a Q3 ordinance and public hearing; reform passed by the end of the year

This proposal has been around since 2020 (and the issue much longer), Benjamin says. We've had plenty of public feedback on this. "It's one of the most vetted issues."

Winer: "Idk that there is a great way to say we had enough community discussion, bc the ballot measure was turned down. I think we need to continue with community effort. I don't think we're done yet."

But thinks that, if we strengthen nuisance laws (parking, trash, noise, parties) then working on occupancy makes sense.

Brockett re-proposes one of his housing ideas: Reconsider the way we calculate occupancy with a main dwelling and an accessory dwelling.

Friend: We don't need to exactly define the boundaries of this. We just need to green light it. And then schedule a study session soon.

Folkerts: Having less occupancy restriction feels "much less complicated" than the nuisance piece.

If we can tie this to rent control, I'd like to see that.

But she acknowledges that's harder on staff.

Winer: I am for occupancy reform. My personality is I always say 'yes, but what about X'

David Gehr, from planning: "In my experience, occupancy is kind of a passionate topic. I would expect ppl to bring their passion to it."

Gehr: Ppl are saying community engagement has already been done. "Idk how to process that. The engagement has been about one proposal. The only thing I take away from that is the community rejected one proposal."

The point of ppl saying that is that, through that process, we have a lot of info on what concerns people have that we can incorporate into the new work.

Moving on: Other planning priorities, presented by Brockett and Yates

- TVAP 2 (staff can do this)
- East Boulder subcommunity plan (almost done)
- Fort Chambers (already underway)
- Requiring on-site affordable (tucked into housing work proposed yesterday)
- Planning Reserve (haven't talked about that yet)

The reserve is ~500 acres north of Boulder that is intended for future development. But a lot of work has to happen before that, including at the time of a Comp Plan update — which happens every 10 years.

The work needed first is a baseline urban services study, which determines "if we have the capacity to add that land into the city," Brockett says.

It's a study that takes 2-3 years. Council already discussed this in 2019. boulderbeat.news/2019/12/07/bou…

Lots of people like this because of the potential to add a ton of housing, much of it affordable. (Annexations require 40% affordable housing vs. 25% for land already in the city.)

Others feel like we should not encourage sprawl and should instead infill Boulder first.

Wallach (one of the council members who proposed this): "We lack the resources at the moment to properly scope and guide and monitor consultant work" to start the study. Staff could start this work in 2023 at the earliest.

There are ~20 steps to be taken, Wallach says. But we should still try to get it done in time for the 2025 Comp Plan update.

Also a lot of acreage out there reserved for parks land, and already owned by the parks dept.

Bc it was paid for with park $$. There *is* a process to use it for something else, but it's a Whole Thing.

Plus I can't imagine adding development *without* parks in Boulder. But Idk the exact acreage, so maybe we don't need as much as they have, or in the same places.

All to be determined at a much-later date.

200 acres is park land, per Yates.

Gehr: I think that we can get this done by 2025 if we start in 2023.

Speer: I think underlying this discussion around the Planning Reserve is the need for more housing. There are other ways to do that *within* the city, including projects we're already considering.

Speer Q for Gehr: How would those projects impact work on the Planning Reserve?
Gehr: It's gonna take a planner to project manage that. It's all a question of resources.

Speer q: If we were to think about all the developed land that's current parking lot, SF home, what do you see as the capacity of what we currently have developed vs. housing we can put in the reserve?

Gehr: It depends on what your vision is for that land. We've been up against our growth boundary for a while and we've found other ways to get housing in our community.

Gehr: "20 years ago, we were into a suburban model. I think we're moving away from that into a more urban model.

There's probably an awful lot of potential, certainly east of 30th Street."

Joseph: The urban services study is just a study to know what we can do with that land. There are approvals needed before we actually *do* anything.

Gehr: That study really determines if we have transportation and utilities sufficient to serve that area. If we can't meet those needs within our existing land, then it makes sense to start area or subcommunity planning that land.

We are in the WEEDS on this one. Winer now talking to Ali Rhodes, of parks.

"It is critical for the larger system," Rhodes says of the Planning Reserve — IF we want to maintain our current park land per capita.

There are other measures of parks health, including access for residents, that I believe council determined were more important last time they looked at the parks plan.

But we digress. Time is ticking on.

Hey! I found it: The last council's discussion of the parks & rec master plan

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1336476…

Anyway, think I'm gonna wrap this bc the next bucket of priorities is Elections.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thanks!