Transcript

0:00:21All right. Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are, Jara, thank you. And. We are recording. All right, good morning. Today is February 5th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. We have commissioners Lochimin and Levy, present in the hearing room. Commissioner Stolzman, is excused. And we are here. For our monthly public comment opportunity. And this is an opportunity to take a comment on things that are not being discussed in another public hearing process. Just a reminder, if you're speaking to one of our land use dockets or anything else that we're taking public testimony on as a subject, then you'll want to sign up and speak in that context so that it is part of the record of that hearing. So this is just general public comment. That anyone would like to make to the commissioners. You're allowed to have three minutes each. We do not pull comments. I see our list of people who have signed up. And so what we would ask you to do is come forward when I call your name and state your name for the record, even though I just said it, into the mic. You'll see the timer up on the screen.

0:01:48And I'll remind you as well when your time is up. We take comment until about 9. 50 so that if the commissioners want to respond to any of the comment, the time to do that. So with that, I will call Ape Laden. And are you here with us. I don't see Abe. Okay, we will move on to Aaron Meshke. Good morning, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Aaron Meshge. I live in Boulder and represent myself. I am grateful for the second pause of the Red Hill Ariel Pesticide application. But obviously want to see that made permanent. You have been presented with ample information over the past three and a half years to move toward a total ban of all aerial pesticide applications. The community overwhelmingly wants drone application to join helicopters to 4D. And ICAMBA on the ban list. And there is also incredible support for adopting a completely organic land management framework. The research paper published by county employees Joe Swanson and Jim Sebastian shows they did not follow county policy or federal requirements in their research and that none of the results of rejuvener use are relevant because it was always used with glyphosate, which is no longer allowed. Joe and Jim acted with brazen immunity when they ignored the 2004 weed management plan, which put the community

0:03:16along with endangered insect, animal, and plant species at inexcusable, irreversible risk. They used an unapproved application method with an unapproved chemical for six years before getting caught by the lion's helicopter spray in 2022. Beyond using a helicopter that was never allowed by the 2004, we've management plan the day of the lion's spray. BCPOS also did not submit to wind speed limitations on the label, which made buffers meaningless and resulted in years of negative impact fording properties and citizens from that singular exposure. If you were appalled by the lion spray, you had the opportunity to keep something similar from happening ever again, especially on DAR, elk run and neighboring properties. The risk to the community and liability for the county does not support drone spray of a list C species or chemical use more broadly. So we ask that you finally hear us inside with the people that you were elected to represent. I was on a statewide hearing on Tuesday. And Claire, you commissioner leave you and I ended up on the same side of the issue. I know we have common ground. I just want you to look both of you at more information that is actually opposing this spray and aerial spray in general. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Crystal Morkovich.

0:04:39Yes, hi. My name is Chris Elmakovic. Ledina Coroado. So I want to talk about science papers. Science papers are not only for scientists to discuss science and to improve and understanding of the world. Scientific papers with no conflict of interest. Also for citizen and politicians to use to make the best choices for their lives as individuals, as members of their community. And for creating the best policies to benefit all of us. This is why it's praying into the flame on redeemed with drones to study industry from runner along the steep slope is unnecessary. As many residents previously mentioned, the research paper, the silence of the clams already confirmed the severity of find those flame runoff. And the toxicity of indozifram one of. So in a few weeks, your staff is going to deliver the results of alternative method, the experiment. I warn you, you may not be impressed. Okay. I want to remind you that your stuff has been trained in using Abysside Chemicals and not to implement alternative approach that requires different skill. And we cry a lot of passion. So, you know, we have a lot of resources in our country and starting with a adopt upload program would be a wise path.

0:06:26You know, we could further residents who are interested in needing such program. They could go for training. Although butterfly pavillon is for free. It's already in place. You got the basic training to understand our ecosystem and to implement land restoration. We could go for a few sessions adverse CUSGOLS Wildlife and research reserve. This use science is that passionate by Land Restoration, extremely knowledgeable and they are very generous of their time. And when you go there to help them waiting, you learn so much. So this volunteer will lead removal events on their designated plot. In the restoration field, we know that restoration project can only be successful. Ever community is deeply involved. You start small and you expand, you have to hear. So I just want to remind you that cheat grass is a bandage on a wounded land. And when you have a wound protected by your crystal, your time is up. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Eric Sweeney. No.

0:07:51We need to make time for everyone. Good morning commissioners. My name is Eric Sweeney. I've spoken to you before about the 1500 square foot rule for a home size and Eldorado Springs. I want to talk about three things today. Precedent, the comprehensive plan and equity. Precedent. I know you get extremely busy depend on staff recommendations to guide you. But in this case, existing precedents were overlooked. As I've mentioned before, you were told that home size had always been hard capped at 1500 square feet. That's an error. In addition, another precedent was overlooked. There was a detailed plan for different home sizes on small, medium and large parcels developed by the Elder Outer Springs Townsite Project. The county and community poor, did tremendous amount of work into this from 2008 to 2013. This floor area ratio plan gave larger parcels the right to build larger homes.

0:08:55This never got considered enough report. Your decision ignores both types of precedence. Second comprehensive plan in the bullet comprehensive plan. There are six pages devoted exclusively to Elder Springs. No other town site receive that much coverage. It's longer than most of the sub - regions. That's not an accident. It was intentional. Those guidelines were meant to guide your decision - making yes to preserve character, but also to give public notice, encourage public participation, allow incremental change, plan for the future, promote context appropriate design. That did not happen. As commissioners, you were beholden to follow what it was written in the comprehensive plan. You're 1, 500 square foot, one size fits all decision does not fit with the guidelines and the comprehensive plan. Equity, as you know, there are three types of defined neighborhoods that were involved in this decision. Subdivision, other and town site. The town site group is small. After receiving public comment, you granted a sliding scale to the other two neighborhood groups, effectively gave the sliding scale to 98 percent of county residents, but excluded after already imposing the most respective homesight limitations on the town site group. That does not make sense. Your decision is blatantly unfair in terms of equity.

0:10:34In conclusion, please take a look at the email I sent you, includes three short attachments that provide support. What I've talked about. My request is you ask land use planning to address these concerns and come up with some possible solutions. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for joining us this morning. Tess McDonald. Hello. Tass McDonald from Lions, Colorado. Thank you for pausing the spray. I'm here to help you make it permanent. There are two problems here, aerial spray, you know, the drift. And it wasn't in the 2004 planned for a reason. So why add it to the 2024 plan? It feels like we're going backwards and rewarding bad behavior. Two, rejuve rates. It's highly toxic deficient trace of mounts. It's not who approved and it's a neurotoxin to mammals. Yikes. And fires seem to pop up afterward. It is a petroleum product after all. Even if Rejuvra worked, it's not worth the environmental degradation that we now know Roundup did. I know the soil where they sprayed in lions. It's drier and pioneer plants, aka weeds, surfaced in place of the cheat grass. Specifically bindweed. Anytime there is bareng ground, whether from pesticide spray or construction, compaction or prairie dogs, nature will cover the area with pioneer plants. Plants that can handle dry disturbed soil. The longer you wait to disturb soil,

0:12:10the more nutrients and soil erosion control in life thrives in that plot of land. Every time you poison the soil, you might remove a weed for a time, but a hundred percent of the time. So let's stop creating wounds on our soil from petroleum products. I have tons of permaculture methods for you. Remember I wrote an 80 page weed management guide in January 2025 modeled after the lions group. We had a working group that we created and I modeled it for the county. More reasons to ban aerial spray. There is an ongoing investigation by the CDA. Colorado Department of Agriculture. Your staff didn't follow the 2004 plan. And besides that, they are habitually not following the label. They didn't get EPA approval. Everything that Aaron said. Consider the correlation between spraying these plots and instances of fire. Remember Excel was held accountable for the Marshall Fire. Don't make us accountable for harming ourselves. These infractions are enough to pause BCPOS. Sign the ban on aerial spray of petrochemicals ordinance that I have right here. I'll take it to the recorder first, but have a look at it. And again, the town hall, I just want to reiterate. We don't want communication or more buffers or ways to appease us. Like you said, Claire, we need protection from poison petrochemicals being aerial sprayed all over our

0:13:36ecosystem. If you're genuinely appalled by the lion spray, the red hill spray is no different. It's just from a drone this time. Not to mention it will persist in the water and soil. We can help you though. Side with a community, not those that are killing the planet that should not be named. It's 8, 000 dollars for five gallons of rejuverous save nature. Spend less money and protect the well - being of the people. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Tess. Yeah, give this to you. Yeah. Natalie will take that. Lynn Siegel. Am I allowed to scream? We would prefer that you keep your composure. Yeah, but. Am I allowed to screen? Please just state your name for the record and then tell us what you'd like us to hear. Am I allowed or not? I need to know if the police will take me away. We're not going to call the police. Lynn, please proceed. Lynn Siegel.

0:14:44Stop already. My mom died when she was 38 from Plutonium at Rocky Flats. And I can't even testify to these things because I have to testify to the counties delinquency. The delinquency that Ashley always swears, Oh, it's not the county that did this to you 10 years ago with your retrofit. It wasn't the county. I read yesterday energy smart is the county. It's the county. It's Suzy Strife. It's Oscar. It's the county that's promoting. Quote unquote promoting. Sustainability. Energy efficiency. And a program that will help me do that. And instead they betrayed me. Okay. I took one of their vendors and I came back to them and I said, I like this vendor. This was a program 10 years ago. Ten years ago. They gaslighted me. In my program for a year ago. They gaslighted me because of this what I found out and they wouldn't tell me. The county, the county Ashley. Although she's not here. It's the county. They told me that. I mean the vendor told me since the county wouldn't tell me anything. The vendor said they were doing a solar installation under adverse conditions and refused. And as a result, the county dropped them. Do you hear that. They were doing a solar install under adverse conditions.

0:16:32And the county was forcing them to do it anyway. Can I trust the county after that. On having something, them advising me on something with my house. Do you have empathy. Do you know what that word means. It's so corrupted. It doesn't surprise me about this rejuvenet and all the, all these weed killers. Me at all. But I can't testify in that. Because for the last year and three months, I've had to come here and testify about my retrofit. And as a result of being gaslighted, I'm now probably out a hundred thousand dollars. On my attempt for geothermal. That's how the county promotes sustainability. They turn people against what they're supporting, are apparently supporting them to do. How unethical. How revolting, how perverse, how can you do that? Lynn, your time is up. Thank you very much. Is it or Becker. Hello? Okay, cool.

0:17:54State your name, please. My name is Isador Becker, Uncle Fur. So I'm actually here in support of the Rejuvish Bang. Um, I just think it's important to offer a perspective that doesn't often get offered here because a lot of working class people, Native plant enthusiast, people who are working regular jobs are not able to make these meetings. Um, I just want to, okay. So I collect native plants. I grow native plants. I give them out into the community. Um, I regularly hike in our open spaces. I have my entire life. I've seen cheat grass absolutely devastate. The areas, people, you know, can say, Oh, it's a, it's a healing scar. Oh, it says I worked as a soil biologist for years in a soil microbiology laboratory. The statements of mass killing of all the things in the soil are just not true. Um, there are serious, you can laugh at me. It's fine. There are serious concerns around it. But it's worth noting that when you have a wildfire and that wildfire burns massive amounts of structures, the amount of toxins that are released on that and then distributed over the entire county for people to inhale, it's not like a zero sum game of just, oh, like this is toxic and the other option.

0:19:08The other options that have been presented are not serious. Um, in terms of, Oh, well, graze goats up there. Opening up the crown jewel of wildlife conservation in the last biodiversity hotspot in Boulder County because the other biodiversity hotspot, which was the tall grass area is where all these people's farms now sities in Boulder represented in hail valley ranch in those spaces. They're being absolutely destroyed. And to be honest, European species central Asian species goats from Europe are not there. People talk about indigenous knowledge. It's worth noting that the Navajo nation, the Cheyenne and Arapaho nation of Oklahoma, the northern Cheyenne reservation. The ute reservation all use integrated management plans that include the use of Rejuva and not a hundred percent rejuvenated management plans that include the use of herbicides. I'm so sorry Isadora. I'm going to ask for decorum because cheering and jeering doesn't allow people's voices to be heard. So let's just be respectful to sing. Let's be respectful to everybody so that they can share their opinions. Thank you so much. Excuse the interruption. Yeah. But it's just worth noting that literally every single indigenous group that has actually lived on these lands for thousands of years all use integrated management plans.

0:20:28They include the use of herbicides. So is it possible. And then is it possible that maybe the people here who have their cultural resources at stake knows something that we don't. They're not this mythical group of people that don't exist anymore. Like we can actually call them. They have phone numbers. You could talk to them also about it about the land management plans representing the Navajo nation. Places like that. I'm not attacking people. I think there's very legitimate concerns. But I think that when you're in a game where we're literally like in a war against all these invasive species and we're losing badly when you have a tool that actually works to save things during the verge of extinction, we cannot just not use that. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Amanda Domenico. Hello commissioners. Amanda Domingo with Savers Amberian Valley. First of all, how to something planned, but I just need to address the misinformation and the cultural appropriation by Mr. Isador Becker. Um, the issue is in the sheet grass. No one's attacked by sheet grass. No one's complained about she grass and no one's died of chic grass. She grasses a list. See species.

0:21:41And in your 2004 plan, it required no remediation. All aerial spraying of sheet grass that suddenly became a problem just in time for the patenting of Rejuvra. Is a concoction. Okay. Because the plan did not approve it. And it is required verifiable that that is what would have been required. You both stated at the town hall that you were shocked to learn that there had been aerial spraying and boulder county for the last 10 years. That's on the record. We're the ones that told you. So first of all, I repeat, uh, you have to use discernment as to who you're listening to. The testing and research is not hypothetical. It is peer reviewed and published in the Journal of Ecology. The missing environmental impact studies, special use authorization that would have been required for one team, a rogue agency to escalate testing from plots on industrially zone land in CMAX to active cultural sites. So this gentleman quoting the Lakota are the ones that are on parks on open space public land. They're there because Parks and OpenSpace invited them. They did not consent. They were not consulted to be experimented on with not just esplanade, which was allocated to industrial zones, but also glyphosate and unknown mixtures. So these are the facts. You're not going to change the facts by bearing your head in

0:23:28the sand. The question is, do you condone this behavior now that you are aware of what has taken place, which is unpermitted by your own admission. BOCC had to approve any change to the 1997 deed. They had to approve any change to the 2004 plan. You didn't do that until December 2024 because we made these discoveries. So stop gaslighting us because everybody knows. And I suggest you read the new article in Boulder reporting lab. And you can expect many more. So the choice before you now, we're not going to debate sheet grass anymore. It's list C. You don't have to do a thing, but you do have to do something about the documented research and testing on native cultural sites. Thank you. Thank you, Amanda. Uh, is there anyone else with us in the hearing room this morning who would like to speak during open comment. Uh, okay. And we don't need to have back and forth among people here. Sir, come forward. Actually, one of the virtual people. But I screwed up. You look real to me. So go ahead. And pull the microphone up, please. My name is Brad Ainsley. We have to really get it up there. On the founder of O'Lera living innovations where Boulder - based modular housing company that designs and manufactures affordable ADUs, accessory dwelling units in small

0:25:05homes, um, with an attempt to tackle affordability. I want to speak directly about accessory dwelling units and the current restrictions still around them and unincorporated county boulder. The state of Colorado has made it clear through legislation and housing policy that ADUs are critical low impact tool to address housing affordability workforce housing shortages and the demographic changes in the state. Most front range jurisdictions have taken steps to align their local codes with the Colorado House Bill 24, which one in the place in the 2025. Boulder County has not, although they're not required to, they have not yet. As a result, homeowners and unincorporated Bullard County are categoricly prohibited from adding modest co - compliant ADUs unless they meet very stringent requirements. Regardless of lot size infrastructure capacity or owner occupancy, this is not a neutral policy choice. It's an act of restriction on housing and supply.

0:26:07ADUs are not speculative developments or investments for the rich. They're not large - scale densities. ADUs are almost always used for owner use, for extenuating family circumstances or to generate revenue to tackle the unaffordability issues in Boulder. By continuing to put restrictions around 80 years, unincorporated Boulder County is effectively saying no to aging in place, no to multi - generational housing and no to one of the least disruptive forms of additional housing available to alleviate the housing crisis in Colorado and Boulder County. As the county considers updates to its residential land use code, we strongly urge the commissioners to direct staff to formulate a path forward to loosening restrictions around 80 years in unincorporated boulder. Um, we have the data, we have the building standards and the operational experience to help out if you need anything when you evaluate this, uh, we're here to help.

0:27:09That's it. Thank you. Thank you for joining us this morning. And is, okay, I see one more person who would like to speak. Come forward state your name. You'll have three minutes. Good morning. My name is Catherine Ryan. Um, I'm a resident of unincorporate Boulder County. And I just wanted to ditto what he said about asking for consideration of loosening the policy on ADUs and unincorporated Boulder County for affordability issues for multi - generational housing options for aging in place issues. Um, this is something that has been, has impacted my family as we considered, um, how to take care of my mother as she aged, um, and where house doing a retrofit on our house would have been prohibitively expensive. And an ADU would have been possible and would have been ADA compliant to accommodate her wheelchair. Um, as I face now, my own desire to age in place in my home in Boulder County and also having four children who are facing affordability issues to be able to even continue to live in Boulder County to find a job in Boulder County that will pay them enough to be able to buy a house and raise a family in Boulder County. I would love to see some more flexibility in the county policy on ADUs. And I'm sure that there's lots of information on

0:28:44the community and from industry and from other places that have done this well and how to guide us. But I would love to see an extension of some, um, flexibility. Thank you so much for your time. Okay. Thank you for joining us this morning. Uh, we'll now move to those who are joining us online and the first person signed up is Edward Yagi. I see he has been promoted Mr Yagi. If you'll go ahead and unmute. You'll have three minutes. Good morning. Are my audio and video all right? Yes. They're just fine. My name is Edward Yagi and I'm co - owner of sixth generation family property in Alan's Park. I'm mostly repeating myself from last month since you commissioners were either absent or ignored me on January 6th. In a way, it's ironic how Boulder County's self - serving an arrogant contempt for We taxpayers has brought our larger society or what's left of it closer to collapse than at any time in our country's history. You divert millions of dollars to performative stunts while allowing 9 - 11 service to go dead during emergencies, which are now frequent. You use public money to buy up land. You don't need that you don't property mitigate for fire risk resulting in fires like superior four years ago and near 287 last month, then scapegoat us

0:30:01when there is no land to build more housing. Property taxes are now higher than many mortgages. Is it too much to ask that you simply serve the common good instead of restricting our rights, neglecting basic services, setting the example of unfairness and creating an exacerbating disputes? This is not a rhetorical question. In the two years since you voted in the existing short - term rental regulations, I have repeatedly reminded you that the neighbor notification, homeowners insurance and wildfire partners requirements are foolish, unreasonable, excessive, and counterproductive. And I've given you literally dozens of specific examples of your poor reasoning and lack of responsiveness. This nonsense has been going on now for more than six years. Six years is a long time for you to be proven, stupid, wrong, unprofessional, unethical, and at times illegal for you to just shrug it off. Or, and I'm talking to Marta, unplug my audio and video. No, I have not forgotten your disrespect or your ignorance of the first amendment.

0:30:56I demand that you update the public today right now here on when exactly you plan to remove these observed requirements. My family is STR license is up for renewal now, and the guarantee that any affordable private or public insurance will soon exist. There is absolutely no justification for any kind of a requirement for private insurance of STRs, something proved on the record at public hearings three years ago. When this issue came up, you heard your own staff humiliate themselves with their incompetence and then just ignored it. If you force taxpayers to take you to court, you are just going to waste more of everyone's money and lose decisively. Are you going to do the right thing or not? Again, give a straight answer to a straight question. Also for decades, you have announced usually late on Friday afternoons before a three day weekend. Town Halls taking place the next Tuesday. Deliberately depriving the public of enough lead time to attend. On a personal level, this is cowardly, an institutionally it is despicable. I'm calling you out on it and telling you to knock it off.

0:31:59This concludes my remarks. Okay. Thank you for joining us. Uh, next we'll have Alex Markovich and I see Alex has been promoted. Start by stating your name, please. And then you'll have three minutes. Yes. Hello. Uh, Alex Markovic unincorporate Boulder County. Can you hear me fine? Yes, we can. Okay. Um, in the context of considering alternatives to the use of pesticides to control cheek rest and other invasive weeds on natural lens, I want to warn the commissioners to not fall off or we can only be called arguments from personal ignorance. Your read management staff repeatedly claims that goats cannot be used to control invasive plans without compromising the safety of bighorn sheep. Yet BLM, the federal Bureau of Land Management has figured out how to do exactly that on Colorado's Western slope where bighorn sheep are much more present than the foothills of boulders front range. Eurek management staff can't imagine how to efficiently and effectively use volunteers to manually restore large areas. Yet the US Forest Service and Colorado's own states parks are doing exactly that right here in Boulder County. You read management staff claims that cheek rest needs to be actively fought to preserve biodiversity in Boulder County. Yet, uh, UC boulder scientists have found that in a boulder ecosystem, once human disturbances such as overgrazing are removed, the ecosystem gradually naturally

0:33:32recovers from chicrists. So there actually is no urgency to fight cheek grass with chemicals. And do not bind to the implication that alternative teaks are somehow slow relative to the use of pesticides. Your weed management staff has been using a DASA flamb to combat cheek rest and boldle county for over a decade. And now they propose to spend another half decade ramping up in Dazaflam sprain just to get to the point in 2030 where they hope to be able to perhaps cut herbicide use in half. Alternative techniques based on sound ecology can accomplish much more in a decade than you read management staff can using herbicides. All over the world ecosystems are being successfully restored by motivated communities under the guidance of practitioners and scientists who actually understand and are passionate about ecology. The only reason that this is not happening in Boulder County is because you, the commissioners, keep looking for guidance on this issue from your weed management staff who are completely invested in the failed chemical paradigm being pushed by large chemical companies for their own profit, not for the benefit of the environment. You need to select and hire ahead of BCPOS who has the expertise and experience with ecologically sound ecosystem management to properly structure and restaff BCPOS Wees management with individuals who can actually execute the integrated weight management

0:35:03plan as intended, including seriously implementing the intention of this plan clearly stated in the plan to prioritize alternative treatments over chemical herbicide treatments by following the best science and information available. Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Uh, next we'll have Laura Gonzalez. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. I would like to say good morning, buddy and good when I see the news that Israel has murdered 500 people. Innocent people, mostly children. Because we continue investing just the city of Boulder at 38 million dollars. And I demand today, I'm not asking you, I'm demanding all three of you stole some levy and what you mean. Disclose how much money the county is investing. In a forensic entity, which is a fella carne that's committing a genocide. And appetite in the West Bank. Ethnic Cleansing is never good news. Genocide is never good news. I also see the news that people are enraged because Don Lemon got arrested. We've been fucking telling you 260 journalists were murdered in Gaza. Justin Gazan, they didn't even entire Palestine by the state of Israel with our money and you're doing nothing. I guess you want to build another bouldering glass. Uh - huh. Another white dominated wealthy society that only sees land as property and property must give you profit, which is why you don't care about spring pesticides

0:36:37on indigenous land. On stolen land, that's none of yours. If you're not indigenous. Pesticides, drones, controlling the ecosystem, wedding or human history has this given us more benefits than harm. What is a point of trying to fix the harm of our local ecosystems if you refuse to recognize that what happens in the Amazon purses here? What happens in the Congo hurts us here. The ecosystem in Sudan and Palestine only do a will impact us and we will go beyond our goal of reaching 1. 5 by 20 something. But we are paying for them to focus up even more. And to all the people here fighting to protect our local farms from being sprained by drones that require leaping batteries that killed consolith black children daily, please connect the dots. If we don't speak about gas and how it impacts us, it's going to get worse.

0:37:20Are you not seeing how bolder so masculine its own fascism that never ended since the city was founded. The city and condensed was fatal as a crowddle for the KKK. Do a little bit of history where the M is being burned. Those were crossed burned for the KKK. Robbing land from indigenous people who properly stored the land without harming it. So listen to us. Stop listening to white people who still are land. Speaking progressive wars doesn't mean we are progressive in our community and in our environmental protection for not aligning or actions. Boulder County is not just silent on the genocide of the Palestinian people were paying for it. Glad to hear one speaker was able to talk a little bit about interconnecting to indigenous people, but again, what is the point of stopping one pesticide spraying locally wouldn't speak about the biggest issue for lifetime that will way be on Focus, I'll be on this pesticide all spray - o. Ashley and older Siones minions need to stop this propaganda equating silence and with Judaism. That is itself is anti - Semitic because you're saying that all Jewish people are siones and that is not true. Many Jewish people are here and have been fighting for over 100 years against their colony of Israel.

0:38:23And I just want to say that I'm extremely angry because we warned you two years ago we said, if you don't say anything about Palestine, Trump is going to get elected. Ice is going to come for all of us and it's just not going to be like people that look like your time is up and thank you for joining us this morning. Next we'll hear from Simon Lowen. If you'll please start by studying your name and then you'll have three minutes. Hey there. I'm Simon. Simon Lowen. Um yeah this is my first hearing and it was really special to be here. So thank you for modeling so much calm and compassion in the face of intensity. Um, yeah, I wanted to also share about the pesticides, but I wanted to just tell a little story from my work. I work with kiddos less than half a mile away from the Hyal Ranch land and we.

0:39:19Walk around and look at the beautiful animals and plants on our property. And one of the most special parts of it is the, uh, the little pond that we have, um, and that pond receives drainage from higher ranch. And in that pond are these little leopard frogs which are incredibly beautiful and have little spots on them that make them look like leopards. And in the winter we go up to this pond. And the kids sneak around trying to sneak up as close to the edges they can to not scare the frogs. And then we look in and there's all these beautiful little frogs in there that are so sweet and the kids get so excited about it. Um, and they're critically endangered. And as you know, frogs are super sensitive to chemicals and embeds of them. Has deeply harmed aquatic ecosystems. Um, yeah, I'm just wanting to share that. I'm grateful for the pause. Um, and also I do think that, um, the other ways to manage this. It's not urgent. We can use, um, nonchemical solutions here. Um, and yeah, I think, I think the prospect of spraying toxins that are indiscriminately killing plant seeds cannot possibly help native plants that just like, that doesn't make any sense. Um, yeah. If we want native plants to thrive, then we can bring in goats to

0:40:53eat the cheap grass seeds before they fall. We can bring in goats to eat the cheat grass before they grow up high. Um, but poisoning the entire seed bank is not going to help native plants. It's going to hurt all of the plants. And then other pioneer weeds are going to show up like one of the earlier speakers said. Um, yeah, so that's about all I had to share. Um, yeah, thank you for your time and energy doing all of this. Okay. Good. Thank you for joining us this morning. Um, Brianna or Jair, is there anyone else online who has indicated that they would like to speak to us this morning. Hello, Chair Levy. This is Brianna Barber, Commissioner's office staff. At this time, there is no one else in the virtual room that wants to give public comment during this meeting. Okay. Thank you very much. Then we have, um, heard from everyone who has joined us this morning. I want to thank everyone for coming. Uh, sometimes we respond, not always. Commissioner Lochimian, any response that you'd like to make. Yeah. Thank you.

0:42:00Thanks everybody for your participation in emails joining in the town halls. Coming into public comment. And we have folks come in for land use hearings just to give their opinions about, um, their proximity, uh, different particular parcels and projects around Boulder County. So, um, always appreciate the ideas and the share. There's a couple, the couple of people that spoke on, it was Brad and Catherine. I couldn't tell who was still here. And so I just wanted to share and happy to do some follow - up either myself or with staff, depending on your schedule this morning in regards to the question around backyard cottages and accessory drawing units. And so just want to share that I did host a conversation. I think it's been two weeks ago now. I lead a regional group of elected officials as part of what's called the regional elected officials working group on homelessness. Um, I'm not sure how we got to that name. But it's that group is focused on with the jurisdiction. So the towns and cities here in our region around that question that I heard brought up about how does Colorado, um, in a housing crisis, look at, um, some of the methodology that other parts of the country are in regards to addressing the generational living and housing costs and all these other different pieces.

0:43:18So I just wanted to share that because, um, we did have a meeting and it is recorded and happy to share that, um, that might give you some insight and or just meet separately. So I just wanted to respond to that. And then just as far as some of the other pieces, some of the, I don't really have any other, um, pieces that I wanted to respond to in regards to asks, but I heard everybody appreciate the comments. Thank you. Great. Okay. And, uh, I also want to thank everyone for coming to speak with us this morning. There were just a couple of things that I wanted to address Mr. Sweene. I know you've, you've come to us several times and you've written letters to us. And I will look for your most recent email as I've indicated before. I think this is something that we need to review. I don't feel that I was adequately informed. About, uh, the changes that would affect El Dorado Springs. So, um, I have been listening and I do want to understand better, uh, how we got to the role that we have. Um, I, um. You know, several people have mentioned that cheat grass is a list C species. And that does not mean that it is not harmful. It means that it has become so pervasive

0:44:38that it is very difficult to control. That is not an indication that it is not invasive or that it is not harmful to the ecosystem. So, uh, I think that is a misunderstanding of, uh, what list A, B and C means. Those are regulatory classifications in terms of the obligation of a local government to eradicate or control it. It is not an assessment of the harm of the species. Um, I, um, I, let's see what else do we have here? Um, yeah, ADU policy. This is, so Boulder County was not included in the state law that requires us to change our policy. However, we have been talking about whether there is some latitude to loosen our, uh, our limitations that we have right now, one of the challenges that we have is that a lot of Boulder County is on well in septic. And so adding additional, um, uh, cooking facilities, additional bedrooms and bathrooms, things that consume water, uh, require, um, perhaps going to water court and getting additional water rights. It would involve, uh, resizing a septic system. There are other issues such as that proximity to transit and multimodal transportation that we really want to be very careful about in terms of the policies that we've had in our comprehensive plan. Not saying that it's inconsistent. It's just another aspect of, of

0:46:09what we're trying to understand here. Um, I want to just very briefly address what Mr. Yagi said about, uh, 911 service going dead, uh, when we have power shut off. That is a serious problem. And, um, Lumen technologies formerly centrally length formerly, you know, something else before that. We are sheriff's department, our mountain area fire chiefs have been, um, sitting around a table with lumen, uh, I have joined virtually several times to try to urge them to provide the backup power that is needed because people who live in the mountains don't have reliable cell service. The only way they can get a reverse 911 call or get a notice of an evacuation is if they're landlight works, uh, it's a serious problem. We've alerted that, uh, public utilities commission about those problem, uh, congressmen new goose has written a letter to the FCC about this problem, uh, trying to get some cooperation. And it's not moving as quickly as we would like to. The county has no regulatory control. You know, we can pressure. We can, you know, we can harangue. We can cajol, but we don't have any power to force them to change.

0:47:36And I think that's all I would like to say in response. So thank you for joining us. We have another item on our agenda this morning. And that is, let me just get that in front of me. We will be hearing some amendments to our land use code related to residential uses boarding house and group care or foster homes. And that is docket DC 24 - 004. And do you need. Like a break before we... Okay. We'll take five here. Refill water. And give. Kaylee a chance to get settled. For our public docket. Thank you. All right, commissioners, are you ready? Yeah, we are, Chair. Thank you very much. Okay, we're recording. All right, we are now going to take up the second item on our agenda this morning, and this is community planning and permitting department docket DC24 - 004. And these are amendments to our land use code regarding residential uses boarding house and group care or foster home. We have Kaylee Byrne with us. To present the changes that a CPNP has been working on. We will hear from Kaylee, the commissioners, oh, let me, well, this is the still same public hearing. It's February 5th, 2026. We have Commissioner Boltramin and Levy present in the hearing room, Commissioner Stolzman is excused.

0:49:49So we'll hear from Kaylee, the commissioners may have some questions. We'll then take public comments starting with those who have joined us here in the hearing room, so Kaylee, welcome, and tell us what you've been working on. Good morning, Commissioners. This is Kaylee Byrne with Community Planning and Permitting here to talk about Docket DC 24004 residential uses boarding house and group care foster home. I do have some slides. I don't know. There we go. Let me know the sound is not great. And I'll get started. So just some background on kind of how we got to this update. Back in 2024, I worked on DC 24002, text moments Delaney's Code related to residential occupancy. And as part of that update, we removed the family definition from our land use code. The boarding house and group care, Foster Home Uses, rely on the term family in that previous definition. And now require an update. And we received authorization from BOCC to proceed with this amendment. In October of 2024, so we've been working on it quite a while. And just for reference, this is that previous land use code family definition. So you can see it was pretty explicitly defined, prescribed a relationship of what a family was through blood marriage or adoption. And otherwise, prohibited more than three unrelated individuals from living together by right

0:51:34or being considered a quote unquote family. And this is the definition that was removed and replaced in that previous update. And here the existing uses that we're going to discuss a bit today, boarding house and group care foster home. I've just highlighted here those references to family. These definitions were added in 1994 and have remained the same since then. That previous family definition was used to help define these uses and regulate these residential uses or housing types differently than the occupancy of a dwelling by a family quote unquote. And they now require an update since that reference to family in these definitions without the definition of family in our code anymore is no longer meaningful. These are two other existing land use code definitions. That were amended or added during that previous update. So just want to give the proper context here. That previous update also added a new definition for household that you can see here at the bottom of the slide to replace family and created a method of determining maximum occupancy and dwelling units based on health and safety standards that we added to the dwelling unit definition. These are both an article 18. Boardinghouse and group care foster home, although they reference family. We're not updated as part of that previous update, um, because it was determined that they would require,

0:53:05you know, zone separate attention, separate update. So the goals of this land use code amendment were to consider how the removal of that previous family definition impacts sporting house and group care foster home uses and amend them to, um, reflect its removal and also ensure that the code still aligns with federal foresing law and state regulations really to group homes. So federal for housing law requires that local governments tree all protected classes of individuals the same as all other individuals, um, prohibiting discrimination based on protected characteristics such as disability and Colorado law also directs local governments to treat identified group homes as a quote residential use of property for zoning purposes in a similar fashion to other residential uses. So identified group homes include group homes for the exclusive use of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities, group homes for the age, group homes for the exclusive use of persons with behavioral or mental health disorders, um, and recovery residences. State law has declared it's the policy of the state to assist these populations to live in typical residential settings and establish that this is a matter of statewide concern. So a summary of the proposed land use code amendments for this update is to amend the household definition to clarify that state defined and or licensed group homes are considered households. And this may

0:54:39operate within a dwelling unit as a buy right use. And then to remove the boarding house use and remove the group kera foster home use. And these proposed changes, um, to the household definition make it explicit that residential group homes are household. And this will be treated in a similar manage to other households. Group homes can under those under these proposed regulations operate within any dwelling unit and our subject to the same occupancy limits as any other dwelling unit. And this aligns with federal of our housing law and state guidance regarding, um, group homes being treated as a residential use. The same as any other use of a residential dwelling. The removal of the family definition and update to the residential occupancy regulations, including the new household definition. Now allow for a lot more flexible living arrangements by right. Um, such as instances where more than three unrelated individuals are living together. Therefore staff recommended proposed to remove the boarding house use as it's no longer really necessary to accommodate those, um, other, um, instances of living arrangements. Um, outside of what we used to consider quote unquote family, um, dwellings may now be occupied by any type of household up to their residential occupancy capacity. And there are a couple of reasons staff proposed to remove the group care of foster home use, um,

0:56:02regarding the foster home piece, phosphormes are simply a living arrangement in a dwelling unit where an adult cares for a foster child or children who may or may not be related to them. Um, so staff proposed to remove reference to foster home in the code as it doesn't need to be discreetly called out or regulated differently than any other household. The code would then treat them as any other house. So hold aloud, um, buy right in any dwelling unit. And the addition of text to households regarding group homes at the residential scale incorporates this use into the household definition. However, group homes that are beyond the residential scale would no longer be a use in the code if the group care home uses struck as proposed. The existing definition for this use is very broad and can include a wide variety of uses of various scales in levels of intensity. Um, it's unclear from our review of past code updates whether that was intentional and some applications of the use stretch the definition to a point where it begins to exceed what can reasonably be considered a residential use as it's currently classified. In the code. Facilities operating beyond the residential scale don't fit within what the county considers residential, which is why the use is proposed to be removed in the past other uses

0:57:19that have a residential element to them such as nursing homes, residential care facilities and hospitals have also been removed from the code due to the intensity of the uses and the requirement of significant urban services, services that Voulder counties unable to provide in the unancorporated county. So this is the kind of strike through and underline version of these proposed code amendments that I just summarize. This is the household definition. Um, text proposed to be added is underlined here, um, so this includes that language I just spoke about that incorporates residential scale group homes that are defined in licensed by the state. And it also includes language on what, um, what it does not, um, include under that, um, umbrella. We have also proposed to strike the word single there in that first line that you can see, um, in order to reduce some confusion between the terms, um, dwelling unit and single unit dwelling. Um, so before it said a single dwelling unit. So there was some confusion at planning commission. So that came out of conversation and discussion from planning commission. And then these are the proposed amendments to boarding housing group care of foster home, which is just to remove the uses from the code. So if staff's recommendation, um, propose text amendments, um, is approved. Then this is kind of just a

0:58:54visual of some of the things I've talked about. So residential scale group homes are households with foster children or households of more than three unrelated people are all considered a household, all meeting the residential occupancy requirements of their dwelling unit. And I did want to talk about the existing group care foster homes that we have in the county. Therefore kind of active group care of foster homes that have been approved in the unincorporated county. I listed here and detailed more in the staff report. Of these four staff has found that Rose house and Ross group care home, those first two listed, um, would both likely be considered a household meeting the occupancy limits within a dwelling unit under the proposed amendments. Um, you can see on the slide, they're both, um, operate in a single unit dwelling and based on staff's review of past building permits, um, and the approved occupancy through their special use approvals. Um, they're meeting those residential occupancy requirements for their single unit dwelling. And then mountain state's children's home and sandstone care residential at the Alps, which are those bottom two that are listed would become nonconforming uses and would be subject to the nonconforming use regulations and article 4 - 1003 of the code. There don't, they don't operate in single unit dwelling, this mountain states children's home is

1:00:29a campus of multiple dwellings and other structures, including school and administrative buildings. Um, and they house and support up to 40 resident children as well as staff. Sandstone care operates in a converting lodging structure. It used to be the Alps in. And they house 24 residents or up to 24 residents. So these uses, you know, if this is approved as staff recommends, they could continue to operate per the terms of their special use approval and complete normal or routine maintenance. Um, that includes instances where the use is damage or destroyed due to factors outside of the owner's control, but they would not be able to expand or be altered beyond what was already approved in their special use approvals. As far as outreach throughout, um, this code update and the development of this code update, um, we started off by having a virtual public meeting, a webinar on January 16th, 2025. So about a year ago now, um, I held some one - on - one meetings with Kinkowski law and policy group. Imagine Colorado, um, Pinkowski law and policy group is affirmed to advocates for senior housing and long - term care and imagine Colorado is an unprofit that provides services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. That includes housing placement. There are also two referral in public comment periods. The first in

1:02:00April of 2025 and the second in August of 2025. There were internal racial equity impact assessment discussions held within community planning permitting department. Um, and, uh, there was continued notification of hearings in the changes to existing group CARA foster homes, especially with the, uh, rescheduling of the VOCC hearing. So that was a piece of that outreach. As far as referral responses in public comment, um, referral responses included, um, which these are all included as part of the staff packet, um, comments from Boulder County, Access and Engineering Lions, fire protection district in North Metro Fire Rescue District on an emergency preparedness plan requirement that was included in a previous draft text version that Texas no longer included in the draft text proposed to the BOC at this time. I just wanted to acknowledge those comments that are part of the staff packet. City and County of Broomfield CDPHE or Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

1:03:08Goose Haven HOA Jefferson County Larimer County and Sunshine Fire Protection District responded with no comments or concerns. Um, and staff received eight public comment letters in response to this docket. I think I referenced seven in the staff packet, but we received one after the staff packet was published, um, for this hearing today. Um, and I'll speak a little bit, um, about those comments. But again, this letters are included in the staff packet. One comment letter voiced concern about allowing residential group homes by right in all zoning districts due to noise traffic safety impacts for knee bring residents. Another letter expressed interest in creative retirement facilities and living arrangements. Another, the one that received was received after the staff pack was published. Encourages the county to further explore AD use as a residential use. Um, and then five comment letters discussed round states children's home and express concern about the potential for them to become nonconforming if the stock is approved as staff recommends. So planning commission heard this docket at a public hearing on October 15th, 2025. Some questions from planning commission included a few clarifying questions on the new household and revised dwelling unit definitions and kind of how they play into this update and why certain existing group kera foster homes would become nonconforming uses while others would not under the proposed changes.

1:04:43So, um, those were discussed and answered at playing commission and some texts was added to the staff packet to hopefully, um, respond a little bit more and clarify some of those little bit more, um, in the South packet. There was one public comic from Nick Mears at the Planning Commission Public hearing the executive. He's the executive director of Malin Steve's children's home. And so I just wanted to make a note too at this point that, um, staff have said met with Nick Mirror's and discussed in further detail the potential options for the future operations of the group care home, depending on the outcome of the text amendment to the code, um, whether staff's recommendation is taken or, you know, hypotheticals of what other options, um, might come out of the hearing. Um, if staff's recommendation is approved by BOCCS proposed and they become a nonconforming use, um, they will still be able to act on their most recent special use approval from 2021. Um, pending a modification to that approval and completion of some post approval requirements. Um, that modification request would propose that phasing plan for their development and extension of the timeline for recording their development agreement, which is a post approval requirement, um, from that SU and extend their vested right, which is something that came up, um, as just, you know,

1:06:06an issue of if they became nonconforming, um, would they be able to act on their vested right. So those are some of the things that we discussed and hopefully clarified, um, with Nick Mears. And this would allow them to construct two additional residential group poems and remodel six existing group homes and complete some additions to the admin and school buildings on the parcel per that 2021 SU approval. All right. Back to planning commission after that aside. Other discussion topics amongst playing commission, um, included requesting that clarifying remission to the household definition that I, um, mentioned before. And then interest in option that could allow for the two potentially nonconforming group care homes to continue operation as conforming uses. And also an option for future group care homes larger in size and scale than would be allowed in a dwelling unit by right. So planning commission voted and unanimously recommended approval of DC 24004 to the BOCC with the following direction for staff to explore options for maintaining special use, um, for the group care home use, both for existing SU approved uses in any future, um, uses of a group care home or similar use.

1:07:34Um, and also to change that phrasing, you'll, you know, dwelling to one dwelling unit in the definition of household. So we responded a little bit differently to that, um, household revision. But we did respond to that. Staff have also developed some alternative draft text that responds to that, um, direction from planning commission. Um, to address the two existing group care homes that would become nonconforming and potential future group care homes. So I'm just bringing back up the staff recommendation for reference here before I get into those other options. So we don't get lost in all the options. Um, so again, this is that staff recommendation option, which is just three visions to household and then to remove boarding house and group care of foster home. Um, in the following two options, these proposed amendments would still apply. So it would basically be like option A plus B or C. Because we would still be making these revisions to household and removing boarding house and group care foster home. And this will make a little bit more sense once I get into those, but I just wanted to make that point now. So option B would address the existing group care homes by adding this new residential care facility use in the retail and personal service uses. So not in the residential uses category. Um, and

1:09:04it would provide an avenue for future group care homes and select zoning districts. So here we're showing in the transitional business commercial. And then it would no longer allow them in agricultural or forestry, but it would acknowledge the existing group care homes that we have in those zoning districts. So mountain states, children's home is in the ag district and sandstone care at the Alps is in forestry. Um, but through internal, like core team discussions on this project, um, on this update, we felt like the concerns that we had about keeping this use in unincorporated county were, um. Especially prevalent in the more, you know, remote areas. So forestry and act districts. And so we wanted to. Um, kind of keep it in districts for new uses, um, where it made sense, uh, to staff. So transitional business and commercial, um, similar to some other retail and personal service uses. Um, so just to reiterate, it would not allow new uses in the ag or forest registry, but it would acknowledge the two existing group care homes that we have. So they would remain conforming if this option is taken. And then the second option, um, or this third option, option C. The second option that was kind of drafted in response to planning commission, um, is this one. It's essentially the same as option B,

1:10:45the definition and parking and loading requirements, um, additional provisions. That's all the same. But what's different is the district's permitted. So in this option, we're essentially not allowing any new group care homes or now they would be called residential care facilities because we're stating that they're only allowed by special review for NA and F for existing uses as of the adoption date. So this is kind of a way to get at only, um. Only acknowledging those two existing group care home uses as conforming by putting this language here in the district's permitted. But by having this language, it's essentially not permitted as a new use in any zone district. So this is a way to just acknowledge those two existing uses as conforming. Okay. Um, I'll go through the text amendment criteria now. Um, no text moment shall be adopted by the BOCC unless the board has determined that the existing text is in need of amendment. The amendment is not contrary to the intent purpose of the code. And the amendment is an accordance with the Boulder County comprehensive plan. So for that first criterion, the existing text is in need of amendment. Um, that previous family definition, um, that was removed by DC 24002. Therefore means that the boarding house and group care of foster home uses need amendment to reflect its removal.

1:12:19Um, the proposed amendments ensure compliance with state and federal long group homes and for housing. Um, the boarding house use is no longer necessary with previous changes to the household and dwelling unit definitions. And the group care of foster home use for group homes beyond the residential scale. Um, is now ideally located within the unincorporated county. For criterion two, the amendment is not contrary to the intent and purpose of this code. This text moment seeks to facilitate the provision of housing for Boulder County residents, housing is recognized as a key social determinant of health. Important to individual health and welfare. So by acknowledging that residential group poems are considered households, we believe we kind of get to that point. Um, state law, um, referenced here also declares housing with type to be a matter of statewide concern. And then number three, the amendment is in accordance with the boulder county comprehensive plan. Um, we find that this text moment is aligned with guiding principles related to social equity for county residents, uh, countywide goals related to clustering urban development in urban areas and housing needs and aligned with several policies and goals detailed in the housing element. And so more specifically, um, removing the boarding house and group care of foster am use aligns with the plan schools of directing those more intensive uses such

1:13:46as these to the urban or incorporated areas within the county. And it also acknowledges the plan's remote areas policy, which guide staff to promote more low impact development and isolated areas of the county, which accounts for quite a large portion of the unancorporated county. Revising that household definition to acknowledge residential group homes as households aligns with the plan's goals and policies related to inclusivity for housing and equitable housing solutions. And this change helps to reinforce Equitawal comes for all county residents, which draws in that the plans cross - cutting theme of equity. And specific principles, goals and policies that kind of referenced here are included in the staff packet for this docket. So staff recommended motion is that the BOCC approved docket DC 24004. Residential uses boarding house and group care of foster home. Option A as provided an exhibit A. And I have added this following condition here. If this is the path that BOCC chooses, staff just recommends delaying the effective date, um, that would give Mount Stey's children's home time to complete that modification, um, that I talked about previously, which would allow them to act on their previous SU approval. And keep their vested right if they became nonconforming. Um, so I think end of March would be a good timeframe, but, um, that can, you know, we can be discussed

1:15:21that. But just wanted to explain why I put in that condition there. Um, and I do have some draft alternative motions if we need them. Um, that's all I have for now. Okay. Thank you so much, Kaylee. Commissioner Lochi made questions. Thank you. Thanks Kayla for the information, the presentation. I want to just clarify a couple of pieces and I have a couple slides maybe to bring back up to if you have an opportunity. But the first question that I have is you reference some state law that work that you were working on from 24 legislative bill. I think it's in the packet, but I didn't write it down. And so I just want to clarify because my understanding of the text amendments was really around that definition of family based on state law, which we need to be aligned with. Some of the other pieces in here around the boarding houses, the group homes, the foster homes, I just want to clarify my interpretation is the definition of family is really, that change and text amendment for land use code is driven by state law. But the other pieces are not. Is that true?

1:16:30Yeah. So that changed to family and the removal of that, which was the previous update. That was came out of state law that said that local jurisdictions can no longer regulate residential occupancy based on familial relationship. And so that was the previous update, um, but this update kind of. Follows the tail end of that update because of the references to family in these definitions, which kind of instigated the, um, the amendment process. Um, but we felt like it wasn't the best idea to include these two uses in that, um, update that removed family and just replace those terms, the terms family with household in those definitions because we weren't sure what the implications would be. And we just wanted to take a closer look at these uses in general. If we were going to be revising them already. So that's kind of why they're their own separate thing. Um, so you're correct that the first update DC 24002 that came from state law that we had to respond to because we were limiting occupancy based on familial relationship. And so now this kind of comes after that. And so this wasn't something that was, I guess, explicitly out of, out of state, um, guidance, um, besides the fact of those family references. Um, but that is part of the reason why we're looking at this

1:18:05update. There was, um, reference to state guidance that was included in this packet, but that was different than, um, the bill that prohibited us from, um, limiting occupancy based on familiar relationship. This was, um, uh, I can't remember the reference right off the top of my head, but it's in the packet. And I have, I can pull it up here actually. But that piece that comes out of the revised statutes talks about group homes of different types, um, and how they should be treated as a residential use of property for zoning purposes. And so that's kind of just guidance that we took from, um, from that language in the Colorado Revise statutes. Thank you. Um, there was, I think what I'm, what I'm trying to. Understand, and you've said it a little bit in your response is what are the implications here. There's two things that I'm interested in because you're talking about land use and like here in the hearing room, CPMP asset the dais. We have an understanding of what the boulder county land use text, you know, what that means. But for people who are, for example, considering, um, moving to Boulder County, thinking about unincorporated boulder county, the questions that typically, the language is really complicated. And the land use code is complicated and it's vague. And we hear that consistently.

1:19:36And it's not that it's not an issue that CP and P is created. It's just a land use code that's a complicated piece. What I'm trying to understand is, um, I heard you talking about like you could still use, um, this kind of property. And at the same time, we're saying you can't. And so what I'm trying to understand is what does the implications for two reasons. One, for folks who my belief is that we have a housing crisis. My belief is that, um, private landowners in a corporate boulder can be part of the solution if we allow them to. And so I'm trying to just make sure that whatever we put in here in the code is explicit enough. And it may be in additional part of text amendment that can just clarify for people if I pick up the land use code, um, as somebody who was thinking about, uh, for example, uh, creating an alternative to the four, um, group homes that you group home or foster care home, I think is the way that the slide read option, for an example.

1:20:38Is it inherent when somebody picks up this new exhibit if it was to be, um, passed as recommended that it's an option. And what is actually an option? Does that make sense. I think so. So you're asking about the implications of just staff's recommendation. In the code in two residents. Yes. Okay. I just put this back up. Okay. So the implications of this, um, and I might be repeating myself a little bit, but hopefully I can't say it more clearly. Um, so by adding this text to household, really all we're doing is making it explicit. That group homes that are state defined, um, or licensed group homes at the residential scale are considered household. So if it's in a dwelling unit and it's a state defined group home, but it's meeting the residential occupancy units or residential occupancy limits of that dwelling unit is just considered a household. And my takeaway from conversations internally and developing this is that we don't really even need this addition to household. It's just, it's meant to make it clearer that group homes at the residential scale are considered households. And therefore are buy right in indwelling units. Can I ask you just a question if you don't mind.

1:22:12As I hate to interrupt you and I want to just look at you brought up the slide. Yeah. So here in the language, you know, it might just be the way I'm reading it in the way I'm interpreting it in the underlined, which is the additional kind of recommendation is it says a household includes group homes that are defined license and are certified by the states such as group homes for individuals, et cetera, et cetera. And then underneath, it says remove boarding house and group care or foster home uses. So I'm looking at this and I'm saying in the underlying place, which will be now part of that paragraph in Article 18, 170A says that a household under definition includes group homes. And then underneath it saying that group care or foster care homes are removed. That's why I'm confused about what you, what is actually going to result from this and how would a person who's picking this up and wanting to be a part of the solution creating a group home if they're not one of the four that are already exist in unincorporable county. Does that help? Yeah. Thank you. So yeah, we're, we're still recommending to remove the group care of foster home use, that use from the code. But by adding this language to household, what we're saying is it's

1:23:29not a use that needs approval. It's by right. So it would basically just fall under like the single unit dwelling. That would be the use. So it's like any other household or family. That's how it would be considered at the residential scale. So they wouldn't need to come through for a review or anything. Um, but what we're kind of removing is those group care homes that are beyond the residential scale. So if they, uh, if it was interest in, um, building a new structure that's not a dwelling, um, like a single unit dwelling, a larger structure that would accommodate, you know, more than 16 people or a larger amount of people. That's not, that wouldn't be a use in the code anymore. So that would no longer be allowed, um, and so that's why like the Alps, Samsung Carrot, the Alps or Mount State's children's home where they're not in one single unit dwelling. They're kind of these unique instances of group care homes. That's why with this, with these changes, they would become nonconforming because they wouldn't be considered a household because they're not in a single dwelling or meeting that kind of, um, residential occupancy limit for our dwelling because it's not one single unit dwelling. But the other two uses would. Okay.

1:24:55So somebody and Volder unincorpidded Boulder County that has there are 10, 000 square foot home, as an example, they could make that as a single dwelling unit or one dwelling unit. I think it was the recommended language. Then they could make that into a group home or foster like under these provisions because it's just considered one dwelling unit. But the implications would be that somebody who wanted to have a group home similar to what already exists in a corporate boulder county would no longer be able to do the construction of the clustered buildings. On a carpeted parcel. Yeah, that's correct. Okay. And it's just the group because there's a list of different things. We're not looking at this high. But just so I'm clear because it looked like boarding houses just fall under that household definition. And then. If I got it right foster home falls under that definition, but it's group care that's not in one dwelling unit that would be eliminated from the possibility for people. Yeah. Okay. And then I did have another question. Thanks for everyone's patience. I'm just trying to understand what that means. So then I do, I will have our staff just a question of how we make that clear for people because my interpretation is there's actually options for boarding house or foster home. And so I

1:26:14don't want people to pick up a land use code and think that unecorporated boulder county, that's not an option. Um, I know that's not the intent, but just sometimes clarity is helpful for people. So, um, the other question I had was around on one of the slides and briefly touched on the emergency preparedness plan, which is super interesting to me as somebody who does emergency primer understory and our county super involved with that with ODM and other partners. It just was really briefly noted that the draft text included a plan and then it wasn't, um, it was removed but didn't explain why it was her moves. I don't know if it's like briefly could share. Yeah. Um, in some of the previous referrals, or and maybe it was just that first referral. We were proposing to include a new use. Kind of like we, um, drafted in response to planning commission. That's, you know, not part of staff's recommendation, but we drafted it in response to directional from planning commission. But earlier on in the development of the code update, we did consider like a new use that would accommodate what we already have basically and new uses like that. Um, and so as part of that, we were exploring different additional provisions and, and that included an emergency preparedness plan. Um. It got quite

1:27:41complicated pretty quickly. Um, just for, you know, how much do we include in the land use code versus what's being regulated by, um, fire districts or other, um, departments and organizations within the county. But it was something that came up in discussions was how do we think about safety. If we're keeping this or adding a new use in the code. So in earlier discussions, um, and referrals, that was part of that like new draft use. But since. You know, throughout the year that passed and further discussions with staff, um, we came to this staff recommendation, which obviously is really paired back from that and doesn't include a new use in our actual recommendation. And so that's why I said, you know, it was removed from the draft text that was proposed, which is just because we're not, um, proposing a new use that would include like an additional provision of a number to see preparedness plan. Um, so that's why it got removed just because we're no longer proposing as part of our recommendation a new use. Um, but we did get, like I said, some comments and feedback. Back on what an emergency preparedness plan could include, especially from fire districts. And I mean, it's super extensive and not to say that, um, couldn't be helpful. But I think there was some discussion on

1:29:07whether it belongs in the land use code or how we kind of layer, um, these kind of regulatory things when it comes to uses, um, in the code. So that, does that answer your question? Okay. Yeah. Thank you. The only other question you mentioned the react. I just appreciate the list of all the different, um. Uh, kind of interaction with folks and engagement outreach and just educating folks about the process, et cetera. And I think one of the pieces that I'm trying to understand is, um, what the impact is for somebody who has the opportunity, and I'm thinking about what, what are we losing in here and what does that mean? It sounds like a group care. Let me see here. If I've got the group care, um, could be built in unincorporated boulder county.

1:29:59It would just fall under a different, um, regulation potentially under option B. But that would be completely unlimited from option C. Is that correct? Yeah. So in option A and C, um, and I can't pull these up again. There wouldn't be opportunity for new group care homes beyond the residential scale. Because in A, we don't have, we no longer have a use that they would fall under. Um, uh, an option B, we do allow it by special review in some zoning districts. And we acknowledge those existing uses in A and F. In C, we're only acknowledging the uses that are existing as conforming, which is those two that couldn't be considered households. Um, so yeah, that's correct. And so what I'm wondering too is when I'm looked at in the packet, you had a list of comprehensive plan and all the housing elements, which I'm very supportive of in regards to how we, um, are innovative and evolve our housing solutions, um, as one of those. And so I'm just thinking about in the different options that you brought, just did you all contemplate or discuss other areas in unincorpitable county that maybe aren't. Agriculture or aren't forestry or are even agriculture that, um, areas more in the plains versus, I understand some of the safety securities in Garza and egress and disturbance of land

1:31:30and things like that that could be problematic in the special use review. But I'm curious if you all talked about if the county commissioners wanted to allow for group care in some plate. Did y'all talk about where that might even be possible or not yet? And specifically the A and F, other districts that aren't A and F or is that the only districts that done incorporated Boulder County allows for housing. No. Sorry. Maybe I'm not understanding the question. Um, are there other districts that aren't district A and F, which you talked about in both the option B and the C in on a corporate, a boulder county where residential or commercial use could provide space for a group care facility. And did you all get a chance to talk about that is? That's not one of the options here. So that's why I was just curious. Right. Um, okay. I think we'll specifically for option C. The reason why only A and F are called out is because this, including this use at all, this option C and adding in this use, um, in option C specifically is only for us to be able to acknowledge those two group care homes as conforming. And so that's why only A and F are called out because mount states, children's home is in the ag district and

1:32:58the Alps is in the forestry district. So that's why those two are explicitly called out there and an option B. So in option B, you know, we're permitting it or in this draft. We're saying it could be three special review and T being C and not allowing new uses in A and F. But that's because again, we're trying to acknowledge those two existing, um, group care homes as conforming by including that language. But we're saying we want to, if we're going to have more of them, which, you know, throughout since 1994, we've had these uses. I mean, we only have these four. But say we're going to get more, another application or other applications for larger group care homes, you know, beyond the residential scale as we're proposing to include in household. We would want them to, um, just be in the TB and C.

1:33:55So where other similar like retail or personal service uses, um, are located. If there's direction or thoughts on other districts, I'm happy to hear that feedback from the board, but out of conversations that we had, that was kind of how we landed on those. And that, those are the reasons why A and F are called out in that way. It was just too acknowledged the two mountains states and sandstone care. Um, as conforming. So this was just, you know, it was in response to that planning commission direction, um, desire for us to provide you options. That would acknowledge them. Thank you. That helps. That's what I was understanding. And that was part of my question just around equity of focusing just on those two, um, properties and trying to address their nonconforming or conforming just for two different, um, current owners versus the full counties.

1:34:53That was what I was wondering. And you'd mentioned in the state law, you referenced what's called typical residential settings. And so that's what I was curious about just in the, you know, what you all analyze so far. So I'm going to hold the rest of my questions until we hear from, and I appreciate the patient I've just got, I hadn't had a meeting with staff on this particular update. I was just reading in the packet. And so I'm hoping that the public will have some comments too, just to address some of the other, um, issues. Thank you. Great. Yeah. Thank you, Kaylee. Oh, I have a couple of questions as well that I don't think we're covered. Going back to the definition of household and the reference to, yeah, it includes group homes, et cetera.

1:35:43Or group homes for the aged. So. Within this saying a group of individuals who occupy a dwelling unit and you've stricken single. Would that allow, does this, I know we have people here who want to discuss kind of a vision that they have and maybe, maybe be better to hold this question until after that testimony. But, um, is there anything here in this definition that would prevent multiple dwelling in its cottages on a property that were designed for older adults. Or is in is that prohibition on multiple dwelling units is elsewhere in the code, correct? Yes. I get what you're asking. I'm trying to like filter through my thoughts. I think the household definition is specific to a dwelling unit. And A meaning one. I mean, we took out single just to reduce some confusion. And maybe the one dwelling unit. Um, but.

1:37:24I don't think this definition. Like. Would permit a group home in multiple dwelling units. Um, I think that would be, you know, that kind of thing would be regulated by other pieces of our land use code, like the ADU regs. And things like that. So I think that's a good question about like how maybe this interacts with, um, our ADU regs. But the intent is that this is just for a dwelling unit, one dwelling unit. Okay. So, and my understanding is we do have other provisions that say that there can only be one, um, principal use on the property or one. We had a land use. Case some months ago about that address some multiple cottages up in the mountains that were on a single lot. And it seemed like there was some reason why that wasn't allowed. And we needed to take this action.

1:38:33They were historic or had had a long - term use. But, um, am I remembering correctly that we can't have multiple dwelling units on a single lot. Yeah. I think that's correct. One unit of residential density essentially. And I mean, we have our accessory dwelling unit. Regulations, but as far as like principle dwelling units, just one. Okay. Um. So this effectively just means this doesn't change that. It's just saying, uh, expanding the definition of a household. Okay. The option B. So special review in the transitional business and commercial zones. But do we have a lot of those that zoning and Boulder County? I didn't, I didn't pull up Ozoning map of Randy's map. Not a huge amount. Um, I think, I mean, the county is largely forestry and act. I mean, large swaths of it just based on the geography of the county. Um, but typically they're closer to the incorporated areas of the county.

1:39:46And it's not as big swaths as we see with like rural residential or, or ag. I don't think I have one. Zoning map in my slides, but I can try to get one. Okay. Well, it might be interesting just to see how, you know, whether that the opportunities or no opportunities, just to know how restrictive this is, what the effect of this would be. And for the two residential care facilities that you've identified, sandstone and mountain states. Have we seen, um, impacts from those uses that are incompatible with the egg or the forestry zone districts. They're both, well, standstone hasn't been established for that long. But Mount State's has. What kind of impacts have we seen from those uses? Impacts. Like such as what? Well, you, you, you said that you're recommending only, uh, for existing uses in the agricultural and forestry zones because, um, of the kinds of impacts of these uses that would be incompatible with our comprehensive plan and the zone districts.

1:41:03So I was just wondering if, uh, if we're going to grandfather these two in what kinds of impacts we have seen, that would indicate that we shouldn't allow them in these zone districts. I think. I think the issue was more with the broadness of the definition that they got approved under. And that, that was where a lot of the concern was, um, so that existing group care, foster home use definition, um, wasn't too explicit on what it included or didn't include. Um, so it was left a lot up to interpretation of staff. On, you know, our nursing home is included in that. Like, is that 24 hour care? So there are lots of things like that, where I think we had concern about we don't necessarily want intensive uses like this. And things that have been developed mountain states or sandstone care. In the forest registrict or ag district because we don't provide services that we feel can properly support them if we're having a house up in the canyon with like 24 residents. Like, um, can emergency services properly service them. These are concerns that came up. But to respond to your original question, I mean, I wasn't involved in the reviews for these, um, but in my, um, reviews of the staff reports.

1:42:44I mean, there was concerns that were brought up, um, through public comment. Um, about, you know, potential impacts, traffic noise, things like that. But I don't think that there have actually been like code violations or, or, um, impacts in that sense. Um, this comes more from, um, a place of do we want this like kind of vague, um, definition to open up for like, we don't know what we're opening ourselves up for in the Agon forestry and specifically having it in the residential uses category. I mean, although there are, you know, thinking about Mount State's children's home specifically, residences on the property. It's considered a residential use, but it's kind of a campus of buildings and so kind of where do we think it is a quote unquote residential use or not? Um, and so that was why we wanted to, you know, just acknowledge the two that we have, um, but it came out of staff discussion that we didn't feel it was appropriate to allow new ones of that scale in forestry and act just because of, um, reasons I talked about earlier, but, um, provision of services and intensity of uses. Things like that. Okay. No, that's very helpful. Thanks. I guess one of the concerns I have with, um, both options B and C at that limit the ability to establish

1:44:27a new residential care facility in the ag and forestry zones that I guess in, in C, it would be any new, uh, facility anywhere. Um, is that, that could prevent adaptive reuse of an existing structure. And so, or, or set of structures. So, um. And I understand there could be other impacts off - site impacts, you know, traffic and, you know, the provision of emergency services, all the things that we would want to be careful about, but that we could consider in the special review process. But if we had a property in either of these zone districts that had multiple structures that could be retrofitted to accommodate people in a kind of residential care environment where it wouldn't meet the definition of household, because they wouldn't have, I mean, they may or may not have free access to throughout the facility. I don't know. Right.

1:45:32But, um, but that's one of my concerns is that we have, we, we may, I don't know, but we may have structures that could very well be modified and adopted to this use. So I guess I'll just, that's just a statement. It's not a question. The other question I did have, I'm trying to parse this language actually on, um, both B and C where, and we can stick with this slide on B. So number two, districts permitted by special review and TBC. I understand that that's very clear straightforward. By special review in ago and forestry for existing uses as of this date. For you, and I think you're saying for uses existing as of this date. I think you could read that to say for them to not be nonconforming. They would have to go through a special use. Process. Uh, I'm just wanting to make sure that this wouldn't be imposing an additional process on these uses that exist as of the date of adoption. Or the date that we put in the blank.

1:47:01Right. Um, so the intent is not to require a new special use approval for uses that are existing. It's, they already have their special use approval. So we're just acknowledging that, you know, they went through the use. Review process in those zone districts and our existing as of date, of adoption. Um, and this language mirrorswhere in the code where, um, we have similar uses. I know it's come up. I mean, it's unique every time. So it's not like we're doing the same thing. Um, but I think for like a question centers, there was some similar language about uses existing as of a date. Um, so I hear the concern about that. But it wouldn't be required a new SU review for those existing uses. Um, I did just want to, I mean, I know that's what you intend. Right. And there might be some very minor way of modifying this language to make that even more clear. But I just want to make sure I understood that. Let's see. Okay. Well, I think that those are the questions I have. Thank you so much, Kaylee. And, uh, we'll now take testimony from, um, those of you who have joined us here, uh, we will hear from Suzanne Webble first. And it looks like Suzanne has pulled time with someone else and we'll have six

1:48:40minutes. And so we'll ask you to please start again by stating your name for the record. And then please give us your testimony. My name is Suzanne Webble. I live in unincorporated Boulder County south of hygiene. And before I start my comments about this topic, I just want to insert this one, which is I've been at this for a long time, um, working with the Landis code. And also with open space and trails. And zoning and all kinds of things. And way back in the day and previous lifetime, there was a county commissioner named Carolyn Holmberg, who was an epic person. And there was an issue having to do with an open space parcel. And we went around and around with how we're going to manage it. And she finally said. This proposal is not ripe for decision. And it was, she was right. It was not ripe for a decision. And so the commissioners didn't make the decision. And that was the best thing it could have happened because we all went back to the drawing board and we worked on it until it was something that everyone could live with. And I suggest that's what's happening here. Um, and I would like to suggest that you don't make a decision today to approve this docket. Because it isn't right. It's not, too many

1:50:11questions. And. Not enough answers. So onward. I've submitted several pages of written responses to DC 2404 regarding the current lack of affordable and available senior housing in unincorporated builder county. I've lived in Boulder County for more than 50 years and I don't want to leave. But both our kids are grown and gone. And unfortunately they aren't inclined to move back here. As we face our own retirement, we have conducted an exhaustive search within an incorporated builder county for small scale retirement communities in a rural setting. What we're looking for is a small cluster of cottages, ADUs or casitas. With the community center for socializing, eating together a reading quietly in a library. With the caregiver available on - site as needed. It doesn't exist here yet, but there are numerous examples of this model elsewhere.

1:51:18We have an ADA - acre farm and a large house. So we thought, Hey, let's build what we want right here. We could turn our house into the community center and build a small number of cottages for seniors to live in. But none of the options presented in this docket would allow that. Even through special review. Staff's option A has no provision for larger size group homes in any district. Option B would allow the two existing group homes in districts A and F to apply for special review. And would also allow new group homes, but only in districts T, B, and C by special review. Option C would only allow the two existing group homes in districts A and F to apply for special review. But no new group homes could be built in any district. However, the planning commission unanimously directed staff to explore additional options. They called it a path forward. For new group home care homes. But staff is proposing to eliminate them altogether, not to provide a path forward. So all three options are too restrictive. The housing element of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan lists a number of laudable goals.

1:52:54I would like to single out two of them for you today. The first one is H01. 06 on pages 2 and 11 of today's agenda packet. It reads innovation and evolution of housing solutions. The county allows for innovation and creativity and policies and regulations as demographic conditions building typologies and new housing strategies evolve over time. That's us. The second one is H03. 12, also on pages 2 and 11, quote. Older adult housing. The county supports varied housing options for older adults to age in their community. That's us too. But neither of those is able to be considered today under the revisions to the Landwire's code. Since the revisions to the land use code are under consideration. You have a wonderful opportunity to make some real progress on supporting these goals. With more time and more input from Boulder County residents, I believe we could make the land use code truly reflect these goals. We urge you to reject docket DC 2404 in its current state and send it back to the drawing board. Thank you.

1:54:21Okay, thank you so much. Paul Finley. Yes, my name is Paul Finley. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak. I've really enjoyed the discussion that you've already had with the staff. I appreciate the work. The staff has done in approaching this. I looked at the planning commissions review of this. And I think they struggled with some of the same things and asked the staff to try to dig into this. Um, I'm opposed to the eliminating the group care foster home category in the residential use definitions as described in that, in the option, A there, um, I think the negative impacts of this amendment, um, are not really the goal of it. I see there are varied goals, but none of the goals are really driving at this elimination and the impacts that it's causing. The intent isn't to stop the work of these community organizations. Um, and the, particularly Mount State's children's home, it's been in Boulder County for over 60 years.

1:55:33It's been doing good work the whole time. Putting it in a, in a noncompliant or nonconforming state is really just putting a timer on its longevity. Uh, there will be a time it will need modification, that it will need building, uh, residential care for children. Just safety and care regulations change often enough that new construction is required at times just to stay current with the kind of care and safety that's needed in an organization like that. So putting them in a state of nonconforming or noncompliant really just sets a timer regardless of what their current site use plan says of when that organization will no longer be viable in Boulder County. Um, I don't think it's a problem that the planning staff was trying to solve. I don't think they were trying to get rid of organizations like that. I think they have other problems they're trying to solve. And so I think that, um, looking at these options that they presented is worthwhile. And I think just looking at ways to make sure organizations like this can remain in the county and remain viable and continue to grow and expand and provide the value they do to the community and continue to involve in that way. Thank you for your time. Okay. Thank you very much Nick Mears.

1:56:57Good morning. My name is Nick Mears and I'm the current executive director of Mountain State's children's home. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. And thank you to Kaylee for all the hard work that she's done. She's been terrific to work with. Just a quick comment to the commissioner's question regarding impact on our special use permit into agricultural zoning of our 150 acres. We currently have roughly 80 acres under a pivot watering system. Excuse me. Where we farm alfalfa and sugar beets along with another roughly 40 acres of stables and pastures, all of which we use to introduce to our kids a larger view of life that they're usually unfamiliar with, which includes that beef does not come from king supers. Mountain state's children's home has been in the child care industry and serving this community since 1960. Our goal is to work with youth and families in order to heal the family unit. The majority of the youth that we work with are headed down the path of needing intervention. Most of which would be done through government funded resources, including the foster system, all of which take state dollars. Our program operates without the help of government funding. Instead, we rely on the funding of the community to help change lives and produce productive members of society. Along with the

1:58:13public comments previously submitted by past residents who are now successful community members. Today we have an attendance, Juliana and Heather of the Packard Dirking Law Firm who are representing the children's home free of charge. Also here to support us are Cindy and Denise of homemade Colorado, who with the help of Lenar Holmes, have built and are willing to help us build again two new homes to further serve the youth in our community. This is a small representation of the community support that Mountain States receives daily by people in our community who believe in the work that we provide. Between ever - changing state licensing regulations like Paul just mentioned in our aging facilities, the decision to make Mountain State's non - conforming and no longer to able to expand or alter our facilities will have a significant impact on our ability to serve children and families in the future. It also has the potential ramifications to limit or restrict any future group homes from providing care, such as youth facilities, substance abuse programs, individuals with special needs, or care facilities for seniors and other group homes that offer much needed care for our community. With that said, Mountain State's children's home is represented here today.

1:59:27If you have any questions, thank you for your time and consideration. Okay, thank you for joining us this morning. We'll hear from Denise McNeil next. I'm Denise McNeil and I'm with homemade Colorado. We are an organization one of 20 affiliates under the Homemade America. Umbrella. We bring together the construction industry with service providers like Mountain State's Children's Home. And I just wanted to reiterate that we are here in support of mountain stage children's home. I have a whole thing to say, but the one thing that has struck me that I'm going to kind of pivot from where what I was going to say is looking at what was presented by Kaylee. The March 31st deadline is going to be difficult for any construction project to adhere to for us to pivot from where we are now looking at these two new buildings with the support of our builder captains to making that happen in the next two months. So I'd appreciate just another look and maybe thinking about where we're going and what these services are providing. The other question that came about was what is the impact. I do understand the impact. We're in home building and we're in a service provider industry. The impact is that we have numerous children who have come through their program for Mountain State's

2:00:54children's home. They are now productive members of society. They are in college. They're not a drain on our system. So I think that we want to afford that. We want to be able to have that here in Boulder County where we're providing those services. So that's what the impact is. We're looking at that. If we save one person, then we've done our jobs. So we are homemade America and we are homemade Colorado. We are in support of mountain states and we would like this to the more questions to be asked about this docket. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Let's see, we have Catherine Ryan. Hi. Um, sorry. So moved by what I'm hearing. About what the time and pose yourself. And we'll reset the time we're at three o'clock. Three minutes. Just take your time. Um, I'd like to advocate for more considerations. Sorry. Yes. Catherine Ryan.

2:02:00Um, I'm a resident of unincorporate Boulder County. I'd like to advocate for, um, not making decision on either of these addendums today. Um, and more further consideration of the possibilities and looking to see if we can find a direction where we keep innovation and opportunities to do good for the community as possibilities instead of inadvertently shutting down the possibility of innovative reuse of properties, um, to meet evolving needs of our demographic changes, economic changes away from traditional agriculture to other kinds of uses for agricultural land and the community. And I understand that there are limitations on emergency services. And these are always considerations. But I also think that we need to look at how to expand emergency services to meet housing crisis evolution of where we house people in the county. It's not always going to be clustered in an urban area. Meeting zoning that is perhaps made at a time before things changed. Um, and so as our needs change in the county, we need to have land use code, um, that allows for changes to occur and how we use existing properties. Um, as illustrated by the mountain states use of property and agricultural zone where they're incorporating agricultural practices and enriching children's lives and making a difference. The kind of differences that we all want to see programs make that we, that

2:03:50we all want to feel like there's hope, there's possibilities for, um, things to get better for people in their lives. And for organizations to be able to do that for nonprofit organizations to be able to come in and use agricultural land, um, for senior housing for children's homes, um, for, um, any kind of other things that I can't even imagine right now, but I don't want to shut that down because we can't imagine it right now. And we're worried about clustering things in a place where people could walk to the grocery store. Um, thanks for your consideration. I appreciate your time. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, it looks like we have two more people now that would like to speak to us who are here with us this morning. Alice Renof. And please correct my pronunciation. Here are three articles. Oh, yeah, joke of that to Natalie. Thank you. Colorado. Durango is doing great things. Oh, give us your testimony once you've stated your name. And you're at the microphone where we can hear it. Thank you. Good morning commissioners. My name is Alice Renof. I am here representing my friends who live in Boulder County who have not, who are not able to be here today. I have been in Boulder for well over 60 years. I am lucky enough to have an

2:05:10ADU on my property. But my friends in Boulder County, we're all turning 80 in the next year. And we are desperate to have ADUs built on our properties. Some of my friends own five acres. A woman here said she owns 80 acres. We have got to move with the times. I feel this is absolutely urgent. We've got a silver tsunami coming at us. They say one in five people by 2030 will be a senior citizen. Not all of us want to live and Fraser Meadows is lovely as it is or any of the residential facilities here. My dog doesn't want to live there. My cat doesn't want to live there. We have to have more options. And we really need to have them soon because the aging crisis and boulder is huge. And I also noticed from comments today, there is a water crisis this winter that we're all going to be affected by. But we're still building these massive homes in Boulder County, which uses so much water, so much landscaping. Why can't we have cluster cottages cluster casitas? They can be 400 square feet. Why not have them? They don't have to have much landscaping. They make so much sense and so many people want these today. Life changes in the county needs to start changing with citizens'needs. Um, because we just don't

2:06:37seniors don't have enough options. And we want to age in place as do our puppies. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. Juliana Masorro. Please come forward. Set your name. And it looks like you're pooling testimony and you'll have six minutes. My name is Juliana Massaro. I'm an attorney with Packard and Dirking in Boulder. I'm a real estate and land use attorney. And I'm actually elbow deep in the code. Um, on behalf of Mount State's children's home who I have a personal connection with, my parents have been avid supporters of them, uh, though their North Dakota residents, they've never lived in Colorado. And they've been supporting Mountain States since before I even moved here. Um, so this has been, this organization's been very important in my family for a very long time. Uh, just to kind of pay back on what Nick said, Mountain States is a state licensed residential care campus for at - risk youth. Um, they've been operating for over 60 years at the similar intensity that they are right now. Uh, the campus has six residences. They're approved for two more.

2:07:51The campus also has administrative and educational facilities, uh, that support its mission. And I wanted to, I'm kind of pivoting from where I was going to go at this comment just to answer some of the questions. So a key component of the current group care use category is that multiple residential homes can exist on a single parcel in addition to the supportive facilities by removing that definition, um, that use goes away. And we're left with these one, five, 10, 30 acre parcels that can only have one residential home. And have massive restrictions on the use of ADU. Um, so while I agree that changes to the group home used to expand it or good. Unfortunately, this would eliminate a lot of residential care facility style group homes like Mountain States. So I kind of want to go back to where I understand all this started.

2:08:56There was a state law that was passed in 2024. Kaylee mentions the report. And I wanted to point out, I think an error in the report or, um, an omission, which is the state law only required the elimination, or not really elimination, but they required the group homes be allowed by right in residential areas for up to eight individuals. So that state law, which was a great directive and should expand the buy rate group home use. And it did not apply to larger scale residential care facilities like mountain states. Um, I also wanted to address another item that I think staff brings up where they want to move the intense uses closer to more populated areas. And I noted in option base. So obviously we would prefer option B, but I would also really prefer that this be rejected and pushed so we can have more conversations. Um, option B is better, but not great because it limits group care facilities to, um, zones where they wouldn't really be built anyway in business and commercial and transitional. It doesn't even allow it in rural residential, which technically has access to services. Um, as far as staff's concern about having access to services, if you modify option B to allow the continuation of this use in ag and forestry, the special use classification and criteria is

2:10:33still designed for the county to identify intensity of use and whether enough services are available for a particular parcel. So that functionality doesn't go away by removing it. It essentially just eliminates most group homes. It seems as if mountain states is a defendant in a lawsuit. It never got notice of to be frank. And I think more conversations need to be had about, um, the impact this could have. Um, and I'll make this comment. So mountain states is a reproducible model for addressing the same issues that both of you have identified. We have a housing crisis. We have problems with, um, housing for elder care. We have issues with housing for a lot of different people that would really benefit from residential group care. And unfortunately with this change, it would eliminate that in the county. It would allow up to eight people, well, depending on how large the home is, but it would allow one single dwelling unit to have a group home, but it wouldn't allow multiple structures. And that is one of the key pieces of mountain states reproducible model. They have relief homes for staff who need a break. They have educational facilities and they have none of which would be allowed if option B or C and obviously option A were selected. Um, I also want to just point out,

2:12:04I applaud staff for wanting to eliminate discrimination against unrelated persons. I think this came from a really good place. And I do believe that they are making a very concerted effort to follow the directives and state law. However, it is unfortunately creating discrimination against other unrelated groups that are larger in scale. So it is essentially creating the same kind of discrimination that it seeks to eliminate. So I would encourage you to reject it right now, but not scrap all the work stuff's done. And instead, um, push this so that we have more time to work with staff. And so that you guys have more time to consider what this would really mean for the county. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. Uh, is there anyone else who has joined us in the hearing room who would like to speak before we turn to those who are online. Sir, come forward. You know the drought.

2:13:10Good morning, Commissioners. Chris O'Brien chief of left hand fire protection district. Left hand fire prediction district would support staff's recommendations as they are presented in A and B. However, we also welcome the opportunity to have further discussion on this. As a district, we have three residential camps and we have two residential, uh, dwellings. And while the impact on service is not great. It still has an impact on service. And truly, if we start having conversations about creating compound situations where we have a single home and multiple ADUs on a single piece of property, I think we need to look at life safety code. So there is that consideration as well. Thank you for your time. Okay. Thank you for that helpful information. Uh, okay. So we will now go online. It looks like Mr. Yagi is no longer with us virtually. We do have Laura Gonzalez. Uh, I would say that we are here considering this land use code amendment. And so we would ask that you direct your comments to the matter that is in front of us right now.

2:14:31Um, can you hear me? Yes. Well, I demand you vote known this code because again, this is stolen land. And as colonizers, most of you settlers, Luchamis, a settler from Ecuador. I believe that, um, you need to listen to the local indigenous people of this community. So what to do with the land here. Not be listening to Walter Peepon. How you're going to benefit from it. I also demand that all of you disclose all the properties and office spaces that you owned. May your brocket in Boulder City. He owns a lot of office space that is empty. I also want you guys to create a tax for vacancy. So we can actually result that own house issues that we have. Um, I also would like for you to disclose all the money that the county invest in the genocide in Gaza. So we can actually focus on housing issues here. Um, and I don't want you to ignore me because you guys continue ignoring me when you say responses. I want you to address this issues. Watch your name. You betrayed us. You have ancestors of indigeneity. And you betray the people because you guys had an opportunity to actually give grants to indigenous local people who have connections to this land and you gave it to a white lead organization. Shame on all of

2:15:50you. Shame. You guys have no respect for the local indigenous people. At the bat same, we only have one Native American church here. One. That took years decades for us to have ceremonies. And what do you guys do? Give the money to white organizations. We are the stewards of the land. You guys have some oxygen thanks to all indigenous people across the world. And you guys disrespect us. You guys ignore us. And then what do you do? People like them in. They go to the caste system. Right. They go proximity to whiteness. Oh, nah. I'm in power. So I'm going to give a fuck about my people. I'm going to vote to white people can get richer because I want to be proximal to whiteness. That's you, Locham, shame on you. And I regret so much helping your campaign, honestly. That's my biggest mistake. Because guess what? If you guys learn anything from black feminists, like Audrey Lord said, you will not dismantle the master's house with the master's tools. You will not dismantle capitalism and genocide and any cleansing and land ever became a politician. So I am demanding that you vote known this.

2:17:00I am demanding that you disclose all properties that you own. All the money that you have. And if you want to do something good and repair, give land back. Why are you guys not creating any, any damn policies to give land back to the indigenous people of this county. Are you going to answer that question? Why are you guys not saying anything about the genocide that we're committing in Palestine? We're killing all indigenous people. And guess who's moving there? People from Boulder. People like Scholzman. And we need to talk about Jewish supremacy. Because Jewish supremacy is going hand in highway white supremacy. And that's why the state of Israel was created. Okay. What's up? Thank you for your testimony. I did not want to interrupt, um, because we do allow people to testify for three minutes. I would note that, um, personal attacks are not welcome in public testimony. And, um, that's possible, um, fully state your views about whatever the matter is without making an attack on, on one of us. So, uh, looks like that completes the testimony that we have here on this matter. And so Kaylee, if there's anything that you would like to address that has come up in testimony, we welcome your comments and then we may have some additional questions. There was one thing I just wanted to

2:18:31clarify. I think it was, um, Denise with homemade Colorado who made a comment about the, um. Proposed effective date that I put for the end of March. And I, the way I understood it was, I think there was concern about getting the construction done in that time. Um, but I just wanted to clarify that the effective date, that date wouldn't be the deadline for the work to be done. That deadline is just, um, uh, the delay of the effective day is to give mounted states time. If they become nonconforming if that is the path that's taken, um, to complete that modification, um, modification process and the other like post approval requirements that they're finishing up. And I know they've been working on that. So that's, that's all that would have affected. If they were nonconforming after that date, they would still be able to do the construction per that SU approval and per the modification.

2:19:39So I just wanted to clarify that, that the work wouldn't need to be done. The delay of the effective days just to give them time to, um, extend their bested right, um, some of the other materials that I talked about. So I hope that's helpful. That wasn't meant to be a deadline for constructing the two houses or, um, anything like that. Um, they would be able to do that as a nonconforming use because they have that SE approval. They just need the modification to clean up some other stuff because there was. I think different stuff involved with that SE approval and this SU approval. So there's just things they're working on. Um, so that's all I wanted to respond to. Okay. Thank you. Uh, any additional questions. I do. Thank you, Chair. I just had one other question, Kaylee and the comment that you just made just for staff, I know Steph's probably working already in the background for art discussion when we moved to deliberation. I would be interested in, um, just changing that effective date. Should the board want to move forward with the recommendation as is. So just, just to put on the Post - it note, thank you. And then the other, the question that I had was, um, in the testimony, there was, uh, the District of Rural Residential was

2:20:56spoken about. And I just wanted to know if you could respond to that. About why rural residential was excluded. Yeah. From, yeah. One, sorry. One was just confirm that that's what I heard in the statement. So I just wanted to, that was my interpretation as well. And so I just wanted to hear from you if that's accurate. Um, yes. So the first part, um, that was my interpretation as well. They were, they were asking why rural residential was not included for an option for, um, this use would be allowed in that option B. Sorry. Just going through my making sure I have that option. That's okay. Um. And like I said, based on staff discussions and conclusions that we came to as, as a group, um, TBNC were the districts that we decided were appropriate based on where we're moving that residential care facility use into the retail and personal service uses. Kind of subcategory of uses and other similar uses in that category. Um, and because it's, um, a bit more intensive than we consider other residential uses like a single unit dwelling. And so that was a reason why rural residential, I mean, among other districts, it wasn't the only, um, zoning district that was not included there. Um, I understand why it was brought up and it's a good question. Um, but,

2:22:38uh, that was the, those are the reasons why we selected those, um, sewing districts and not all zoning districts. Thank you. Did you have any other. No, no other questions. Oh, okay. Thanks. Great. So Kaylee, there was some of the people spoke to, what did we need to do in order to make all the other, um, residential uses consistent with the new definition of household, which we made earlier. Could you just speak to how the residential care facility got involved in this update. So the reason why. Boarding house and group care of foster home while we were looking at them following that previous update, um, is because their definitions previously relied on the term family and the definition of family that we used to have. So that was initially part of the reason why we were looking at these uses. Um, and why, um, they weren't involved in that previous update just because it seemed a little bit more complicated than just changing residential occupancy regs. Um, in response to the state law. It seemed like this needed a closer look. Um, and so in the original. To take it back in the existing land use code uses for boarding house and group care of foster home. There are references to families. So, um, looking at group keraphosterum specifically as an example because it seems

2:24:27like that's really the one that we're talking about the most here boarding house. I don't think there's conflict or questions about, but group care of foster home. It talks about it's a facility which provides 24 hour care or supervisions of persons who are not really did by blood marriage or adoption to the owner operator or manager thereof and who do not meet the definition of family under this code. And then it goes on a little bit, you know, can be operated by public nonprofit or private agency. But again, these definitions were put in in 1994 and haven't been changed since then. Um, and because they have that reference to definition of family under this code, that's why we were initially looking at them, um, after that previously land use code update. No, thank you. I do understand why we, why you needed to address boarding house and group care or foster home. My question is, how did the, um, maybe I'm not, maybe I didn't use the right term. The terminology for mountain states and sandstone, how, how did that issue get incorporated into this project? The option like B and C. Or addressing those.

2:25:50So. I'm looking at the definition of boarding house which relied on. Three borders of rumors, not including me. These definitions boarding house group care foster home. Were treated differently, even though they could now under our more expanded definition of household or family. We've eliminated family have household. So that would allow these to be operated or, or, yeah, the use anywhere that we have residential. So I understand the need to do that. It was the, um. The residential care facility that I'm wondering, was that also, did that also rely on a definition of family? Was that I'm just wondering why you're addressing that in this set of revisions. What is the necessity of addressing that now. I think I'm understanding the question. Okay. Sorry. Um, so. I think it would help if, if we had the former definition of residential care facility, do we have a definition? The group care or foster home is what they are called now. And that's Mountain State's children's home and sands don't care. Our group care of foster homes. So that's why they're impacted by the update. An option B and C, we call it a residential care facility. So it's to different term. It's a new, a new use that they would like be reclassified under in options B and C. I think that's the confusion. Okay. Maybe, yeah,

2:27:40maybe that's my question. Is why, why did you decide you needed a new category of use called a residential care facility? Well, we felt like calling it group care foster home. I discussed a little bit why we don't really need that reference to foster home because they're just, you know, considered household. And I don't know that we need to explicitly call them out. We don't have any foster homes that have been like approved under this use. We do have foster homes in an incorporated boulder county, but they haven't gone through review processes before because they don't need one. Um, they're just a dwelling unit that has fostered children hosted by foster parents. So that was part of the reason why we like wanted to have a different name for it. And so to make things simpler, we thought even in option B and C will still strike, um, the existing use because we want to rename it. We want to adjust the definition a little bit and we want to move it out of the residential use category and move it to, I think it's a personal. Retail and personal service uses category. Um, so that was why we're creating this like new use that they would be reclassified under the existing ones that we have. It's a lot for simplicity of editing the code

2:29:13instead of having a bunch of little strike throughs and underlines. If we're moving it anyway, we kind of have to strike group care foster home, but we did want to make some improvements to the name to make sure it made sense with what we would be including in this new draft. Um, and again, this options being C, they were developed in response to planning commission direction. Um, and options. So, um. Just as a sense for like timing and how, and how these got developed, um, we got that direction in October. But that, those are the reasons why. So hope if that doesn't answer your question, let me know. And I can try to clarify. No, I think it's helpful. I think it's, I think it's the way we've redefined household. That would fit with a foster care or group home, but would not fit with the model that we have for sandstone and Mount States and others similar uses, I guess, because they don't have, they don't live in a cooperative living arrangement where all members of the household have free and unfettered access to the dwelling units kitchen, et cetera. Um, okay. So I understand that on the issue about that, what date? And you're trying, you're trying to make sure that mountain states has completed all the conditions for having a special use.

2:30:51Is that right? So yeah, the delay of the effective date. That's to give them time to, um. And I'm going to try to remember all the pieces of this because I was working with, um, the development and review team planner who understands all the intricacies of that a little bit better than me. But that delay, if that's the path that's chosen, that's when we would need the delay because they would become nonconforming after the effective date. That's to give them time to complete this modification, um, which they have applied for. And I know they've taken steps already towards it. But the modification request would be for that previous special use approval from 2021. Um, to extend, um, they're vested right and extend. I think their deadline for submitting their development agreement, um, because that was one of the post approval requirements that didn't get completed in time. Um, so the delay of the effective date is to give Mount State's children's home time to complete the modification and submit those materials and kind of get that all wrapped up so that when they are nonconforming, they're still able to act on that special use approval from 2021. Um, which would be those two new houses that they got approved for and other things. So we're just making sure that even if they're nonconforming, they can

2:32:20still act on that, especially as approval because they haven't yet. And so that's why the delay is, um, to the end of March. If it needs to be later, um, we can move it later, but based on, um, when we first had that, sorry, I'm like going back and forth, but we first had this hearing scheduled for, um, December 18th, I believe. And, um, Sam Walker, the DRT planner had recommended that end of January be a good, um, delay of the effective date. So I was kind of using that as a gauge for maybe how much time they would need, um, to complete that process and complete, um, complete submittals of those post - approval requirements. Um. If you want, yeah, so just the purpose of having that date is so that they have a valid and completed special review on file with us. Yes.

2:33:25And they do have, yeah, the SU was approved there was just some post approval requirements that didn't get completed final for purposes of vested rights under nonconforming use until they have completed all those post approval requirements and submitted development agreement. Yes. Um, the vested right, the SU is good for like five years. The vested right, which like protects them from changes to the land use code is less. And so, um, if they didn't complete the modification and request to extend their bested right. And they became nonconforming. They wouldn't have the vested right anymore to be able to act on the SU, even though it's approved. So that's where the kind of like some complicated layers, but essentially, yes. Like that's why we have the effective days. So that they can do that. Um, let me just make sure I didn't have any other questions.

2:34:31I don't, yeah, I don't, I don't think I had any other questions. Did you have any other questions? I don't think we reached the time when we have to deliberate. And figure out if we can move forward on this. Yeah. That's great. I'll get us started and looking at the clock and trying to decide which meeting someone amiss in 20 minutes. Um, thank you, Steph Kaylee. And I don't remember now who I'm not looking at my notes, um, maybe it was neg or Denise. And I apologize the way my notes are over. Somebody gave appreciation to Kaylee and we always really appreciate that. Um, thanks for the information on your patients on the questions and the, um, our starter time got a little bit behind too. So I acknowledge that and know that staff is trying to accommodate. Um, I heard some of my questions, Commissioner Levy in regards to, um, what's brought here. The analysis of just being a compliance with state law and looking at the family definition. I don't have any concerns with. And like I shared in the, what I'm, what I am interested in as I continue to talk about is just accessibility and trying to make things as simple.

2:35:40And uncomplicated as possible in a very complex land use code. So I am really interested in just how we make sure that, um, in the future with this code folks have an understanding that boarding house is actually now under part of that definition. So it was described as not having conflict. But for me, the way it's included is, um, is doesn't bring that topic to me with as many questions as the other one did. And so the group care for me, I'm not, I'm not in the same place as staff in regards to the recommendation. I'll just try and like quick give a summary for the different reasons that I was talking about that are outlined in the comprehensive plan and the housing element. I'm interested in my preference would be either to not accept and not move forward with what's given here based on what the options, but I would actually rather, I would prefer to table and give some direction so that staff could come back with a different option that would allow for an incorporated boulder county to have group care, whether it's the residential facility or whatever the new title is.

2:36:49That's not the question for me, but it's really about the use. I'm concerned about, um, really what feels like tailoring of a code to meet the needs of two different property owners in unincorporated Boulder County currently, which really, um, from my seat, it feels like we're not, um, giving that same, uh, capability to other folks who want to be part of the solutions of the same areas. I do have, I mean, my belief is that the land just code and the special use review have a lot of opportunities in it to make sure that we're being cognizative, the disturbance of land and all the other land use impacts, et cetera. But I am really interested in, I'm concerned about how it would be in conflict, in my opinion, with the housing element and all the different, all the different elements. The staff used and others too that weren't in the packet. Yeah, thank you for those comments. I think we're sort of in the same place. Um, however, I think there are pieces of this that we do need to move forward with to make sure that we have, well, maybe I need to ask Kaylee again, but I want to make sure that we haven't eliminated. If we table this and give staff direction to do some additional work, I don't want us to

2:38:12put, uh, foster care, foster homes, boarding houses, et cetera, in limbo. It sounds like, it sounds like that's not a concern because they're, okay, Kaylee is shaking her head, but they're covered by the definition of family that we now have. So, so that would be understood. For me, um. I think I don't want to presuppose the outcome here in saying. Go, go back and do some more work and figure out how we can allow, um. You know, to say we want to allow these things in the agricultural and forestry zone. I think we just haven't given enough consideration to that aspect of it. And it's, it feels like, you know, in making these changes, we discovered, Oh, this is going to have an impact on these two. What are now considered residential care facilities? And we'll just deal with them this way. But that wasn't really part of the original project and mission that we ask staff to deal with. And I think now it has come up and, and I think, um, I think we do have an opportunity to look at whether, you know, these other kinds of living arrangements are things that we could accommodate in uncorporated Boulder County that would be consistent with the housing element that would be consistent with the other policies we have in the comprehensive plan around,

2:39:53you know, urban levels of development and access to services, et cetera, et cetera. I just feel like there are a lot more implications that, you know, staff tried to deal with. But, um, and so I'm not, I'm not faulting your work here at all, but, uh, but, you know, staff tried to deal with it without really taking on the larger issue of, uh, should we allow more innovative housing types in unincorporate county and different living arrangements and cottage clusters. And, you know, these things that, uh, as we do age in play or we do age, uh, we want other opportunities for people. And it's not just aging people. It's, it's people that are, you know, looking for co - housing opportunities. I think we can have staff undertake this. And, um, and possibly come back and say, no, you know what? This was, this was the right recommendation after all. But I think we just need more input from the community on it and more consideration of the aware it might be appropriate and where it might not be appropriate. And I agree that, um, that we have the ability through our, um, through our special review process to consider on a parcel by parcel basis, you know, impacts and suitability. So, uh, I think what I, what I want to understand is, um. Do

2:41:35we need to do anything now to be. To make sure that we have an inadvertently created nonconforming uses. And I know you're shaking your head, but I think it would be good to get an audible response and perhaps ask our assistant county attorney, Eric Rogers to provide some input as well. I was shaking my head. Are you talking to me or are you talking to? Yeah. I wasn't looking at Kaylee. Go ahead. Um, no, I don't think we've inadvertently created a nonconforming use. Since, um, the household definition that we added in that previous definition. Kind of includes more living arrangements that may be previously would have just fallen an underboarding house or group care of foster home. And now are just considered households and any other uses that are already existing since we haven't changed those other uses yet. Are still considered those uses boarding house or group hair of foster home. So I don't think we've created any nonconformity if you don't want to take any action today. I don't think the like we need, need to do to. Keep you season conformity. Okay.

2:43:00Well, so Hannah has popped on and we'd like to hear from Erica. My concern would be that I think the mountain states in sandstone as they operate really would not be included in the definition of household. And so then are they just completely in limbo? That's what I want to find out. And I, well, if we're not changing group care of foster home today, then the group care of foster home that's still use under the code. So they're, okay. They're fine. Okay. So, okay. Erica. This is Eric Rogers Assistant County Attorney. So my understanding is as Kaylee said the group care foster homes will stay the same if we're not removing that as a use from the code. I do, I might want to have a minute to confirm that, um, if we do nothing today that that doesn't create any problems in our compliance with state law with the definition of family, um, I might want to just take a minute and ensure that maybe I could work with Kaylee on that issue just to be sure because I know that part of this docket was to bring us into compliance. Take all the time you need. We did take action on the definition of family in a previous docket. But please, we want to make sure that you're confident on that. And, uh,

2:44:22Hannah, did you have anything you wanted to add at this time. Yeah. Um. What I would add, please, I'm sorry, just start by stating your name. Yes. Sorry. Uh, Hannah, if late long range of planning division manager with CPMP, um, the staff proposal, which I think is listed as option A does remove the group home, um, and foster care definition from the code. And that would result in the two identified, um, uses as becoming nonconforming. So that is one path we have as a choice today. Kaylee's also presented to others. One which creates that new land use definition that we were talking about. And that definition captures all of these types of operations which don't fit into the household definition. So anything that's kind of bigger than that higher numbers, more dwelling units like mountain stage children's homes. Home, those types of uses. Could fall into that new definition that it's presented in options B and C. Now options B and C only differ, they differ where one limits, that new allowance. To those existing uses that we've identified. So that they do not become nonconforming. The other option allows new ones to be established in the zone districts that have been called out. So Commissioner Lo Chamine, I think that kind of speaks to your desire to kind of allow these uses to perhaps

2:46:03be established in the, in the county. Rather than restricting them to the existing too that we have. So I think all the options we presented in the staff report might. Cover all the different variations that you need to, I hope. Um, I'm not necessarily understanding, I think at this point in time, what option you want. You might be thinking about that we haven't shown you. And if that would be helpful for us to hear. Yeah. Thanks Hannah. Did you want to respond? Yeah. Thank you. Thanks Hannah. Thank for that clarification. So for, um, in option C. I just want to clarify if that. Allows for. If that allows or addresses the two units that staff brought up in that slide that head four different properties on it. And it also allows. For group care home under the previous definition. To be. To be able to go through, especially use review in Boulder County in any district. Or if that's also specific to, okay, go ahead.

2:47:25Um, option C. Would allow the two facilities that currently the code defines as a group care home. To be moved over into that new classification. Um, and only allows the two that we're talking about. Option B is the one where, um, it allows those and new facilities to be established. In transitional business and commercial. So were you done? I'm sorry, Hannah. Yes. Okay. I can tell. There's a few different options. And what I'm not saying, so I hear what I heard was your question about you're not seeing an option that isn't already there. So I'm happy to be. Told that I misunderstanding something, but I don't see an option on here yet about. Allowing the units that were brought up here by staff to stay conforming. And that allow for new similar group care facilities to be able to be put through an application process. Okay. So that is option B. However, but that's what the different requirements. So I'm looking for current, current group care units. That same. Yeah. The current ones would just maintain their current special use approval. And if changes needed to be happen in the future, they would just be considered automatically an approved residential care facility. And we would process them. In the future under this definition if they needed changes. So they would be, they would

2:49:26stay conforming. They could change and adapt into the future under this residential care facility definition. The one thing, um, I do want to be clear about is option B does limit the district's permitted. Um, in that section, it limits. In the agricultural and forestry zone district to allow the uses that only exists, that exists today at the adoption of this code. So it would not allow new uses in forestry and ag, but it would allow those uses existing today. To continue into the future as conforming uses allowed by special review. Okay. Thank you. So for me, Commissioner Levy, if we want to work on the dais on making an amendment to one of the options that is in there, like I'm open to that. I'm a little concerned about doing that on the fly here at the dais, but I'm not seeing the option that I'm interested in that for me would meet all of these different elements and the different, um, pieces of the housing needs, et cetera, for this on this particular docket.

2:50:42I think we're aligned on this. And again, I'll just say what I said. Before, I'm not. I don't, I think we need to reconsider. I think we need to think very carefully about what zone districts we have where what we're now defining as a residential care facility. What was formerly included in the definition of group care or foster home. I think we need to think very carefully about where we would allow that where we where we think that would be appropriate. And I don't, I agree we should not try to do this now. Um, and we may conclude that when we, when we weigh this against all the other policies in our comprehensive plan, we have many. And sometimes they can't be fully reconciled. And sometimes they can, uh, we may consider conclude. I guess I don't want to presuppose where we'll end up. I heard that. And so as I understand it, um. As I understand it, if we, if we table this, then, uh, we won't, we'll be in compliance with state law.

2:52:05And we need to hear back from Erica Rogers on, on that, uh, we will be in compliance with state law. We will not be rendering any existing use nonconforming. And, but I think it would be good for us to provide direction to staff on what we would like for them to consider when they bring it back to us. But I want to give Erica a chance. And this is Eric Rogers Assistant County Attorney. So I believe one option we could do today is approve if you both are on board approve the change to the definition of household to clarify that that includes group homes that are defined license certified by the state just to be sure just to ensure that it's clear that we aren't prohibiting any group homes that the state has told us that we must allow. And then if we leave everything else as is, then it doesn't change anything status quo with the existing, um, group care or foster homes. So we could prove that one piece, but leave the other one on the table for later and just maintain the status quo. Okay. And so that would not be option A, B, or C. We would just, uh, our resolution would be to approve. The definition of household. Mask a question. Oh, I'm sorry. That's in the, um, in

2:53:36the packet on page 16, uh, 18 - 10a. And that's, that's the definition of household that we previously adopted with the new language, a household includes group homes that are defined licensed permitted. But yeah, just to prove that. Right. Yeah. Okay. So if I may, I just wanted to follow up, Erica. If we table this hearing. We are not. Not complaint with the state. Is that correct? I don't believe so because we, we've already changed the definition of family. So we already have included on related individuals. I think the language that Kaylee added to the definition of household was to just make it very clear. But I do think we can interpret the code with the current language in compliance with state law. And we'll do that. So if we want to put simply table everything, then that's also fine. Okay. That's, that's what I heard in your original answer. And I, what I don't want to do is I don't feel the need to try and approve one item in the list of all of the items. And I'm concerned about doing something inadvertently creating something where we're going to be talking about and hearing some other, um, or at least another option from staff. So I just, I don't, I'm not feeling the need and certainly knowing that it's not going to create

2:55:09an issue of compliance. I would prefer just, oh, go ahead, Hannah. Oh, I could have waited. Um, so what all I wanted to add is to make sure that we hear, I just wanted to summarize what we were, I was hearing from you as direction when we, when that's appropriate. Okay. All I was going to do. I just am not sure. That's fine. So I would rather just table it all and put it all together so that we don't pick something out or create any issues. Hannah, go ahead. So what I am hearing from the board, as far as what needs further evaluation is our option B, um, with a deeper dive into what zone districts this use might be appropriate. In. So allowing, um, these larger operations, um, but really around the county, but diving into where they might be most appropriate. That captures for me. And then the, I also had also written down land use. The map I think would be helpful for you whenever you bring that back and say, this is what we think would be from Landy's code perspective areas that would be, you know, whatever the compatibility or whatever the other items are going to be thinking about to be able to put that on a map of an incorporated boulder county to understand what was, what's described

2:56:35here on paper, but without a map. Yeah. I think Hannah, I think that describes what we've been talking about. I think there is another aspect of this. That wouldn't be included in that. Um, and this is another, it would be a separate project, I believe that, you know, the concept that, um, that Suzanne Webble presented in her, um, comments that she submitted in writing. And I know another, uh, individual was also exploring this concept. It seems like everybody's thinking in the same way. And that would be, that would be beyond the scope of, I think what Hannah just described in that it would be allowing multiple cottage structures or, you know, other kinds of structures. However, we define them more like what Chief O'Brien was talking about with a camp where you've got multiple dwelling units on a single parcel. That I don't think that, I don't think what you're describing goes that far. And I think this, this would be a separate matter as to whether we would want to direct staff to take on a project like that. I think it's beyond the scope of the original direction that we provided to staff, to, to do this project. I'll just add in what else would be helpful to me. And if it was in the packet, I missed it, but just staff brought

2:58:10up those four different examples. And there was information about them on the slide, but to understand, I don't, and so I'm just going off kind of what I'm hearing on what I've seen in Glanstead and emails, et cetera, of I don't, I don't know in the two units that you were really focusing on addressing the nonconformity or conformity of what, how many properties, how many dwelling units are on those properties? I don't know. And I'm thinking from a land use code, what is that square footage relative to other parcels, things like that. That type of information would be really helpful because in one of the options, it seemed like staff was recommending allowing those unincorporated folder county owners to continue to use the land and then the way they have been. I think that's it for what would be helpful for me for the conversation, but I'm happy to put emotion for, unless there was any other additional information. I think we're ready for a motion. Okay. Um, so let's see, we're at item to be, which is public hearing on land use code related to residential uses boarding houses and group care foster home, docket DC - 24 - 004. And so I'm just moving that we table this item to, and I'm looking at the deputy if there is a date certain that's

2:59:27great. And if you would suggest that we table to not a date, certain, let me know. Um, good afternoon, commissioners, Natalie Spring at Commissioner's Deputy for the Record. Um, I am seeing if our records team staff has a 3BOCC date certain. Also if CP and P staff had an estimated timeline of how many weeks out, um, and we could table to a date certain. And if we don't have that information today, Kaylee, I think we can go ahead and table to a date uncertain. Natalie, I think I'm going to suggest that we not able to a date certain because we've, we've sort of changed the scope of this. And I think staff may need to get some additional referral comments in response. And I, we don't know how long that's going to take. And, you know, just to consider the other aspects of this, um, that really weren't within the scope of the original project.

3:00:27I think that's a great suggestion, Chair Levy. So, um, I'll take that as a friendly amendment. Well, did you make a motion. I did on item to be public carrying on land juice code. Do you want me to restate? Well, I think you, I didn't know, I think you stated it as continue to a date certain. And I think we. Why don't you restate the motion? Okay. So I am item to be public hearing on land use code related to residential uses boarding house and group care foster home, which is docket DC - 24 - 004. I move that we table. Okay. Second. So we do have a motion. And a second, we've had extensive conversation about this. I want to thank everybody who has come and really challenged us to think more, um, fully about the issue and the potential that we may be leaving on the table by moving forward at this time.

3:01:25So thank you all for your input on this. And, um, and I think it's, I hope it's clear to staff what, what we're interested in seeing. And so with that, I call for a vote on that motion all in favor say aye. All right. Thank you. So this concludes our agenda for today. And we are adjourned.