Transcript

0:00:02And we are recording. Good morning. Today is May 5th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. We have all three commissioners present in the hearing room this morning. We will start our business meeting with our consent agenda, which consists of items 4A through F. May I have a motion. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. Moving on to discussion items. We have an appointment to the aging advisory council. Good morning, Robin. Good morning, Madam Chair. Commissioner Robin Valdez with the Commissioner's Office. As noted last week, we had a resignation on the aging advisory Council. And that was for the Lafayette representative. And they weren't able to find a person who actually had served on this Council previously. She served for six years before. And she's applying again for this position for your consideration. Her name is Karen. Williams.

0:01:14Thank you. If you have any questions, please let me know. Great. Thank you, Robin. Any questions or comments from the board? Thank you. Good morning, Robin. I don't have any questions for you. I appreciate the explanation of how you got the name and who was involved in the process. Thank you. Okay. Then I think we're ready for a motion. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you so much for bringing this to us. We next have item five B, which is an amendment to a contract with peak to peak human service peak to peak and town of Netalina's fiscal sponsor, et cetera, for mental health trainings. Looks like Marnie Huffman Green. And I can't read. Oh, Leslie Irwin. Hello. Haven't seen you in a long time. Yes. Good morning. Hello, Commissioners. Good morning. Leslie Irwin Consulting LLC, ARPA Administrator for the commissioner's office. And I'm here this morning seeking a scope revision, approval of contract with scope revision for peak to peak a human services agency serving the town of Netherland and mountain communities.

0:02:27The town of Netherland is the fiscal sponsor. Under the previous scope, which was really very specific and specifically named three different very specific training models, the talent or peak to peak was unable to expand the ARPA funding in a timely manner. So staff revisited with peak to peak to revise the scope to better serve the community and actual community needs based on community feedback. And so we believe the revised scope will enable peak to peak to expend the funds in a timely manner by the December 2026 deadline. And I'm happy to answer any questions you have. The scope was reviewed by me as ARPA administrator, as well as the county attorneys to ensure that it does comply with Treasury guidelines. Thank you Leslie Marnie. Is there anything else you'd like to add. No, Leslie said it perfectly. Thank you, Commissioners. Okay. Marnie Husman Green for the record. Commissioner, is any questions? I've not. I don't have any questions. I really appreciate you both being here in case we had some additional questions, but the explanation and understanding what you've been working on in specific to this particular grant is helpful. Thank you. Good. All right.

0:03:44Then I think we're ready for a motion on 5B. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you. Nice to see you, Leslie. So that brings us to the end and you two, Marnie. It's just we don't see Leslie that often. Thank you. I bring this to the end of our discussion items. However, I had asked that one of the consentendo items of the direct cache assistance be moved from consent to discussion. So I was expecting that this morning. Good morning, Commissioners. Natalie Spring. Commissioners deputy for the record. We don't have that item scheduled to come to the board at this time. Um, there were some additional pieces that staff was looking into and that's scheduled to come, um, to, uh, discussion item later this month. Okay. All right. Well, thank you.

0:04:35So then we are in fact, was there some looked like you were about to say something? No. Oh, okay. Thank you. Then we are ready for confirmation of executive session topics. Good morning, Commissioners Natalie Spring. And again for the record. I'm here to confirm that the executive Cesson topics that were noticed at the April 28th, 2026, regular business meeting of the board were discussed as scheduled. And this is simply a note for the record. So I'm happy to move us on to item 7a. Commissioners, I would like to request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into executive session on Wednesday, May 6, 2026 at 1 p. m. pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4B. Legal advice regarding the topic of potential employment litigation. Move approtion. I heard a move for approval second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you, Commissioners. And that brings us to item 7B, where I will request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into executive session on Wednesday, May 6th, 2026 at 1pm, pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4E. Instructions to negotiators regarding the topic of collective bargaining agreement with the Boulder County employees union. We have a motion. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. And we have Apoclamation. Is this some, are we reading this

0:06:13proclamation? It is in the record. And this is recognizing, um, older Americans month. Do you want to come forward. And tell us about this. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Lindsay Neville of Month of Boulder County Area Agency on Aging as we typically do. I'm just going to share a few remarks and then have you all read this if that's okay. Okay. Your Boulder County Area Agency on Aging is here today to celebrate all that older adults contribute to our community into shine a light on changes that may impact their critical human services that help older Americans age well in their communities. As we discuss frequently, there is continued population growth across the US and in Boulder County of those 60 plus. It is becoming increasingly difficult to meet the needs of a growing population with the changes that are happening. Older adults provide significant contributions to the communities in which they live, including providing care to children, um, and adults, providing help to their friends, families, and neighbors, and especially volunteering their time in our community. There are folks 60 plus across Boulder County passionate and volunteer and advocacy spaces which benefit people of all ages. For the first time in our history, we are not following the national theme for older Americans month.

0:07:31We recognize that not every older person in our community has access to the services that are critical for disease prevention and wellness opportunities to achieve and maintain their health. Many of those necessary services are beyond the scope of the National Work of Area Agencies on aging, which is part of why we chose to take our own path this year. We've continued funding challenges. We are focused now more than ever on prioritizing home and Community - based services, nutritious meals, transportation and supports to prevent homelessness for older people in Boulder County, while also supporting those in caregiving roles. We want to specifically share the impacts of older people of color in our communities. Latino older adults are the heart of many of our families and neighborhoods, their contributions go far beyond what we often see. Leaders, caregivers, teachers, and role models. We see these contributions each day in our work at the Boulder County Area Agency on Aging. And we do not condone the attacks on our clients, their families. They caregiving workforce or the broader community who make Boulder County a vibrant and beautiful place to call home. Thank you for the opportunity to share the challenges of our work and what we are facing while we celebrate the vast contributions of Boulder County's older residence. Thank you. Thank you, Lindsay. And we will now

0:08:50read the proclamation. Thank you for that introduction and that explanation of the focus that we are taking here in Boulder County. And, uh, so I will, uh, kick us off with the first part of this proclamation recognizing older people in Boulder County. Boulder County recognizes the invaluable contributions of our older residents, individuals whose knowledge, service, and lived experiences strengthen our community. As we honor aging as a natural, powerful and universal part of life, we also acknowledge that ageism is widespread and affects people of all ages. Addressing ageism, as noted by the World Health Organization, is essential to building a world where the dignity and rights of every person are protected and celebrated. More than 75, 000 older adults called Boulder County home, generously volunteering their time, leadership and expertise in our community. The ongoing contributions of older people enrich our neighborhoods support our local economy and help people, I'm sorry, help guide our shared future.

0:09:59As our population continues to shift, including an increase in residents aged 80 and older from 12, 000 to nearly 35, 000 by 2050. It is vital that our systems evolve to meet the needs of a growing and vibrant aging community. Boulder County's committed defostering a community where people of all ages can thrive. This includes investing in programs and services that promote racial equity and support physical, mental, emotional, and social well - being. By strengthening resources and upholding independence, dignity and safety, we can ensure thriving communities for everyone. Older Americans Month is an opportunity to celebrate our older residents. The people and organizations that support them and everyone who's fortunate enough to be growing older. The Boulder County Commissioners proclaim May 2026 as older Americans Month honoring the profound impact of older adults in our community and affirming our collective responsibility by challenging ageism and champion resources that support independent and joyful aging. The Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County encourages every resident to celebrate, uplift, and engage with older people who make our community stronger. And now we'll turn it to Commissioner Luchmin to read the proclamation in Spanish. El condado de Boulder reconoce algociones de nuestros adultos mayores, personas cuyo conocimiento, servicio y experiencias de vida fortalezan a nuestra comunidad. Al honrar el envejecimiento como una parte natural poderosa y universal de la

0:11:27vida también reconocemos que el edadismo está muy extendido y afecta a personas de todas las edades. A abordar el eradismo tal como señala la Organización Mundial de la Salud es esencial para construir un mundo en el que la dignidad y los derechos de cada persona sean protegidos y celebrados. Más de 75 mil adultos mayores consideran al condado de Boulder, su hogar, ofreciendo generosamente su tiempo, liderazgo y experiencia a nuestros vecendarios. Apoyan nuestra economía local y ayudan a guiar nuestro futuro compartido. A medida que nuestra población continúa transformándose, incluyendo un aumento en el número de residentes de ochenta años o más, pasando de 12 mil a casi 35 mil para el año 20, 50. Resulta vital que nuestros sistemas evolucionen para satisfacer las necesidades de una comunidad de personas mayores creciente y vibrante. El condado de Boulder se compromete a fomentar una comunidad en la que personas de todas las edades pueden prosperar. Esto incluye invertir en programas y servicios que promuevan la equidad racial y apoyan el bienestar físico, mental, emocional y social. Al fortalecer.

0:12:52Los recursos que salvaguardan la independencia, la dignidad y la seguridad ayudamos a garantizar una comunidad próspera para todos. El mes de los adultos mayores es una oportunidad para celebrar a las personas y organizaciones que los apoyan y a todos aquellos que tienen la fortuna de estar envejeciendo. Las comisionadas del condado de Boulder Proclaman Mayo del año 2026 como el mes de los adultos a mayores honrando el profundo impacto de los adultos mayores en nuestra comunidad y reafirmando nuestra responsabilidad colectiva de desafiar el edadismo y defender los recursos que proporcionan una envejecimiento independiente y pleno de alegría. La Junta de Comisionados del Condad de Boulder Insta a cada residente a celebrar. Enaltecer y releaciónarse con las personas mayores que hacen más fuerte a nuestra comunidad con la fecha de hoy el 5 de mayo de 2026.

0:13:57Okay. Thank you very much. And thanks again for helping us recognize older Americans Month. Older Coloradon's Month and older Boulder County residents. So we are now going to move on to our work session portion of the Agenda and Janet. Do you need a break? Should we take? Okay. All right, thank you. So we will move into our work session, part of our Agenda this morning, and we have four topics that we may be able to cover. We'll see how far we get. And I'm gonna just go ahead and turn it over to Jana Peterson, our County Administrator to just walk us through the process and what we're gonna be considering this morning. Good morning, Commissioners. Janet Peterson Boulder County Administrator. And I'm here today with Community Planning and Permitting for a work session on several topics where you have expressed interest or inquiries over the last year or so. Three of them are related in the category of housing. And so we thought we would start with those three topics. We'll also seek your input on Detention Centers and Data Centers in unincorporated Boulder County.

0:15:43But to get us started, we have the Three Housing Topics of Senior Co - Housing Accessory Dwelling Units and Housing for Agricultural Workers. And with that brief introduction, I'll just say my role today is to facilitate the conversation. We've got all of our staff experts here from Community Planning and Permitting to answer your questions and take your guidance and direction from your conversation. So I'm going to turn it over now to Kayley for our first topic of senior co - housing. And if we could pull up the presentation. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners Kayley Byrne, Community Planning and Permitting. Here to talk about senior cohousing communities today. So this came out of a public comment received at the DC - 24004 residential uses, public hearing regarding some interest in a senior Coast and Community from member of the public, which is why we've brought it here today, provided some more information and amen. That was provided to you. So I'll give a brief overview. So these senior co - housing communities per research by staff are generally intended for individuals age - 55 plus to live in community, sharing resources, responsibilities, but maintaining independence by living in their own units within that community. The land use code does not have a specific to find use for a senior co -

0:17:18housing community, but existing regulations could support specific versions of this concept as detailed in the memo. The comprehensive plan, the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan includes housing policies that encourage a range of housing types and densities and support innovation and housing solutions, but also emphasizes channeling development and density to cities and towns are identified community service areas. So we talk a little bit about the balancing of those priorities in the memo as well. And throughout staff's research and analysis, something that came up for us was that perhaps rather than focusing on provision of housing for a specific occupants or population demographics, we could consider holistically whether the development of additional dwelling units of various types is appropriate and identify appropriate locations for these. So taking a little bit of a step back. But there is more details regarding senior co - housing examples of such communities in Boulder and elsewhere included in the memo for you as well. So we welcome any additional questions or direction from BOCC regarding this research. Thank you. All right, Commissioner, so we're here to hear what questions or where you want to take the discussion on this specific topic.

0:18:46And let's start today with Commissioner Lochamin. Yeah, thank you. Thanks, Keely, for the information. And I did get a chance to go through the packet that you had sent. That's part of the docket this morning. So I think just for some clarification, I think I would like to know how much we can talk about, because I feel like since we're all here in public meeting, we probably could talk like about actual policy if we decided to get there on any of these topics and some of these topics, as staff, I'm sure, knows, too. We've been kind of talking about for a while and the meetings take so long. So I just wanted to throw that in there as maybe a possibility for today. Just in regards to the questions and direction, I think the way they described Ayley was take a step back and kind of look at the holistic piece. For me, that makes sense because we had the public comment. I'm looking at this side because that's where I believe the person was during that hearing. In regards to some public comment about very specific senior housing kind of co - housing option, which I think is very interesting to me. And I'm also working, as y'all know, with the Regional Housing Regional Elected Working Group on Homelessness. And one of the topics

0:20:01that that group is really interested in is kind of more of a tiny home type of a village of Matt with some folks. Gosh, what is it called? Wisdom. I'd have to look up. But they do kind of a recovery type of living, which when I'm looking at just the kind of the wording in here, it's very similar, but there's a set of a senior housing. It's focused on recovery with Counselors and different types of rated ages, multi - generational, all the good things, including arts and things that people need for healing in what they've brought. So I, when I'm thinking about all the different pieces, I do think it would be really great for the board to talk with CPMP with a map of here's where the enclaves are, here's what the opportunities in on a creeper County really do exist for the board to make a decision if we want to be part of the housing solution addressing the housing crisis for residents all over our region. So I think that's where I'm coming from this morning. And it was good to look at the examples that you provided from Oklahoma. And I think it was in North Boulder specifically. So just as far as kind of response to what presented today. Thank you, Commissioner Commissioner Levy. Yeah, thanks. So you're at this

0:21:19point you're just looking for some initial comments and reaction to the memo and the materials that were presented. So I, you know, I guess what I was interested in in this topic and the way it came to us was something different from what we already have, from what's already available. In Boulder County, and I'm aware of, and I think I actually know a couple people at Silver Sage co - housing, it's a lovely opportunity to have in Boulder County. But, you know, just taking us back to the presentation and the materials that were sent to us and a couple, I actually know two people that are just serendipitously were imagining the same concept, totally independent of one another. And then I got them together because I realized, oh, these two people are talking about the same thing. You know, in the concept was that we have people, like in this instance, is these two individuals own some acreage. And, um, and, you know, they, as they age, they're no longer interested in the agricultural operations.

0:22:34They don't have the means for the agricultural operations. And could there be a cluster of freestanding cottages? It doesn't have to be that, but could, I think that was the ideal with some, you know, with a Community House that would be the house that was already on the property. And there could be meals or could be, you know, services in there. You know, I realized, and I think they realized there are a ton of legal issues to work out around ownership structure. And can you restrict age? And all the, all the complexity that we don't need to worry about here as a county, but what I'm, what interested me about that proposal was that it, it could provide something for older people for whom the large congregate kind of living things like we have here in Boulder at Frazier Meadows and Brook Dale. And, you know, and they're out in Lafayette and Louisville. I know there are a couple and up in Longmont as well that don't want to move into something like that. But when I lived in an intentional community of some sort, uh, and so what I was interested in was an analysis of what kinds of modifications to our land use code would need to be made to allow multiple residential structures on a single lot. And we had a, uh,

0:24:18we had a land use case up in the mountains where the, I think if I understand this correctly, if I'm remembering correctly, the only way we could approve they wanted to turn what had been, um, a building that had a pool table and laundry or something. They wanted to turn it into another residential structure and they were already maybe four of these. And because it was, um, conforming, I believe, um, if I'm remembering correctly anyway, the only way there could be these multiple residential units on the same parcel was because it was grandfathered in, if I'm remembering correctly. So I was just kind of interested in knowing like, is there potential, what would be the land use implications of doing that? You know, what just, you know, you as professional planners, uh, long range planners, you know, how would you approach that kind of thing.

0:25:18You know, the part of the memo where you talked about approaching this, not with respect to a particular population. But as a housing issue more generally, I felt that actually the, for me, the only way this actually would be something I would want to consider is if it were age restricted. Because I think, and I'm not saying I want to go forward with this, but in considering it, um, I think the impacts of, you know, like 55 up, um, age and probably older people don't generally want to move into some sort of other living arrangement when they're 55, but legally that's what your cutoff is. But, um, you know, that that has different, different impacts, less traffic. You know, you're not, you know, you don't have kids going to school. You're, you're, you know, that kind of thing. And I, and I'm not, I mean, I'm sort of throwing these things out, but these are all the kinds of analysis that, that I would want to see. So I, I get that I get that there's some opportunity in Boulder County. As I read your memo to have just a multi - unit development, uh, that could be set up and organized as co - housing. I guess I was kind of wondering about, about this other model that I thought was kind of creative.

0:26:51And it may be, and I'm not back bent back in touch with either of the individuals on what they're, you know, their specific proposals and what more work they've done to try to figure out what that legal structure or organizational structure might be. But, uh, that, that's what I was really interested in exploring. Just with respect to the memo, um, and what you do have in here on this, uh, I, I would be interested in seeing on a map where we do have, um, multi - unit zoning. You mentioned Nywat. But I thought I might be on the wrong page here. I thought there potentially were some other. Areas, multi - unit dwelling. Nyewat Roll Community District. Mixed you. Sort of the Multifamily are transitional districts. Yeah. Just knowing where the multifamily or transitional districts are just to note kind of the availability in the county. And I just want to circle back because, um, we heard Commissioner Lochimain also requesting a map. And I want to make sure the two of you are talking about, is this the same map?

0:28:05Cause you were more general in your comments about housing opportunities. And I think Commissioner Levy was referring specifically to what was in this memo for, um, these particular zoning areas where these uses are allowed. So if you don't mind just clarifying Commissioner Lochimain, if that's the map you're talking about or if you had something else in mind. Thanks for asking that question. I think it would be interesting to do an overlay. I hate to say yes and or both and. But for me, I think there is a question of like what's available for just housing in general specific to this ask around some type of co - housing with, we do have my understanding is that we do have parcels in on a corporate County like that hearing. And I don't remember the docket number, but that hearing where there is clustered living, um, and so in my mind, I'm thinking, okay, if that does exist already in Boulder County, where could we replicate that?

0:28:59And it might be private owners that are unaccorporated Boulder County land. To look at that map as well. Um, or just to find out exactly what you're asking as a specific item, I would say both and. Okay. And I'm circling back now to Commissioner Levy, both and so we would have a map that has existing zoning and then maybe some of these other opportunities. Where's rezoning might be required is that something that you'd be interested in seeing as well. Well, I understand you're hoping to get to two just for the purposes of direct. I'm not really clear on what that AND is. That seems really open - ended. So the way you phrased it was, what, could you say that again? Other areas that might be zoned. I mean, I think to look at rezoning, I think then, you know, we have to have some, you know, some direction, some criteria, like where would we want to do this? And I, and we don't have that. So I guess I don't really, maybe you could be more specific about your concept. I would like to have, uh, Hannah just chime on this because it might be helpful in getting some guidance from the three of you. Okay. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. Um, when we think about kind of what's on a map and where

0:30:24we might want to locate housing, um, so what that AND might be, right? Zoning is one thing that's existing on the ground. It's also something that can, in theory, change over time. But why and where we might want to change zoning to facilitate some of these goals. I think it's to the, what's the and part that you want to see. So generally when we think about housing in the county, we think about where do we have urban services? Where do we have transportation facilities. Um. Where do we have the kind of landscape that will support additional housing, right? The needs, the facilities and services, um. So those are things we can articulate and that we would need some help from you to direct us on. Are you interested in considering more development only in places where we have sort of water and sewer? Are we talking about creating kind of new communities and more rural and remote parts of the county where they would need kind of community wells, community septic systems, those sorts of things. Kaylee's next item, which is the ADU piece. I think we do a bit, we did a bit more analysis thinking about where ADUs could be located. And honestly, I think that's starts to translate to any type of housing that we start to talk about and think about

0:31:56where more housing and what types of housing could be appropriate and what areas. So I don't want to. Kind of say, let's do the next part and then come back this question, but I think at the end of this discussion today about housing, we might, um, maybe to be able to tease that out a little bit more. So I don't know if the. Commissioned specific to co - housing. And then we can circle back with you after you've talked about all three housing topics, because then you have Ag worker housing to understand what type of mapping would be helpful for you in future decision making, if that makes some sense. Commissioner Levy. Yeah, thank you. And I realized we have not heard from Commissioner Stolzman at all at this point. But I, um, I think, you know, I was, I was really way up here as, as a threshold matter, you know, we've talked about ADUs and they were a specific kind of structure for a specific, you know, it's accessory. It's not independent. You know, we talked about AG and that's a specific use and a specific need. And I was interested in disconceptually, does the board want to consider a different model of housing? And yes, we may want the same kind of mapping done, but I don't think it's

0:33:26all part of the same conversation, at least the way I'm thinking of it. And I, and, you know, the board may say, no, we don't, uh, but this was, I just wanted to have the board talk about whether this is something we would like staff to work up a little bit more. So I'm seeing not really as just all, maybe it's the same mapping exercise, but I don't think it's the same analysis. Thank you for clarifying. And I do want to turn to Commissioner Stoltzman and get your, um, questions and feedback on co - housing in particular. And I'm just responding on senior cohousing. I think just, but I can respond on co - housing if that is what you want. Senior co - housing. Although I want to acknowledge that Commissioner Lochimin talked about co - housing in general. And so wherever you want to take the conversation. All right. Um, well, so I felt that DC - 24004 was really in response to some needed clarifying language and cleanup for implementation purposes. And then also for state law requirements around the Co - Housing Topic. So I support what the original intent of DC - 24004 is. I think in our community, uh, we have developed in a compact way. And the reason we do that is to promote health and safety, um,

0:34:50and provision of services is more cost effective if we have transportation services, common golden water, services comingled. And then there are some benefits that have come from that in our community from developing in this compact way is that we've preserved the natural environment, which people love. A lot of people move here because of that and have access to the outdoors. It actually has had a tangential benefit of, um, having less development in the WOE than we would otherwise have if we just let it develop, um, for under capitalist structure for - profit. So I think we should stay the course with encouraging development into the municipal areas and discouraging densification in the unincorporated areas just as a general principle. So, and then I think the details are where it comes down for me from my perspective where we may want to have a conversation about increased density in the unincorporated areas. It doesn't make sense to me to use ages of the determining factor in our community. We are shifting very quickly to much older.

0:35:55The vast majority of the community will be over 55. So we actually, if we have any type of housing, we need to target, in my perspective, it is for young people. We, if we have any type of crisis, it is a crisis of that we don't have 20 year olds moving here and buying houses. And so I don't understand why we would focus our time and attention on changing the regulation to recruit more of the population that we have in every district. Like there's obviously no issue for seniors finding housing. They live in every single district of our community. And we have a big problem with young people being able to find place in the community. So to me, it's, it's, if we were looking at age and trying to find ways of, um, targeting people to move here by age, I would target a different age group entirely. I also don't think it makes any sense if the idea is that there are people with different abilities. Like if there are people that need extra support that we would put them in a place that has no access to hospital services or ride shares or cars or delivery, like that also is counterintuitive to me. I would think we would want to encourage, uh, people with less ability to be closer to services they

0:37:02may need if it is about ability and not age. And I heard some comments about it being a bad ability and needing extra support and interest. So, um, I, I wouldn't go about it this way. And I don't need any more information. Okay. Thank you. And just to clarify, I think I heard you say that there might be some parts of unincorporated Boulder County where additional housing might be appropriate. Did I hear you say that or are you kind of a hard no on any additional? So I voted yes on authorizing the ADU look in the areas that I highlighted in that were areas that have municipal water and sewer or areas I highlighted when I made the comment that I would look at that, um, I think the districts were we currently allow multifamily are more urban in nature in Niwat. It already is more like the other cities and they may consider incorporating at some point in time as well. Um, so then that would be moot anyway. So I'm not saying no to anything ever. It's just that in general, I think that it has been positive that we have had density go into the urban areas and kept the rural areas rural. I think that for the health and safety and well - being of the community, that that's the direction

0:38:12we should continue to go. Thank you. So I'm, I'm going to do a little bit of a summary here. I think I'm hearing two commissioners who are not interested in senior exclusive, um, housing opportunities. But there is some interest in exploring where additional housing, uh, co - housing could be in unincorporated county. And I see you shaking your head, Commissioner Levy. So I really thought I heard from Commissioner Loechiman not exclusive to an age group. And from Commissioner Stolzman, a preference for a different age group. And you were shaking your head. So. Oh, well, I was shaking my head because if, if it was, well, I'm very eager for the conversation about ADUs and Ag worker housing. I just, for me, uh, I am not interested in just general broad spectrum, additional housing and uncorporate Boulder County. I think if we're going to do it, uh, and open that door, we need to be very intentional and specific about what we're trying to achieve. So you're summary, I didn't know which two commissioners were in that grouping. But I just wanted to be clear that I, I'm, you know, I, I was interested in exploring this topic because of the, the senior component to it.

0:39:46And yes, there are, this is a growing population. There are plenty of seniors. I think many seniors are in homes. They don't want to be in over the, you know, as they live out their lives and they're looking for other opportunities, which, you know, then would open up a whole lot of housing stock for people who are not seniors. I mean, that seems to be the conversation that's happening really across the country is that, uh, seniors are kind of staying in homes that don't suit them anymore. But they don't have a lot of options for where else to go. And that that would help free up some housing stocks. Uh, but anyway, I'm not interested in a broad, like, let's change our longstanding housing policies and Boulder County and look at more housing in an incorporated Boulder County just to have more housing. I would be interested in a targeted approach. I was going to ask a clarifying question and maybe Ethan has one as well. Can you be very specific in your comments related to co - housing? That's what I'm trying to pin down right now. Co - housing wasn't what I was co - housing in the Silver Sage multifamily type model was not what I was interested in exploring. And I thought that was pretty clear from the two previous conversations

0:40:59we had on this. So I know what co - housing is. I know we have it. It's, if people want to do a silver sage type development, you know, you can do it in any of the communities that we already have in Boulder County, the incorporated areas. Thank you for clarifying. Yeah. I just wanted to Ethan Abner, Boulder County Community Planning and Permitting. Sorry. It's very rare. I get to jump in in the middle. I just wanted to clarify a few things just because we did, I think when some of us on the long range team were approaching this topic of density and what it looks like, you know, Cayley did a good job researching those sorts of co - housing communities that we already had. But one of the things that we also thought about was like cottage clusters. And you made the point of wanting to be intentional about this. And I think, I think kind of the conclusion that we came to is that there is a shortage of housing for a broad variety of groups in the unincorporated county. And because we do try and channel density to the areas that are already developed and the less of an opportunity to put density in the unincorporated County based off of what our comprehensive plan tries to guide us to do, that

0:42:04if we're going to put density anywhere, we should be very intentional about it. And so to go back to one of the things that you said in your first comment about the potential land use impacts, we tried to look at some research and, and the amount of time that we had. And I wasn't able to, I don't know if anybody else did, but I wasn't able to come across any research that indicated that, um, people over the age of 55 would have a different land use impact than somebody who's just a family of four because, you know, use the example of not taking kids to school, but they may be having meals delivered or they may be having someone to come pick them up and take them to the hospital. And so when we looked at the land use impacts and sort of the, you know, those specific impacts, we didn't really see a difference based off of the population of people who are in the homes. And so that's kind of how we ended up to that, that conclusion of, well, if we're going to put density anywhere in the unincorporated county because there are such limited options to do it, um, then how do we want to go about doing it? Because there is, you know, there are homes that if seniors moved

0:43:04out of them and into smaller homes, families could move into those homes. But a lot of those homes are unattainable for folks who don't make enough to afford a 750, 000 dollar house And so you're still, you're still ending up with a certain, you know, a population that can afford that and excluding a population that can't afford those sorts of things. So with the density, right. We kind of tried to look at those land use impacts determine if there were any that were specific to older populations and then consider the comprehensive plan and how it kind of guides us. And so, um, so that, I think is where we ended up with trying to take an intentional look at density more broadly, if that makes sense. Yeah. It makes sense. And, you know, the Cottage cluster was the model that I was just interested in understanding. And I, I'm not sure I heard you correctly.

0:43:56There was research or you couldn't find any research on different impacts from older populations. I couldn't find any specific research related to land use that, um, that was based off of a population. We know they require different services, but I don't know that it's any more impactful than a family of four living in a home. Okay. So I heard some assumptions about, Oh, meal delivery and transit to hospitals. And I think the assumptions about older people that may, you know, just frankly may not be accurate. So, but I, that's, I think I'm, you know, I'm hearing at least staffs opinion on this issue. And so we should see whether the other commissioner interested in exploring that. I was not interested. I heard Commissioner Lochman talking about, about the homeless regional homeless work that she's been working on with, um, tiny home villages and things like that. That's, that's, uh, that's not something I want to be pursuing in this topic area. So I don't, well, I guess what I was concerned about was you're pulling in, you know, and trying to get us together. I felt like you were pulling different comments together and putting, you know, aggregating them and saying, Oh, we have agreement on something. And I, I actually didn't hear agreement among us. So. I was just trying to tease out the

0:45:30very narrow specific thing that I was interested in. So circling back around to the other two commissioners, um, with that clarification, it sounds like Commissioner Lee be is still interested in, uh, co - housing. Well, I guess if you want to say co - housing, first seniors only. Okay. Yeah. Is what I'm hearing you say. And so I just wanted to circle back with the other two commissioners and maybe I'll start with Commissioner Soltzman. Is that something you are interested in staff? Um, exploring further. I didn't hear you specify. I heard you specify a different age population. So, but I don't want to make an assumption that that's a no. The only reason that this is hard to answer is that I could see in the ADU conversation, this resurfacing in a different way. And so I, my understanding of what I'm hearing describe is that there would be, um, like multiple dwellings on one piece of property. And so for me, like I'm not precluding having that conversation in the ADU topic, but in the terms of co - housing and things like that, it doesn't make sense to me. I don't know if that makes sense to you. But in what I'm trying to convey is like, I don't need any more information on this senior co - housing topic. Um, but it's

0:46:50possible that there could be an area that we come up with where it's appropriate to have a additional structures. On a parcel that currently, uh, is only allowed one dwelling unit at the moment. So I just, I'm still, my mind is still open on the ADU conversation. And what I'm hearing you say is more about ADUs to me than the co - housing. So my answer is I'm not interested. But I just, I'm still interested in the concept under the ADU topic. And so I'm not trying to say yes and no. And I hope that that's clear enough. Thank you. That was clear. Thanks. Any Commissioner Loch mean? Yeah. Thanks. I, um, I just want to, I think maybe clarify a couple of things from, from my perspective, we are part of the region. We know we have a housing crisis. I do think, and the maps would be helpful. We can all sit together with them and look at them. But my understanding is there are still some places, not a lot left in unincorporableder County. But I, I do think that we need to have that conversation to know if the board is interested in, um, looking at what the possibility of us being a partner in regards to housing. I am complete agreement about, uh, influencing cities and towns who have the

0:48:10majority of the infrastructure to be the primary developers, primary partners in regards to housing. And I do think that the county has an opportunity to be part of that, um, solution. So that's for me, and I think the definition of co - housing might be different if we looked at Landju's Code and we looked at Community Paper or, you know, white paper, et cetera. So, but for me, I am interested in looking at this concept of multiple residential structures on a single lot and residential structures for me doesn't have to be accessory. I think there is an opportunity to look at unaccorpita Boulder County areas that are right next to subdivisions, not huge areas, but like some of the areas in unencorportableder county that are like on the other side of a street of a huge subdivision. Um, if we looked at either near urban areas near, and we could put a number of how many houses are in the subdivision, you know, just to give some kind of parameter, um, that do have services.

0:49:17I was trying to think, I was just hearing your question from a little earlier, Jonah, about like, what could some of those parameters be. And I do think we could still use the same principles that we do in regards to cluster development. But my understanding is that we do have some areas around an incorporated Boulder County that do have multiple houses. Housing units on parcels, very few of them. But that's what that previous docket was about. And so in my mind, again, if there are areas in uncorporableder County that we could do that, the question I have for this conversation is around the PUD, because that's my understanding of one way for people to be able to, um, create planned unit development. To be able to have clustered housing, which I know is different than the senior co - housing specifically, but I feel like one of the conversations I wasn't here at the dais, I just wanted to share some of the questions that I had. Just that was one of the questions I had was just to understand what amendments would be required because I feel like we have a tech, uh, not a tax code. It feels like that. But we have a land use code that, um, makes it very difficult for people to actually be part of these solutions and

0:50:26creating housing in unarcorpetableder county. So that is one of the questions that I would be interested in having some, um, just a lookout to understand what text amendments would be required if we wanted to use the PUD process in a, you know, more significant way to address the parcels that we do have left in on a corporate Boulder County. So I want to just pin you down a bit on senior co - housing because that was our first topic. I'm not hearing you articulate an interest in continued pursuit of senior co - housing. I would consider senior co - housing, if it was with a parameters that would allow any private owner to look at senior housing and other types of housing, whether it's co - housing or, or not. So I would be looking for parameters that would allow an app legit to come in and say it fits here. And my, you know, my focus and my area of expertise is around seniors or my areas focus around is youth and recovery or my, does that help. So it's a, it's a, I'm not saying no on senior housing, but I would prefer to see something that would be open to several different areas, um, and I think what Commissioner Solzman was saying, if it was, you know, a young adult. Target versus

0:51:40senior as an example. I don't know if I, you've got me a pinned down enough, but, well, now I want to come back to Commissioner Levy because I heard you say that you are not interested in something more broad just for seniors is what I heard you say. Well, again, you know, on the, on the model of Cottage clusters. And I bristled a little bit at going back to the co - housing label because I don't know. I guess, yeah, I guess I know of Cousin Communities that use, you know, independent structures. So, but on the, on the, on the vision of having, um, multiple dwelling independent dwelling units on a single lot. I, you know, just with some of the examples of populations that Commissioner Lutzerman mentioned, I don't want to open the door that widely. You know, if we're going to have recovery support homes or, you know, helping young people transition to independent living from foster care or whatever, it's going to be whatever. I would not open the door to that.

0:53:04So my interest is pretty narrow. Now, the ADU conversation, we'll see where it goes on that. Um, but I think, you know, what I was, what intrigued me about the, about the topic was really just the potential for a different model of development that would be, you know, very small scale that where, you know, we, we would have a defined population where we could understand a little bit more specifically the impacts and the needs of that population in that area. And when we start talking about, you know, people transitioning from homeless notes for people that need recovery supports or, you know, all the, then we've got, you know, we've got lots of different needs and impacts. And it's a little harder to, for me anyway, to get to, um, we can accommodate all these different uses in all these different areas. Cause I think they have very different needs and very different impacts. Okay. So as we're wrapping up this first section, I'm going to put the mic over to Hannah with a question. Thank you, Hannah Hipley again. Um, just listening to the discussion, I'm wanting to know if I'm understanding kind of the differences and opinions I'm hearing. And Commissioner Levy, I think when you were talking about the senior co - housing idea in having agricultural properties that might have folks aging

0:54:39and want to convert those, um, agricultural uses or that may be agricultural zone land to a senior co - housing model. Sounds different to me than what I'm maybe hearing from commissioner Stolchman and Commissioner Lojamine, which is a broader support for multiple units, at least exploring multiple units, um, but in more targeted areas. So that it's kind of a big difference. I think I'm teasing out between maybe you commissioner Levy and the other two commissioners. And I just, the question is, am I understanding you all correctly, I think is that difference? Are you hearing that difference or is that just me. Uh, who's that directed at? You captured my sentiment and I let the others answer for their sentiments. Thank you. So I think, are you asking, am I, am I wanting to consider all of the agricultural land in Boulder County for this? Yeah, that's, that's all the agriculturally zoned land. Probably not.

0:55:51No, I mean, so. I, I guess I know so little, and this is what I was hoping to get here. And I know so little about the footprint of something like this. Like how, you know, if you have a 35 acre lot and you're going to have, you know, seven cottages clustered around the existing residential unit, how many acres does that take? And if it's agricultural land of national significance, uh, you know, how much of that are we consuming? Yeah. So it's just, no, it's not open - ended. I think we're not ready to have this conversation. I don't have the information I needed to have this conversation. Okay, thank you, Commissioner Levy. Commissioner Loechamin? Yeah, I mean, if I. Am interested in, I mean, I like what you're saying, Commissioneve, about having these clustered villages. And I don't see a difference necessarily in use, but that would be something we'd have to look at when we heard an applicant sitting here telling us what they're going to be doing and what they're going to be bringing in on the land and things like that.

0:57:02But to me, it's conceptually very similar and would allow people in our applicants to make it to make their kind of case about what they're targeted area of community might be. But if I think about a 35 acre parcel and thinking about land use hearings that we've been in six, um, ADUs, if we had in my mind ADUs, like 800 square feet, maybe a little smaller, maybe just a tad bigger, um, which is different than some of our current ADU dwelling sizes that we'll talk about later. But that's 5, 000 - ish square total square feet. We have landy stockets on ag where we have like 15, 000 square feet buildings, barns, um, our tunnels that we just approved for one of the other parcels. Oh gosh, I can't remember what that was, but it, I mean, it's significant. I think it was like 15, 000 additional square feet of just tunneled space. So in my mind, um, if it was appropriate and, you know, from the different land use impacts and we didn't have the rebels jumping mouse, you know, on that parcel in that area, et cetera, we didn't have repairinary except all the other things that we think about and habitat. Then just understanding if that was an option and letting applicants go through that process to be able to have multiple

0:58:22clusters and we'd have to put that limit base. And I would guess it would be based on square feet, just because, you know, how we do our little land use. Um, but that's something, you know, I think stuff could explore as well. Um, and an applicant would do the work to understand, to tell us, you know, they believe that this many units and your example, I think it was six or seven. You know, they would need this many Councillors or supports or medical folks or whatever. And that would just be part of the process. But I do think just to know if that's an option would be really helpful to me for the Land Juice Code. So I'm hearing interest from a couple of commissioners to at least explore Ag Properties in targeted areas where it might be, proximity to other development as an option using some of the criteria that Hannah had articulated earlier in the conversation. And what I'd like to do is move us on to ADUs if you're ready to move on to the next topic. I just had one additional piece of. I just wanted to clarify. For me, it doesn't have to be just agricultural parcels or agriculturally zoned.

0:59:29That sounded like the question, but I wasn't limiting it to only. Agricultural. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Well, a new set in proximity to other types of development. That's for me, that's not really a limiting factor. Okay. Yeah. All right. Commissioners, we ready to move on to ADUs. I made coffee before this section. So I will be right back. We'll have about a two minute break. We'll be back at 10. 07. 107 50. Yeah. Get back to it here. All right. Then you're ready, commissioners. We are. Thanks. And we are recording. All right. We're back from Marisa. Commissioners, um, Jana Peterson County Administrator moving on to our next topic for this work session. Um, we have the topic of accessory dwelling units. And I will turn it back over to Kayley. Hi Commissioner's Kaylee Bryn again with Community Planning and Permitting. Um, here to talk about DC - 26002 accessory dwelling units. So, um, on March 24th, 2026, um, BOCC authorized CPMP staff to take a look at our accessory dwelling regulations through a land use code, a text amendment, which is DC - 26002. Just to explore, um, options for updating the existing accessory dwelling unit, um, accessory dwelling regulations. Initial ideas, um, staff kind of offered in that memo, um, to explore, including accessory dwelling allowances based on specific stating standards and locations, um, regulatory

1:04:06approaches based on the type of development. And potential collaboration with the housing department on an affordable accessory dwelling program or housing program. Um, we did receive initial direction from two commissioners at the authorization, um, kind of summarized here and in the memo. Just an emphasis on clear and simple accessory dwelling regulations. So residents know what their options are. Um, limiting, um, this exploration of broadening the accessory dwelling, um, allowances to the planes. There was an emphasis on public sewer and water service availability. As being a priority citing factor for accessory dwellings. Um, there's also, um, some direction that approvals for accessory dwelling should not rely on conditions of approval that require the decommissioning of a unit at a future date, which is something, um, that we have dealt with with our current regulations. Um, so that's the direction that we received at authorization. So we're bringing it back here today in the feedback requested is just any additional direction, um, from all three commissioners, um, regarding this project and the ideas to pursue. Thank you.

1:05:22And with that, uh, introduction, commissioners will turn to your discussion. And this time around, we'll start with Commissioner Levy. I'm actually not ready to make any comments. Um, on this topic, um, I'm just, I'm just refreshing my memory on this memo. I'm so sorry. That's okay. So maybe you could turn to Commissioner Stolzman while I review all my little notes. Commissioner Stoltzon, would you like to kick us off? Certainly. So I, I, uh, would reiterate support for the, um, four bullets, the clear and simple regulation so that people understand what they can and can't do. Uh, I, I reiterate support for the planes, uh, being where we would look, um, with regard to health and safety, just densify hanging in the area where we have such high wildfire risk doesn't make sense at this time when we're really trying to focus on mitigating our risk.

1:06:24Um, and publics sewer and water infrastructure is of high importance to me. I think if we look beyond that, we'll create a number of issues for health and safety and for future county commissioners to have to understand how to deal with the consequences of not having appropriate utility infrastructure. And then I really also support the, um, coming up with a ways to eliminate the conditions of reproval for decommissioning. Um, a couple others. I would want to add would be, um, I don't think it should, I don't think the unit should be dependent on someone's characteristics. So currently we look at like whether someone has certain employment or whether someone is a relative or someone is ill. And from my perspective, we should just, if we're allowing two structures on a property, whether somebody is a farmer or a rancher or a construction worker or a teacher or a librarian is irrelevant for my perspective, like or has no job. I mean, I just don't think it matters. And so I would eliminate the characteristics of the individual that's utilizing the structure as one of our criteria. I would make if we're making things that simplify and remove restrictions, I would want them to apply to people's properties that have more bird in some restrictions already imposed. So if we were to eliminate the, let's say

1:07:54we eliminated agriculture requirement that people who currently have agriculture ADUs should just be converted into ADUs that are less restrictive. Like if we make the requirements less restrictive, that they shouldn't have to continue to file that annual attestation and all those other things they have to do. Um, it seems like if we look at this, it should focus on, um, preserving open area, like view sheds open land so that like units would be clustered, not just taking like a hundred acre parcel and dividing it into hundred single acre parcels. Like there should be a provision for clustering and keeping things, um, keeping the preserving the natural land for others. I think that that's an important thing to consider and look at. And then the last one I have is just historic structures. I don't know exactly what to do with this one yet, but what was coming to mind for me is that if someone had a property and maybe there were. Two historic chicken coops and a historic shed and a schoolhouse and a house and they wanted to like we have seen chicken coops turned into houses and our county. And so like if, if there was some way to look at converting historic structures into dwelling units, if there was an appropriate way to evaluate that with the idea that we would

1:09:19be promoting, preserving the historic structures for an adaptive reuse. Um, so I haven't fully fleshed that one out, but I'm interested in that sort of concept. It's like, if the structure there and someone wants to change it from holding grain to holding people, that seems like something we could support perhaps. Those are my thoughts. Thank you, Commissioner Stoltzman. And so I'm now going to turn to Commissioner Loechamino. And before you share, um, new thoughts that you might have. I would love for you to reflect on what Commissioner Stoltzman just put on the table. So, um, what I heard her do is reaffirm the four bullet points that were on the previous slide. And then she raised some other topics, um, dependency on characteristics like employment relationship or illness. Um, removing burdensome requirements like recertifying your ag ADU if you all go with less restrictive regulations.

1:10:19And then this focus on, um, reuse of historic structures. So if you could start there, that would be helpful for staff. Thank you. Um, I'm just making myself one. No, I had almost all that. Thanks, Jana, because there was one I missed. Let's see here. So I appreciate the document that you all sent because I wasn't in that conversation. So I did get a chance to review those four bullet points. And I didn't have any concerns with what was in there listed. I think if we were to go about removing some of those characteristics and what I heard was kind of the in the spirit of making very simple, um, work and ability for people to understand and use the ADU regulations, then it would make sense that, um, that we would remove some of those processes. So I don't, I don't have any concerns with that. If that's where the board went, um, I heard something around preserving open area, but I, for me, the Land's coaches really clear about clustering of any development.

1:11:22So I don't, I don't know that that would need to be one of those bullet points, but, but I didn't have concerns around that. Um, and then. Reuse of historic spaces, um, I think for me, it's kind of a yes and, and what I'm wanting to think about in this, uh, or in this, um, ADU piece is how could we do an expedited process for, um, owner's property owners who wanted to either reuse whether it's historic space or just do conversion of current residential floor area. Um, I don't know if, um, I don't know how much a CPMP staff got an opportunity to listen in on that strong towns conversation and presentation that they did with our housing group. If you haven't, just let me know because we can send it over. There's a recording.

1:12:15But one of the pieces they talk about is in their, there's a quiz that all cities and towns can do. And one of them is around like, do you have a process that is available for an applicant to get through in 24 hours? There's a really small amount of people around the country that have gotten to that. But that's kind of the goal. And so in my mind, if we really want to think about the, the impacts of development building period, there are resources that, that, um, that are used. Right. And so that would be an opportunity. So historic buildings could be one of those. But I would be really interested in kind of broadening that to creating an expedited process for, uh, reuse of conversion of existing residential floor or existing square feet. I'll go ahead and go into some of my new items on the table. Yeah. Thanks. And that was a little new item, but I was answering the question too. Um, I do want to have some conversation if we have time today in regards to just, and I did look through that timeline. So it looks like it would be something maybe at November unless I'm thinking of the wrong timeline. Um, but if, if I'm thinking of the right thing November would be potentially one would get back, um,

1:13:24to hear from the Community Engagement and all those pieces. The question I have for this conversation about A unit is on the current caregiver agricultural unit and what has been interpreted as the intent for those units. And I just want to know what we would need to do to make that kind of an amendment. As soon as possible because my concern is that people reading the code would interpret that they have to have exactly what the letter of that regulation says. Whereas the intent, as we've approved in some of our dockets, is different. So I wanted to ask that question if that's something that we could address as a board together outside of a full process. So that's my first question. Okay. Thank you. Um, you asked a question, but it also is maybe one where we would want to see if other commissioners are interested in taking that up sooner rather than, um, at the end of the Community Engagement process. So did you have other items that you want to get on the table? Yeah. Thanks. Um, just to have a little bit of understanding about when we're thinking about doing this process, what our current review time now is for ADU applications.

1:16:56Is that just through the Community Engagement process? Or what are y'all thinking? We'd bring that back after the Community Engagement Process. And then. I was just going to go back to Kim Camde Director of Community Planning and Permitting. Going back to the time for an ADO process, it varies somewhat, but we do have require a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. So it's somewhat dependent on the schedule to get there. So at least a few months. So I think one of the relevant questions for us that you may or may not want to give direction on is whether you would want to consider an administrative review that doesn't require a public hearing for these kinds of things. That's correct. Like the Marshall Fire Disaster Recovery Units, that would certainly shorten the process. Yeah, thank you. And I think under that expedited review conversation, that would be helpful, I think, to hear from staff. Like, here's some of the proposals and one of them might be, again, if we prioritize, and that would, like, I want to hear an input from my fellow commissioners. But if we were to say, yes, we would prioritize or expedite and do a staff administrative review if it was, you know, these different things, including conversion of space. Thank you. Thank you, just to jump back

1:18:15to the square footage question. I think that's another thing that we're looking for, some guidance on sort of how the commissioners might want to address the square footage question. Are you wanting that now or just in this conversation at some point later? I think in this conversation would be helpful. And I don't know, Commissioner Loech, I mean, if you want to kick that off and weigh in with what you were thinking about square footage, um, respond to that as well. I'm happy to, and square foot for an ADU for me is like maximum of 850 square feet. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Levy back around to you. So I'm going to ask you to please first respond to what other commissioners have put on the table. So we had just to summarize the four bullet points that were in the guidance in the memo. Also, uh, this discussion around characteristics of who might live there, um, not being dependent on employment relationship or illness, for example.

1:19:30Um, removing, uh, requirements for example to recertify your AG - ADU if the final AD regulations end up being simpler, reuse of historic structures. And then, um, you know, this issue of an amendment sooner rather than later on what I understood Commissioner Lochimin to be talking about the Ag units in that, um, conversation. So right now that timeline would come back to you in November. I think Commissioner Loechman had some interest in bringing that back sooner. And then hearing from you about square footage as well. Okay. And then I also have. Yes. Um, different, different thoughts. So it's, it's a little hard to be sort of, um, channeled in the. Breadth of the things that you want me to address. I understand because I do have some just thoughts on the whole topic. But, you know, in terms of the direction that was in the memo, I think you wanted my feedback on that direction.

1:20:38I mean, yes. If we're going to do anything, if we're going to change our policy, it needs to be clear and simple. Um, and, uh, so, you know, that's, I don't need to say anything more about it. Thank you. Um, I think, um, you know, I think the whole purpose of this conversation is, I'm just going to address it in order of the four bullet points in the menu, in the memo about, you know, the things that staff was directed to, uh, to think about and present on. I think planes only. So yes, I still, I still agree with that if we are going to make a change. And I don't want you to hear that as. Let's make a change in the planes. It's if we are, it should be limited to the plains.

1:21:24Um, I think public water and sewer is absolutely essential. You know, we don't want to further deplete the groundwater. And, you know, and use OWTS as good as they may be. And, um, and then, uh, yeah, I mean, what has always, I think the decommissioning issue, you know, if in our current structure where we limit them so much to just vary narrowly prescribed circumstances, I understand why we have this decommissioning requirement, because if you don't meet that, then you shouldn't have an ADU. On the other hand, it's tremendously wasteful of building materials, you know, appliance infrastructure pipes, the whole thing. So here we have a structure that can be used. And now we're just saying it has to sit there idle. So I think for me, that decommissioning thing, um, if we decide we don't want to limit ADUs to the circumstances that we have now. And I'll putting disaster recovery unit as a side because that was kind of its own circumstance. Uh, then I would, you know, and we're going to change this.

1:22:35There's no reason to maintain that limitation for family care units and agriculture workers units. So that, I hope, helps provide that specific direction. Let me get, I've got so too many, so many tabs. Nobody get back to the, okay. And then you wanted to go to the geographic issues that were in the memo, but I needed to circle back a little bit. Tell me what the other questions. Um, so, uh, dependent ADUs in this new conversation, which we'll go to Community Engagement not being dependent on characteristics like employment relationship or illness. I think that's the whole conversation that we're having. So I, uh, I don't know. It would be my answer. So I think the reason we're having this conversation is to consider whether we want to broaden the availability of ADUs and incorporate a boulder county. And if we are, then yes, we would not have it limited that way. Oh, so I hope that was an answer. That made sense. And then next up would be if new regulations are adopted removing some requirements from existing ADUs. Sure. Yeah. I mean, that's only fair. Yeah. And then, uh, historic reuse or as Commissioner Lojamin added to that, um, existing square footage reuse for ADU being more of an expedited process or being encouraged somehow through the regulations. Um, I'd definitely be willing to

1:24:27consider that. I mean, we're not making final decisions on anything right now. We're just saying what we would be open to considering. And then, um, finally this, this question about, um, moving forward, uh, specific, uh, change related to ag unit sooner rather than the timeline that was proposed in the my mom. Is that something you would like to have to what I wasn't sure on is what is the specific change we might make to Ag worker units. I don't know what we're considering expediting. Would you like to clarify? Yeah. I will think for me there's the letter of and I'm not looking, I could have pulled that up, but I wasn't, wasn't ready for that question. Um, the question around if the person who's doing the care lives in the home or doesn't live in the home and the principal residence, the way that the in Hanatame, if I'm wrong, but the care unit is something around, um, the person that's going to provide the care has to be a family member. Oh, that. Yeah.

1:25:33And it just seemed like the intent. We've accepted in dockets and 10 is different, but the language still, if I was picking up the land use code because I'm a very literal person, I would look at it and say, I can't do what I need to do in Boulder County. And I would get my house on the market. And I would move. And the intent and what we've done in the doctors is very different. So that was the piece that, um, I think is very concerning. Yeah, I know what Commissioner Lashamine is referring to. It's not ag worker. It's the family care unit where I was not present for that land use docket, but I read the packet and saw the memos. And yeah, that was the issue that the language has to be a family member. And evidently CPMP's interpretation of that has been that it doesn't have to be a family member. And if that is, you know, if that's unacceptable and consistent interpretation, then I think we ought to make the language conform. I think, um, so that people know, because that was one of my concerns is what, what AD caregiving ADUs have not been brought to our attention because somebody picked up the land use code and said, Oh, I guess I'm not allowed. Uh, so, but if we're going

1:26:46to make a change, I think we ought to try to do this all at once. So if it's okay with you, could I add some other comments. Now at this time or do you have some other things you wanted me to address? Hannah, was there any clarification that you needed on that? I think, uh, Commissioner Olivi made the clarification. We're talking about, um, family care unit, not at worker. Thank you. Thank you for correcting me. So I'm just going back to the list here square footage was the other thing I was hoping you would specifically address. Commissioner Loe Chamine had proposed a max of 850 square feet. Just from her perspective. And so it'd be helpful if you could talk about square footage and then other, um, areas that you want to discuss. Yeah. So the way this conversation is being framed up, you're asking me to put on the table or agree with a proposal to make a change in our ADU regulations before I've actually expressed my thoughts on whether I want to consider that. Well, I think if you want to consider square footage, that would be helpful for us to hear.

1:27:57Yeah. Well, I think it's all part and parcel of the whole conversation. So if we're going to open up our ADU opportunities in Boulder County, then I want to have a discussion about how much square footage is appropriate. It's a little cart before the horse for me to say how much square footage we ought to have when I don't even know. Yeah. I'd like to express my thoughts on the topic. And then I, and then we can come back to that. So for me on this whole conversation, if it's okay, if I express my thoughts on this, um. I think we, I think we need to be very clear about what we're trying to achieve. And, you know, there's this whole conversation in Colorado. It's across the country about ADOs and that there are some magic. Solution to a housing shortage. And, you know, the bell policy center had Robin Kinesh do this study and it's in the packet. And, um, and, you know, the, I think I will, I will agree that there's some evidence that it increases the supply of housing. Um, I, I remain skeptical that it actually affects affordability. It may affect affordability for that. Property that you might rent as an ADU. It does not bring down the overall cost of housing. And so I think we just need to

1:29:26be clear as a board on what we're trying to accomplish. So, cause I hear different things. I hear individual property owners say, I'd like to have an ADU. So I can get some rent. So I can afford my taxes. I hear people who are looking for an affordable place to rent to say, gosh, I wish there were more affordable places to rent. Although the data that indicates that there are affordable places to rent in Boulder County. And, you know, so I don't know that we've done a good enough job yet of saying what is the thing we're trying to do. Um, I'm, I'm willing to consider this topic. But, um, but I, I'm looking, well, I want to go through the kind of the categories that staff had in the memo on location a little bit. So the kinds of things that, you know, if we're going to have more people living unencorporated Boulder County and, you know, within whatever we, if we do agree that we're going to have some locational criteria, we need to do this with the knowledge that this, that every single parcel, um, in that meets those criteria could have a second dwelling unit. Now we know that they're going to be constraints. That may not happen. But I think, you know, we have to like on this one category

1:31:09of public water and sewer that if on map three, if that if it's a parcel within that and there are 5042 parcels that qualify, that we could end up with 10, 000 in 84 parcels instead of, or not parcels, but units dwelling units. Again, I understand it's not all going to happen. But, you know, so this to me, we have to really wrestle with, do we want to have that much increase in housing. And so I guess just a couple of observations about like the rate of uptake and what's going on right now and what we hear. And this applies to, would we continue to have these requirements? So I remember an Ag worker ADU applicant at the end of the process. Um, not before we voted because they, they, they didn't want to irritate us with the comment, but saying, I needed to drainage plan. I needed a landscape plan. I needed a lighting plan. I needed, you know, he listed off like 10 things that we made him do. And all of these things, you know, they were able to do because they had a source of money. But it, you know, it made it rather prohibitive for an ordinary person to do an ADO. So if we're as we, as we as a board, think about how we want to do this.

1:32:50And while we want to do it, I think we have to recognize that we've got to lower the thresholds. Cause, you know, oh, by the way, we have to, it was sprinkled and put in a sprinkler system. Um, all of these things that ended up really making it pretty much out of reach for most people. So if we're trying to increase housing opportunities, um. Uh, and actually have these things be something more than just regulations. We then we have to think, well, are we going to wave all these things? And if we're going to wave all these things, then what do the consequences? So, so, you know, I think it's, it's not just how many square feet. It's just a lot of those other things. But I do think, you know, in terms of what staff has analyzed here in terms of the parcels that we have, um, I, I, I don't think I care whether it is a public water. And so our service or whether it's a water in hand district. I mean, either way, they're going to have to determine that they've got the capacity that they've got the water rights. And set the price for the water tap. Uh, um, so I don't have, we don't know that I care whether it's one of those. I do think that the Dola

1:34:15identified transit areas that limiting it to those makes sense for me in terms of our, um, our overall goal of housing density belongs where there's transit. And so if we, if we're not going to require that, then just. Totally change our land use policies. So I would want water and sewer, whether it's a district or a public, I would want it to be in a transit area. And I guess I don't know, you know, I see the parameters for Dole area. So I would want that. Uh, I don't, the proximity to major roads is not a tremendous issue for me. I think that's accomplished through the transit thing. Um, I don't know about how the NIWOC community service area overlays on the transit. Area. Whether, you know, whether that fits or not. But I think I would consider that independently. But I think I need to understand a little bit more about what. Constitutes a community service area. To save definitively. I mean, I'm throwing all these things out. And I don't want to, you know, if we all, we get all the analysis and we have all the discussion. And then I say, you know, what? Never mind about NIWAT. I don't want anyone to say you changed your mind. Cause these are all just all things we're just talking about and considering. Yeah.

1:35:50So I think those are the, those are the things. But I, but I'm still, as you can tell, I'm still sort of chewing over why we're having this conversation. So, and I'm happy to throw out a square footage. But. I have to, I have to understand the why a little bit better. So Commissioner Lee, it would help if you would articulate what you're thinking is the, is the why or the reason for this? I mean, I heard you talk about increase in housing opportunities, but I just wasn't sure if, because you said, well, if that's our goal. And so I was curious if you could articulate for us, for you personally, um, ADU changes to the ADU program would accomplish what would the goal be for you. Um. I think that it helps with, I think it helps existing homeowners, perhaps be able to afford to stay in the community as, um, taxes and insurance costs rise. I think per, and the reason I say perhaps is because it's no small matter to actually have an ADU. So I think, you know, if we're willing to consider modular homes and all that stuff and make the permitting cost less, then I think that could be a good thing because we do hear people being priced out, particularly if they've been in their home

1:37:25a long time because they bought it when their taxes and insurance were half of what they are. So I think that could be a, that's a goal I could get on board with, uh, and, um, you know, in the fact that inappropriate areas, it would offer some, um, perhaps more affordable rental opportunities. Thank you. So what I'd like to do next is have the other two commissioners articulate whether that sounded like a reasonable goal for the program to you. Or if you had other ideas that you wanted to put on the table for, um, so just to re - save what I heard Commissioner Levy say, um, it helps existing homeowners perhaps be able to afford to stay in the community as taxes, insurance and other costs rise, of course, dependent on permitting costs and other costs that the county would, um, put on ADUs. In some cases, it also would offer more affordable rental opportunities. So those are the two things that I heard. And just wondered if the other two commissioners, if you could, um, talk about that. Maybe we'll go to Commissioner Stoltzman first. Yes. And then after we're done with this exercise, I still also had some comments on the things that Commissioner loved him in said and Commissioner Scholzman. But first I'll do what you told me

1:38:48to do. Um, so I agree with Commissioner Levy that this likely will not help with housing affordability in other areas that they've implemented. It hasn't. And I really was just commissioner Levy and I here when we authorized exploration. So to me, like why are we talking about this is because Commissioner Levy and I authorized talking about this. That's the answer for me. And it was really challenging because I think people are saying, Oh, it's because of affordable housing, affordable housing, blah, blah, blah. And I do not at all think that this will make housing more affordable. In fact, I think it will likely, um, increase prices and land value, like instantly when we allow to dwellings on a property, the underlying land value will be worth more. And the support that, um, so I think that the goals or why, why did I vote to authorize this or why would I have spent any time on this since it's not about affordability in my opinion?

1:39:41Um, I think it's generally popular at the moment. Um, I would be interested to understand if the neighborhoods were proposing it in if it's popular since it would be broadly applied everywhere. I would be interested to know if those specific subsections do support it also. I think increasing value for our property owners is probably by some considered a positive outcome. Like if you own property and the county is increasing your value of like to the people that own land, that's probably a positive outcome. Um, and I guess the most compelling reason as to why I voted for it is that I think it is liberty supporting. Like people have property. And if you read history and contemplate like what fundamentally leads to the pursuit of happiness, like having liberty on your personal property is an important component of that being able to defend our democracy and being able to defend the right to pursue happiness and all of those things. So I think the reason I ultimately voted for it is the ability to allow property owners some additional liberty on their private property. Thank you. I wondered if you could also, um. Talk a little bit about you, you mentioned that, um. There that is genuinely popular at the moment generally. Generally genuinely. I think I may have said genuinely, but I met generally.

1:41:14I generally, I think this ADU topic is generally popular. Can you articulate a little bit why it might be popular? What are you hearing? I guess I just mean sort of vogue. Like this is what's in the paper. This is what they're talking about at the legislature. Like this is sort of like the, this is what we're doing right now. I don't think it will have the consequences that are described in the why, but I think it's just sort of a generally popular thing to take on at the moment. And then you can send out your newsletter and say, we did it. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Lochmaine, I want to circle back around to you just on this topic of the why. If you could articulate, um, the goal for an ADO program from your perspective. Thanks. I, I agree with both of the kind of the points that were made. I do think from a sustainability standpoint, um, and that's just, I've done work in that space for a long time. So how do we allow people to stay in their homes versus getting people in homes and then they lose their homes and foreclosure and in other ways. And so I do think that is a piece of it. Um, and I agree. A lot of people to use their homes for.

1:42:27Their homes in the way that they want to do. Um, I think is also, is a real point. I think that was the question that you had. And then I had another item too. Well, I need to circle back with, uh, Commissioner Stoltzman on topics that have already been raised. So if you could hold that for just a moment. Okay. Coming back to Commissioner Stoltzman for the other topics that were raised after you first spoke. So Commissioner, let your main brought up, um, converting existing residential floor space in the mix. And I support that. Um, it did bring up a concern for me about converting agricultural structures because I had talked about historic structures and then Commissioner Loch sort of reinterpreted that as existing structures. And I was really talking about landmarked structures. Um, so I just wanted to declare if I might point on that. Because I think with our agriculture, um, the way we allow Floor area on agricultural properties, like I wouldn't want to create a perverse incentive to build a writing to convert it to an ADU and then be able to overcome the size. So I just don't want to create a perverse reason to build something to convert it.

1:43:41Like that doesn't make sense to me. But if there are landmarked structures that are of historic significance, that's what I was talking about. And if you have an existing residential floor area that you want to convert, I can support that. I just think the issue that sort of popped into my mind was around how we calculate agricultural area. And it would just then dominate, um, the landscape. I support the idea of starting with an exploration around this 850 square foot Commissioner Lichman brought up for the size. I did that raised a question for me about how that would fit in different relationships and different neighborhoods. So like in gun barrel versus on an agricultural property versus in Niwa, I just think the context of the different neighborhoods might prompt different square foot requirements. And so I don't know the answer, but I'm okay right around 850 as the general concept as a starting point and understanding why that does or doesn't work in different settings that this might go into. Um, so I think that when there are things that are just black and white and rudimentary and you feel a lot of form that that should have a reasonable timeframe. I was like, I was really troubled by being able to agree with fast process. So I think if we create just a straightforward

1:45:04black and white process that you fill out a form and then. If it's checked and it's correct that that should happen in a reasonably appropriate time frame, I think it depends up all the things that are on the form. If we create a deliberate process, then I think it should be deliberate. And then I don't think that measurement we're holding it against is quickness. So when we have land use hearings and when we have Board of County Commissioners weighing in, it's because they're deliberate processes where we're weighing other types of factors and considering public input and all of those things. So the time isn't the measurement of success in those cases for me. So I'm unable to concisely answer the fast process question. But I think I've described how I feel about it enough. Um, I would absolutely support having an ADU process be an administrative review. I don't think that we necessarily add value once we sort all of these different things out. So the state legislation on ADU, there was a comment that it would be interested to know how this is or isn't different to opting into the ADU friendly community. I don't think the state has had a very thoughtful process on all of this. I think it is reactive to this. Like we need to do what's popular. We need

1:46:26to do this now. We need to do. And so I don't really care how it relates to the state process because I don't think the state process is any sort of thing to hold anything up to. Like I, they, they've, so I mean, we can get that. And that's fine. But I'm not using the state as a benchmark of success from my perspective as anything that has accomplished anything good. And then moving on to Commissioner Levy's points, um, you covered the water we're trying to achieve. So fire sprinkling landscaping plan drainage plan. I would rather not take all of that up at the same time we take up ADUs. Because that's huge. And I'm not saying I would never want to talk about that with everyone. But I think that just blows the whole thing up so broadly because that's really about everything, all the structures, all the residential units. And there's actually nothing that I've been more wishy - washy on in my time as an elected official, then fire sprinkling. I have voted every way on fire sprinkling. And it's because like people will present such a compelling case and I'm convinced each time that I've changed my mind and then I've changed my mind again. And then all the things. So. Fire sprinkling landscaping plan drainage plan. I would rather, I'm not

1:47:46saying they're not really important. They are really important, but I would rather just set all those types of things aside in our conversation about ADUs. And then if we wanted to talk about should we be requiring fire sprinkling? To me, that's a whole separate like whole ordeal, just like these other things. Like that's really deep and complicated. And I think that same thing for landscaping plan. Landscaping plan has a woo - wee implication. How's of this implication has adrenage implication has a neighboring, has a view shed, blah, blah, blah. So I care about them and I totally see why you bring them up in the context of this discussion because it does affect ADUs and whether they would be affordable and whether they will be successful in all of these things. But I would rather think about it with the status quo for those. And then if we wanted to take those up authorize a hearing on those. And then just the last two on yours, I don't have a, I wasn't distinguishing between the ownership on water. So that what Commissioner Levy said was consistent. And I support the Department of Local Affairs Transportation Area comments of Commissioner Lee's. Thank you, Commissioner Stoltzman. Couple of points I wanted to weigh in on it. Did you need any additional clarification? I do need to circle

1:49:03back to Commissioner Loechman on the points that you made that Commissioner Solsman just covered. So, um, I can walk you through those. Or if you made notes. I didn't take notes on. I missed when what you said a while ago. And that was just the only one I heard was maybe the transportation. I don't know if there was another one. Yeah. There were about four in there. So, um, first was a question around administrative review, which was something that, um, Kim Sanchez had brought up after other comments were made. Are you open to administrative review? Thank you. Um, I saw you nod your head just for the record. Uh, secondly was this, uh, discussion about, you know, sprinkler requirements landscaping. Should that be part of what we take out for public comment at this time specific to ADUs only? Or I think I heard Commissioner Scholzman say that's important, but maybe a separate conversation. Do you have an opinion on that? The second, I think the topic of ADU for unincorpretableder county is big enough.

1:50:04Topic. Thank you. And then the third piece was clarification on whether you care whether the water sewer is a public district or it could be a private sanitation district. I heard two commissioners say public - private doesn't matter in that. I have not put any thought into, and I've done no research in that area for unincorporate County. So I'd be open to staff's analysis. Thank you. And then, um, finally was this, Dole Identified Transit Areas being, um, a consideration, perhaps a bigger consideration than proximity to major roads or major travel corridors. I think I differ in that area. That creating a regulation that prioritizes a transportation. Like proximity for an accessory unit isn't a priority for me. And I say that because there are many areas around Boulder County where we have food deserts. And that hasn't been prioritized. Like I just, we live in a state and an area of the state where people are required to have a car. It's just, it's like the biggest, it's the second biggest cost. I was set of housing unless you have a kiddo. Um, so I just, I just don't think it's consistent with what we have in infrastructure, et cetera. Like I like the goal, but for me, it's just so lofty right now based on where we live. Thank you. And then you had

1:51:33raised your hand earlier to perhaps add something new to the conversation. I made you talk about, uh, the why for this, um, process, but was there something that you wanted to add to the conversation? Yeah. Thanks. There was just two pieces. And I think just in general conversation, one, what I had forgotten to say earlier around ADU in general, what we've heard from 12 months working with municipalities, um, in our region is around the need for education. And so I just wanted to make sure that was out there. For me, one of the pieces that even for this conversation, I think we could consider prioritizing or at least elevating would be the ability to have an attached ADU, the way I'm hearing it described feels like it's assuming a detached ADU when in reality, um, just talking with people around the county. There are properties that would be so, um. So much simpler to do an ADU in instead of having a detached unit where we have all these other land, just impacts, um, by level home, for example, um, to be able to separate that space, even when I think about our land use dockets and these properties that have, um, I wrote it down, walkout basements to be able to make that a separate entrance and make this. So the ways to do

1:52:52it that isn't as incredibly expensive as what some of the description that we've talked about today. So I just wanted to add that to the conversation. And I think that could be a way for us also to expedite. I want to, um, I think to the questions around, like why and what would we, you know, what would we be doing with an ADO? I was at the CU graduation on Saturday morning. And the 10, 000 students that gathered, they were conferred. And I think about our region and the opportunity for people. Like we've been talking about this even in our first session. Like people want to make these choices about where they live. And cities and towns from my perspective, um, have a lot of focus around apartment buildings. And so if we want to give people an opportunity at any age, whether they're seniors and they want to get out of their really big homes as was described earlier or their seniors who are graduating from college and want to live in something that, that is a little bit different. I do think it opens our options of housing. And that to me is in line with some of the other pieces of our, um, comprehensive plan and housing element goals. Thank you. And just to, um, comment a little bit. I think your

1:54:05direction is pretty clear about considering existing square footage, which would be a partial. As well as a whole conversion. Um, so I think we have that that we could take out for, for community feedback on, on your comment about, it doesn't need to be a separate structure. It could be a partial conversion. Thank you. Commissioner Levy. Yeah. Thanks. I just, I didn't weigh in on the, I mean, you asked me a question about existing floor area and stuff. And, and with Commissioner Stolzman's comments around agricultural, um, square footage, I did want to be a little more specific because the way you asked the question, and I just sort of flippantly said, yeah, sure. I would not want this to open the door for conversion of agricultural square footage to residential because we are very, very, very permissive on that square footage because it is supporting ag. And that's what it's there for. That's what it was approved for. I think the impacts of having an ADU that is in the main structure are very different.

1:55:16And I would be much more receptive to considering modifications to our ADO requirements for that because you're not really, you know, the impacts of that are just different. Even if it were a slight extension to the structure, uh, they're just very different. So I did want to just make that clarification. And I think the, you know, the ADU in the main residential structure is more like just saying, you know, we don't limit, you know, we've changed. We don't have a definition of family that applies anymore. So why would we say you can't rent space in your home? You know, that's not an STR type situation. Now, you know, we require a separate kitchen and separate this and separate that and firewalls and all these things that again, for me, you know, the whole, the reason I brought up landscape plans and lighting plans and drainage plans and all of these things isn't because I don't think they're worthwhile and that we shouldn't have them. It's just for practical purposes, it makes this, it doesn't make this an easy off - the - shelf thing for a person to do. So for me, it was just, you know, we have to recognize that we have a whole land use code regimen. That may make this unaffordable for people to do. And so I think it's just

1:56:51a question of, you know, how much of that do we need for these kinds of things? And we may decide we need all of it. So it's, you know, that's the reason I put that on the table. Commissioner Levy, I want to probe you a little bit on that with hopefully all three commissioners chiming in, which is, are you open to staff taking out, um, to the community for feedback? Some options that would be, um, I'm going to say within a structure. So I heard, um, landscaping and sprinklers are off the table for this conversation. But what about something like a firewall requiring a full kitchen? Are there things that you would be open to hearing Community Feedback on? Um, within the context of what would be, uh, required to call an ADU. Are you talking about one that is in the existing structure. Yeah.

1:57:47With firewall, yes. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, yes, I would be. But on the square footage, I think weigh in on that since I haven't yet. And you have two in support of 850 square feet max. Um, you know, for me this, then I, you know, I think we have to at least consider whether we want to have a floor area ratio or a total, maybe not an FAR, but some kind of a lot coverage. I don't know. I just wonder, I don't really know like the inventory of lots that this would apply to and how what it does to impervious surface and what it does to, you know, this just perception of open areas. So, you know, these are just the things that are coming up for me where, you know, the questions and the factors that are in the memo don't really cover the full spectrum of the things that we have to consider.

1:58:52I do want to see one thing that's a little bit out of order here, but on the subject of our existing ADU requirements and things that maybe I believe don't necessarily serve us. You know, and if we don't go forward with a full rewrite, like the requirement that the door, the entry door, not be visible from a public road. I feel like that leads to some sort of contorted design here. And I don't, I think, you know, not having the front door visible really doesn't change the impact of the ADU itself that much. So I'd be willing to consider getting rid of that requirement. We had one not too long ago where because the ADU could not, it was above a garage in the ADO could not have access to the other interior space because that might actually enlarge the square footage of the interior space. And so then they had to have an external stairway. But then had ADU issues. And so, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I thought, you know, that I understand the reason for it. It makes sense.

2:00:07But some of these things just push very, um, you know, very, very sort of contorted design issues. And so even with our existing ADU policies, I think there's some room for improvement. Commissioner Stoltzman. Would you care to weigh in on this? Yeah, I support looking at, um, things around if it's a, uh, within, like you were describing with the firewall. Yes. I support looking at those types of things I can't enumerate what they all would be here today. I think it will be natural when it comes back that the 850 is a great starting point. Just as like a ballpark thing to think about. But we have different, uh, residential florary as on different lot sizes. And like there are different implications of these things. And then there's a difference of the effect of using the overall max versus adding an additional 850. So I think we need some additional information to really be able to suss out the exact answer to the question on that. Thank you. And Commissioner Lochamin, would you like to weigh in on this concept of just changing, you know, at least getting some feedback from Community members on the requirements that we have for you to use. I'm not sure that. If planning stuff feels like they need. Public comment around the specifics of what to me, I like

2:01:44the process. I'm like, what do you think about lighting. But I feel like we have a land use code that kind of dictates that. And so it feels a little bit like we're asking questions. And yeah, we can't really, I don't, we're not, I don't, unless we really are going to change the land use code if everybody said, you know, we want no lighting requirements on our, as an example on our, um, our ADUs. We have those in the pretty clear and like your primary structure. So I just, I would just, I would just want to say, if it's not something we're going to use and we're not going to consider it, then let's not ask the public because it feels false. And there are, you know, what is it that we really need to know. What is the input that we are really looking for? And I think that's kind of what you're trying to hear from now. Um. I think the process is that really need a different, like different types of community engagement. And then there are others that if we'll get a, we're not going to use that input. I think Dale, you're going to say something. Go ahead. Yeah. Dale Case with Commune Planning and Permitting. Uh, I think that's a great point. And I think part of this is

2:02:56our building code as well when we're looking at the requirements. So, um, you know, I think the things that we can look at and hear through this process, um, with our existing requirements and see, are there things that we could simply change as part of this piece? But there are bigger issues that I think as Commissioner Stolzman stated that are going to take a lot different community engagement pieces. They have wider ramifications and putting them into this piece of it probably is not where we want to go. If we want to get this done. Thank you. Commissioner Levy. Well, just, you know, I happen to mention the firewall just, you know, it wasn't like that's been on my mind as the most important. It was just one of many things that could, it'll come up if, you know, we, we, we, we shouldn't be thinking that with our existing regulations, if you just put an ADU and an existing structure, then that makes it much more affordable to do. And it's just a simple thing.

2:03:58Because if we're having two residential structures, I think our building code says a firewall. And so, um, and I, and I'm not here to say that that's not a, uh, a reasonable requirement. So I just didn't want any of this to be taken as, as like, I think we should get, do away with that. Um, I, I, we haven't talked about and maybe, maybe it's because it's already assumed the residential floor area that's allowable. Commissioner Stolzman alluded to this. So I assume we're talking about whatever this is would be part of whatever that allowable residential floor area is it wouldn't be in addition to. I'm looking to planning. One of you can answer that. I think that's a, the Kim Sanchez deputy director Community Planning Permiting. I think that's a question that we would love to hear your input on of whether you think an accessory dwelling unit should factor into the maximum residential floor area that's allowable on a parcel or whether you conceive of this as something different, you know, bonus square footage.

2:05:09So just because I put it on the table, maybe I could. We'll start with you. Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um. You know, we spent a lot of time and we didn't make everybody happy. In fact, we made a lot of people very unhappy with the residential floor area, amendments that we did. And I think if the ADUs should be included in that because then just because I think it pretty, I mean, if there's a rationale for having that, uh, that I think this ought to all count towards it, period, I guess. Thank you, Commissioner Levy. And maybe I'll turn to Commissioner Stolzman just doing on that. Thank you. And Commissioner Loechamine. That's where I'm leaning as well. Okay. Thank you. That was helpful clarification. Now I want to turn to the Commissioner's first.

2:06:07Are there any other topics related to ADUs or questions from the memo that you have not yet had the opportunity to get on the table. Mine aren't necessarily new. I was just curious, Jenna, about there was two items. I just didn't know if we closed out from three people's opinions. And so if you have, so I'll just ask you the topic. And if you already have clarification, then I don't need to talk about it or hear about it. One of them was just in regards to potential information around the designated ADU friendly. Oh, thank you for bringing that back around. Um, I am not sure Planning Staff if we have looked specifically into that. Well, I had just, I had just asked about it. And then I, I heard, causer Salzman saying, I had the, I received the not interested. And so I just didn't, I didn't know if everybody talked to it. It just was a note I had in here. Thank you. Commissioner Lee, would you like to chime in on. What's the question I always looked trying to find a map? Yeah.

2:07:05And maybe I'll just clarify what I was curious and just understanding like what other counties have done with their, for counties who did opt into the states ADU friendly designation just to understand. I'm not interested in like, does the state think it's successful? I was more interested in like what's been uptake from attached to detach. Is there any learnings that we could find out from those counties? Yeah. No, got it. And I, and thank you. Um, no, I don't for me that wouldn't be helpful. Okay. So I just don't want staff to be doing work if it's not something that everyone's interested. Thank you for that clarification. That was one. And then there was other, um, just one of the pieces I had asked about was expedited options, not necessarily justice staff administration. That could be one. But I wasn't sure if there was other support in that, um, for me, the timing of the process actually is part of the app, you know, if we make it a very clear and simple, the timing could be a result. But I also, from hearing from folks who are ABLAK hands, the amount of time that they go through process as they've shared does create a cost in different ways and different levels. So it's just curious. But I, again, I don't know if we ever

2:08:16have got a chance to chime in. Thank you for asking. I heard, um, interest from all three commissioners in exploring what that could look like, but not a specific, yeah, we're ready to say yes to an expedited process today. But I think there's interest from all three commissioners and potentially what that could look like within some parameters. Thank you. Just, I don't think I ever said expedited. I would be receptive to an administrative process. And I think that's part of, you know, if we can button this down tight enough, that, you know, that we've got all that we've thought of all the criteria and all of that. And I think an administrative process, I wouldn't say that we should expedite this particular kind of process over any other kind of process. So the way that I captured it was consider expedited slash administrative process, uh, for existing square footage, including historic reuse of landmark structures with a caution to not encourage development of big new ag structures because of, of the way that our regulations are, um, written. It doesn't have the same requirements as residential. So that's the way I captured it in my notes was a slash expedited slash administrative realizing that that would be open to some design. And I'll just say I, when I replied on the topic of expedit, I

2:09:52just used the word very differently than how you're using it. So when I heard how Jana summarized it and what I felt like I was reading into what your intentions were behind it, I can support what you said. I just would not use the word X, but I did. And that was my two minute speech on deliberate things or deliberate. And things should take the appropriate amount of time. And I won't reiterate the previous speech. Thank you. Other topics. I had on this one. So just something that was coming up for me and I might have been reading incorrectly between the lines, but I just sort of wanted to say something out loud and then see if that was everyone's understanding. So I feel like what we're doing is rewriting our code around accessory dwelling units or considering rewriting it. And it'll come forward for consideration with public input and all of those processes for the board to look at. So my understanding would be that whatever changes we make would replace the existing. And then whatever is there today that doesn't conform would just be, um, there as a nonconforming use in the future, there were just a couple comments that made me feel like I needed to say that out loud. Like we weren't keeping all the existing code and then adding to

2:10:58it. We're like, we're replacing code. That is my understanding. Hannah Hipply CPP. I do think, um, given what we've heard today about a desire to move away from the consideration of who lives in these structures, um, amending what we have is going to be challenging. I do think taking an approach to kind of start fresh. So rather than continuing to add things to our list, strike what we have and start over. The other thing I'm hearing from you that I just wanted to follow up on is that we tailor the review process to the potential impacts of development. Um, so we might have an administrative process for conversion of existing residential floor area. We might have a slightly more deliberative process if someone's building a new detached unit. You know, so I think we're going to have, um, a variety of approaches. Thank you for that explanation. And just like the piece that I was maybe sensing is like we wouldn't have these multiple pathways.

2:12:09There'd be an ADU process, not like the old process and the new process still available. Kim Sanchez, I think that we can work towards that. The other thing I would add to your comment about some uses becoming nonconforming is I did hear something slightly different earlier in the discussion. And I don't know if there's agreement around this. But, um, I believe it was you, Commissioner Stolzman, who said like an agricultural accessory dwelling unit would just become an accessory dwelling unit. Um, which is a little different than becoming a nonconforming. So in some cases, I think that it would become what I said. But in other cases, like if it doesn't have water and sewer, then it's a nonconforming. It would not be allowed in that area. Or if the one that's in, I don't know where they all are today, but like, if the one in the mountains, we said it's only in the plains.

2:13:02So, and I don't know what will ultimately adopt. We might not adopt any of these ideas that we said today. Like, you know, these are just ideas to build something around to get public feedback on and understand. But it seems like there may be some that are drawn out based on what we said today. Okay. That's helpful to understand your thoughts more. Thank you. All right. Commissioners, anything else on ADUs. Right. Let's take a couple minute break and then we'll probably have 35 minutes or so for you to talk about, um, AG. Okay. It is 11 19. We will be back at 1125 in Commissioner Stolzman. How many seconds? 38. Okay. We are. And we are recording. Okay, we are back on the record, Jenna. Thank you, Commissioner Janet Peterson Boulder County Administrator. We're moving into our third housing related topic for today.

2:14:10We do have a hard stop at noon, so we will take this conversation as far as we can get through it today, session if you don't conclude your discussion. So just to be really clear from staff's perspective, the Ag worker housing topic is distinct from ADUs and would be a separate project and a separate process. Hopefully that was clear for you in the memo. And I'm gonna turn things over now to Sabrina Torres for a brief presentation. Thank you, Jenna. Good, almost afternoon commissioners. So today we'll be going over the agricultural worker housing discussion, which is actually docket number DC - 26001 for the record. And I'm Sabrina Torres, the Sustainable Agriculture Community Outreach Planner for the Community Planning and Permitting Department, and I also have Jack Sheehan Long Range Planner with me as well today. So as background, basically Ag Producers for years now have expressed hiring and retention challenges due to a lack of adequate housing options, and they're trying to solve this on their own, but they're running into some barriers when it comes to permitting and cost because our current code allowances, don't represent a range of housing type needs for the range of agricord types we have in the county.

2:15:38And so the Community Planning and Permitting Department can appropriately explore policy lovers to enable more supportive, ag specific housing types, because we do focus on unincorporated areas, which is where our farms are essential infrastructure and our workforce resides and depends on. We also have comprehensive plan goals that specifically provide guidance for us on some of the concepts we've been discussing with you for a while now. And so this was authorized to do so, hence the docket on March 3rd, and that was to explore how the LandUs Code can better support a wider range of safe practical and appropriately scaled housing opportunities for the local workforce. So we're here today to follow up on your conditions to discuss those concepts more, as well as our outreach and our timeline. Thank you. So kind of high level, one of those major policy levers is adjusting uses in the existing zoning districts. Some of those concepts do include temporary housing for seasonal workers, revising accessory and principal ag worker housing allowances to meet that broader range of AC Housing needs. We talked about through those permanent on - farm housing solutions. Another major policy lover may be to evaluate more substantial lanius code changes. So these are housing concepts. We could essentially enable through a new zone or a different type of review that could enable larger -

2:17:14scale ag housing uses, such as a fleet of mobile units where appropriate in the county or clustered small - scale housing. We've been talking about a lot this morning. Like these kind of communities, I like to give the example of the veterans project in Longmont. And we'll stay on this slide. But staff recommends focusing on the near - term solutions at this time, which is adjusting the uses in the existing zoning districts. We estimate that this would take about six to 10 months, because that would allow us to discuss across departments, around feasibility of these various concepts, take refined concepts to ground truth them further with ag producers, and then carry out our community outreach processes and strategies, and then get to that code drafting. And from there, we could further explore the more substantial land use code changes that would need additional land use code evaluation and outreach for new zones or whatever may come from. A lot of the feedback we receive through the outreach process. So we'll go to our next slide.

2:18:22So our feedback request is actually on whether in discussion is whether this phased approach aligns with your expectations for advancing the Ag Worker housing land use code amendment. And if there's any concepts, you'd like to discuss, or that just exists within our current exploration scope, and the packets we've provided, that you'd like to see refined at this time. Thank you. And with that introduction, I think Commissioner Levy, I'll give you the opportunity to start first on this one since you passed on the last topic. Would you like to start? Thank you. I appreciate that. Sabrina, thank you for your work. Actually, everybody, thank you for your work on this. I think it's really important that for us to try to make some progress as part of making helping farms be viable in Boulder County. So I'm gonna just speak, I guess, to the memo that you prepared for DC - 26 - 001. You know, it's just some of the concepts in that. I think you did a great job of laying out, actually maybe the samples, the typologies document of the range of options.

2:19:54And I don't, at this point, I don't want to narrow things down too much. Cause I think what you've identified is there are different needs. There are ag properties where the, you know, the owner or the tenant who's farming it has housing, but they need seasonal housing. And then there are some where they need year - round housing. And then we have the issue of prospective farmers that can't afford housing. And, you know, those are three different needs, and I don't know that we're gonna solve those three different things with one single approach. The issue of prospective farmers. Who are gonna lease land that doesn't have a residential structure on it already, and they need an affordable place in Boulder County to live. In my mind, that is just another kind of person that wants to live in Boulder County and has a hard time finding housing they can afford. So, you know, that's just part of, we need housing that is affordable to people in Boulder County. And I don't see that as a specific thing necessarily that we can solve. Here. But what I struggle with, and I will actually narrow my comments a little bit when we're here in a sec, but what I struggle with is, you know, we have Boulder County owned land, that we own in fee, and we

2:21:22lease. Some of it has residential structures, some of it doesn't. And then we have conservation easement land where we don't own the fee, so we have a lot less latitude of what we could do there. And then we have just totally private stuff. And so I think there's a, you know, there are lots of different configurations. I think what I just, this wasn't, I don't believe part of the memo, but on that issue of prospective farmers that need a place to live, I don't, you know, be interested in understanding whether for those properties that Border County owns in fee that don't have residential structures. Could we allow a low cost modular home on that? I don't think the reason we wouldn't, right? If it's a parcel, a legal building lot. So that maybe that's not a discussion for today. We'll just put it aside, because that'll consume a lot of time. But, um, but I'm interested in kind of in all of the above. You know, we have the AgOrker ADU. It's got a more liberal square footage, I think 1800 square foot. So one of the things we hear is, um, I mean, we'll have that liberal square footage because we want a family to be able to live there and have it be a permanent home where they can have a family and,

2:22:57you know, live, but could we allow multiple families or multiple farm workers? I think we can, because we don't limit occupancy anymore. So that could partially address some situations where the need for housing for more people than is currently allowed on a parcel. But I would be interested in various options, whether it's permanent structures or not, that would. Some of it might create something that would be more dormitory like. Some of it, you know, like I said, I'm all of the above. If individual farmers believe that, like an RV, um, seasonal for what would work for their seasonal workers, then I would want us to look at, you know, what are our human habitation water and sand, kinds of, um, things that, how do we address those? Because right now you can't live in an RV. Uh, and then maybe there are good reasons for that. But maybe those are solvable reasons. So there's a lot here and I'm happy, Jana, if you want to direct me to some specific questions you'd like me to answer. I'm happy to follow your lead on that. But I would just say in general, um, I want us, you know, I want us to meet the needs of the farmers and they are just, many in their diverse.

2:24:38So I think you have answered the second question that staff was really interested in, which was, is there anything that you want to refine or remove from the approach? And it sounds like you want to be more expansive and look at all sorts of options. The other question was really about the phasing, um, taking a phase one and then a broader look at zoning as a phase two and just wondered if you could chime in on that specifically. And again, phase one would be what. That would be adjusting, um, current allowances, zone, sorry, let me speak to the excitement. I wonder if we could pop this slide back up. Yeah. Cause I wasn't sure from that. It'd be adjusting uses in the existing zoning districts. So we work with the housing allowances within our current agricultural and rural residential, um, parameters versus creating a new zoning district that might be able to configure, you know, larger scale housing options. No, thanks. Thanks for that. And I, um, I guess the reason I wanted a little more direction on that is the, I thought it was something perhaps more specific. Like a known discrete amendment. I think, um, I would, I would want us to try to work within existing zone districts and see whether we can tweak uses in those. Um, I think, you know,

2:26:07I hope, I think we can get maybe most of the way to what we're trying to do within what we already have rather than create something new. And I think, you know, we have so many things on our plate. That the only thing that worries me a little bit about a phased approach is we get part of it done. And then we get distracted and the disaster and we need to do something else. And then we never get back to it. But hopefully we can get most of this done within existing uses. All right. Commissioner Saltzman. Would you like to go next? Sure. Just on the question of start with adjust uses and existing zoning. I think that makes sense to start there for the scope that we're looking at. The piece that's a missing for me, like to really be able to wrap my head around the decision making stems from the fact that, uh, agriculture is one of the most socialized programs in our countries and for good reason. I support that. And so we have created, it is absolutely not driven by the market or capital or all of the things that the other things in our area are driven by. And I don't have a good enough grasp despite serving on the agricultural committee and working on the farm bill and

2:27:36all of these things. I just really don't have a grasp of the business case that local farms are utilizing when they're layering the federal subsidies on top of our local market. And so I saw the different types that you have outlined in your memo to us with like you have the visa workers and you have, uh, new farmers and, you know, you went through the different types. And each of those types has likely a different business case where they're getting federal subsidies. And in some cases state subsidies. And that is creating the condition that is driving the need for additional housing subsidy. So like with the visa workers, there are federal programs with requirements that unlocks money for farmers that they are then supposed to be able to use to support their farm. And it's not sufficient. And then they don't have access to what they need to do all of the components that they've agreed to with the grant that they've received, which is very different than, uh, local organic firmer that's accessing different grants. So what's missing for me is, is, are we creating an incentive that's incentivizing a bad federal behavior or a good federal behavior? Like is the incentive we're layering on top of this supporting something we ultimately support? Or is it incentivizing and supplementing something we ultimately don't support

2:28:58because there's been many changes in this farm bill. And some of them are great. And some of them are horrible. And so it's, it's a mixed. And I think we should try to align our additional supports that we would put in because I look at these modifications to the housing requirements as subsidies additional subsidies to the farmers. And that is how I view it. And so are we incentivizing and subsidizing something that the community broadly supports or not. So some of the areas that I think we would want to support would be reduction of pesticide use, um, fair wages. That would be, you know, a living wages for people working on farms, positive working conditions for people working on farms, uh, positive food access for the community. Like those would be things I would think we would want to use local money to help further subsidize with the farms. Some of the things particularly with the visa worker programs and the changes that have been made. I'm not sure we would want to subsidize some of the things further. I would think we would want to go in a different direction. So there's a missing piece for me about, uh, better understanding of the federal programs that we are supporting with our actions in this housing space. And if everybody can't answer that, I do

2:30:16have access to these people that are answering my questions that like national association of counties, um, has people that just specialize on this. So it's not like we have to become experts in it. And the other thing I was thinking is I could reach out a couple of farmers have shared their business cases with me before. So I could ask just for their exact data to see just to understand it better. If it's too big of a lift, but I just think taking it back to that level to understand, are we creating a subsidy for something that ultimately we support the why behind or not? And that is important in my opinion. I think at the end of the day, it's like, no, we need houses for these people to work on farms or for those people to work harms or whatever it may be.

2:30:57And I get that aspect of it, but we might be extracting time and energy from people in a really harmful way to work on farms. Or we could be supporting people who want to work on farms and getting access to the job in the economy that they want to pursue. So I just think it's important. I think the ends don't justify the means for me. And so I could end up voting against this if it doesn't have the appropriate, um, measures to ensure that it supports policies that we support. Thank you for just sharing what's coming up for you because that was really helpful to hear. I wonder if that relates at all to sort of this phased approach and existing uses. If you could just sort of comment on that. I started out because I thought you guys wouldn't want to hear my whole speech by saying I support starting with the adjusting existing uses in Zoning and not approach. Yeah. And, and I guess my question is, do you want to see this type of analysis incorporated in that or are you comfortable with existing uses without this type of analysis? I'm asking.

2:32:02So whether or not the staff does this analysis, I will try to eke out what I can to answer these questions for myself to be able to answer it once I see the things come back. On the existing, uh, adjusting uses and existing zoning. Because you could imagine if you have, um, like a modular truck dorm that it could fit into this adjusts and existing zoning and it could either foster positive opportunities for people seeking employment to better their family in life or it could also be extractive and harmful and create a condition where people are working below market and that they could be doing almost anything else and making more money and be better for the environment and not spilling pesticides onto everything. And so I think you could have the same end and have to possible. Outcomes based on the exact same land use thing. And so I think I'll just need to understand that one way or the other. Thank you. That was helpful. Commissioner Loechamin. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks, Siberna. Thanks Jack for being here. Um, I just trying to focus on the questions here and looking at the slide too.

2:33:17I'm also in favor of doing that kind of the temporary. Here's what I think. Here's what I've heard in some of the meetings and we've been in symbioties together. Um, I believe our community wants to see like something happened. And here's the change in all areas of all the work that Boulder County does. So I do think that adjusting the uses existing zoning makes sense. Um, I feel like it would be helpful for us to be able to address the issue of framework housing. Um, there's all the different issues and the different housing. But my belief in Boulder County values what I understand is that agriculture and local food production is part of the work that the county does. And I also believe that that's really what residents are wanting and they're wanting to be able to support that type of, um, local production. Um, and so to do that, I do think the opportunity for the county to be a partner in figuring out what are those options? I think just looking at a couple of the pieces on there, one of the questions would be to understand what temporary means, um, just from having spoken to a couple of the Boulder County farmers who a couple of years ago were trying to figure out where, what options when we were working on CASA,

2:34:40you know, in the last five years. Um, and so my understanding is there's a nine month piece versus the 12 month piece. And depending on the visa and the requirements and all those things, so just to maybe that might be something that you could talk with folks about to understand, um, a little bit better to give us back some pieces on like what would we need to do to do that. Um. So I mean, I think, I don't know if there was another, oh, in regards to the facing, I think it answered that one already. That makes sense to me. Um, and then the second on removing or refining. I feel like we need to consider what have we not done in Boulder County to support agriculture. And I think it's in a lot of different areas, but this is just the one that we're talking about right now. And so I, whether it's considered a subsidy or it's considered support or it's considered mechanisms or all the different language that we use, I am very interested in the exploration of, of more versus a really narrow scope at this time. Is that going to get all the questions? Yeah. Thank you. Um, those were staff questions. And I wondered if you could, um, just reflect on the topic that Commissioner Stoltzman brought up about

2:36:02incentivizing connection, um, to farm bill and specifically, um, uh. Farm workers on visa status, if that's something that you wanted to weigh in on. I wasn't really clear on what Commissioner Salzman, like I heard the words, but I wasn't sure what you were trying to say. It felt like you were not wanting to say something specific versus when you were talking about, we could be, um, supporting our incentivizing or making a path for a firm that could really support the economy and some other things they said versus extracting from somebody. So I would need to understand a little bit more what you were trying to say specifically for me to give some input. Would you like to address that? Sure. I mean, I think the point, like just very broadly is that farms are very heavily subsidized very, very heavily subsidized. And so this is an additional subsidy. And so we need to understand what our additional give is contributing toward. And, you know, some of the specific areas I heard you talk about supporting, um, folks making a living wage and some of those other pieces. I don't know if there's anything else you wanted to add there. Yeah. I mean, so each different program that people access funding for from the federal government side is tied to something. So if you're using funding

2:37:31for visa workers, you have to agree to certain things and do and comply with the grant that you receive. And some of them are around pesticide use. Some of them are around working conditions. So I just, from my perspective, if we wanted to understand what type of food production we support and then build the program around that, it would be better than just saying we'll support everything because everything isn't equal from my perspective. So like pesticide use wages work in conditions food access were some that I came up with, um, water use is one that comes to mind, which I didn't mention before. But certain commodity crops take an incredible amount of water. Um, other crops take less, certain organic veggies take more water than other. So I think understanding what we're trying, you know, what, what are we trying to incentivize with farms? There are people in our community that support refielding. There are people that support habitat protection. Like the market does not support farming in our community. And so we subsidize it.

2:38:35And so then the question is, what are we subsidize again? Why. Thanks. I mean, if the question is just, could we look at the, could staff bring back an exploration on how our change of policy in either phase one or phase two would align or not align with federal? I'm not opposed to that. And I just feel like the federal government is so like variable, but I don't, it feel like the changes that could happen during this process as well, but just if the ask is just to kind of understand what that alignment, I'm still going to, until we have that market built up, which is a different question and meaning the actual market to, in our region, that would help farmers be successful without having to do additional, uh, odd job activities, et cetera, to try and be financial access until that happens. Um, I do believe that we have the opportunity to subsidize.

2:39:35That doesn't concern me just because of what the agricultural need is. Thank you. Thanks. Commissioner Levy. I just want to circle back around with you on that specific topic of alignment of these supports. Or under, let me, let me put it this way. Of staff bringing you information that would help commissioners understand how, um, the supports in Ag worker housing might align with or not align with the farm bill in what's in federal. Subsidy. Yeah. Thank you. I don't feel that my decision would on how we go forward with this would really be influenced by its, you know, how it coincides with or supports or doesn't support the farm bill. I mean, I think, um, you know, there are, there are lots of different kinds of farmers and Boulder County and some may or may not be supported by federal programs. And the fact remains that we have a housing issue. And it's, and it makes it hard for farmers to farm. Um, this is just, you know, whether, whether they are subsidized by federal crop insurance programs or I don't even know what else.

2:40:58So I don't, I don't really want to open that whole policy issue of, of how society subsidizes farmers, um, I think we have an issue around housing, whether or not we agree philosophically with the extent of substantization. And so I, I think that that takes us kind of down a rabbit hole. For me, I don't need to go down. Thank you. And Hannah, I think you had a followed question. I do have a follow - up question. Thank you. I'm trying to figure out how to frame this. But as we make changes to the land use code. We want to align them with desirable policy outcomes is what I'm hearing from Commissioner Stolzman. Which may look like our desired policy outcome is to support local food production. Food for humans. I'm to be more specific, right? If that is our goal, we then might design policy that. Um, is more permissive for farmers growing food.

2:42:19That is sort of what I think I'm hearing from all three commissioners. I just want to check in. Hannah. I think you did a great job. I agree. Well, growing food as opposed to fiber, to food for animals, the distinction. We might prioritize. Yes. Exactly. Over say, um, you know, I think we still have farmers growing commodity sugar beets. Those types of farms. Okay. For me, I would not make that distinction. Because, um, we have all this agricultural and in Boulder County that I think we have said, maybe we don't have full agreement on, but I think we have said that it is, we prefer to keep it in agricultural production. Then have it Lievallow and potentially become weed invested or subject to erosion or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so I'm not going to create a value hierarchy based on whether they are growing food for people or food for animals. Commodity crops.

2:43:35Not good, you know, so for me, that's not a hierarchy of value hierarchy. For. Thank you. Other commissioners. You captured what I was saying. And I, that was AM example. It was like it could be food for people, but it could be a different value set that you put in that place to, but you captured my thought. Yeah. I just want to clarify that like where you were going. And that I don't have a decision, um, so I think coming up with some other parameter site that or bigger goals, um, and I'm not without having more information from folks I'm not making a decision about what type of food or for who the food might be. Thank you. Commissioner Levy. Yeah. Just I know I'm watching the clock here very carefully because I have a place to go. But and I know other people have things too. Um, you know, I think Commissioner Stolzman brought up a lot of issues around, you know, if we're going to do this, maybe we can use it. I think I was interpreting, you know, as a policy level lever for other things like, Oh, less water intensive or, you know, just other things that you could say. But I don't want to open that, that door because, um, these depending on what we do and what kind of

2:44:54structure it is. If it's a permanent, you know, this farming practices may change compensation practices may change all of these things may, you know, may come and go. And, and so I think, I think for me, the focus is let's have more ag worker housing. And let's not try to get too much into the business of how the farmers are farming. All right. Other comments, commissioners, as we wrap this up, um, a couple minutes left. If there was anything else that you want to get on the table for Ag worker housing specifically. I don't think, I guess my question is just what was presented in the packet with a different types of housing and things like that. Right now we're all open. And that's what you're going to be working on. I'm like, that's what you're going to be working on in regards to just getting feedback in that timeline that you shared. Is that correct? Correct, Sabrina Torres CPNP. Okay. Yes, exactly. Um, we'll explore the feasibility of those concepts continue, um, expanding through collaboration with subject matter experts, um, different County Departments. And so once we're able to refine those, we'll ground you with those with the farmers, how practical they are. And then we would present those options to the community constituents on just getting a feel for like expectations. This is

2:46:24what we're moving forward with getting a better understanding of our process as well. And so that would all fit within the six to 10 month timeline. Thank you. Anything else commissioners. Just great info. So if there was a lot of great info in the packet. Well, thank you for your time today. We are not going to have time to get into our fourth topic. So we'll bring that back at a future work session. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I believe we are adjourned for the day. So, um, that's on the record. We're returned. Thank you.