June 21, 2016 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:06] I would like to call to order the June 20 June 21st 2016 meeting of the Boulder City Council so Lynette would you please take rooll council member Apple bound here Brocket here Burton here Jones orelle Shoemaker here Weaver here Yates young here we have a quorum all right next on our agenda is um to read the changes to our agenda so we will be adding a motion to amend the June um we need a motion to amend the June 21st 2016 council meeting agenda by adding item 1A declaration for general aviation appreciation month so do have a motion second second mov by

[1:01] Brockett and seconded by burton all right so uh next on the agenda is we should vote oh vote yeah exactly show hands show hands you guys voting on this I don't know I see how late we're going can can you repeat it again Sor motion to um amend the agenda by adding um Aviation declaration motion passes unanimously all right so Lynette please our first item is a declaration regarding general aviation appreciation month that will be presented by council member Burton Tim here whoever doesn't know Tim head who is our um airport man manager come on

[2:02] up uh I don't know how many of you know but he um and the team held a really great uh Aviation day um on Saturday and it even went into the evening with a ball right so it's quite appropriate that we are acknowledging general aviation appreciation month um which is happening all month uh for the state of Colorado as well as Boulder I'm not going to read this whole thing but bould has a significant interest in uh the Vitality of general aviation and that includes um Aviation educational institutions organizations Community airports all kinds of things um and Tim manages all of this for us with um a great impact to the local economy and to the local jobs etc etc so we would like to present this to you thank you and great appreciation of what you do and

[3:01] your team and and on behalf of the airport and all the users of the airport and all the visitors of the airport I gladly accept thank you see you thank you Jan and congratulations Tim next on our agenda is open comment Lynette are we we have we have 15 people signed up all right she have a list all right so this is the part of our meeting where we hear from the public on those items that are not on their public hearing agenda and we will get three minutes two minutes two minutes two minutes always regardless of how many people are signed up 15 take it there's only 15 so they should get 3 minutes each if it's 15 R the rule is 15

[4:00] is the cut off 15 is the cut off yeah so if there's 15 or more it's 2 minutes 15 or more yeah I think that's the way the rules face I think that's what the rules says okay well then it's two minutes sorry about that the first on the list is Kristen and Daly followed by Darren o' Conor who looks like is pooling time with a couple other folks so um you can raise your hand when Darren comes up here and Paula Stephanie which is also pooling time with a couple other folks Kristen please hi um my name is Kristen daily and uh I live here in Boulder at 435 Marine Street um and I am a master's of Public Health student and a mom of two children uh one in public elementary and

[5:01] one in preschool um and I'm here um as a member of the healthy Boulder kids Coalition um to talk about uh a measure uh for Health Equity that we are currently collecting signatures for to get on the ballot for this fall um that would involve uh tax on sugary drinks um and the reason that I became a member of this Coalition um is because not all children in Boulder have equal access to food and activity to support their health um Boulder thinks of itself as a very healthy place and it is but this health isn't evenly distributed and it's not um it's not easy to access for people with low income um and you can see this in the schools I mean sometimes it's not obvious in Boulder but we do have a lot of um disparities in income and disparities in health and this measure is something

[6:00] that I believe will help um create more access um to some programs that already exist I do some work at Boulder County Public Health and I see these programs and they op operate on a shoestring and they do great work but they don't have the reach to get everyone that needs it um so that's why I think this measure is so important and we'll be back in July um to talk about it some more when we collect the signatures um and I also wanted to invite you all to an event tomorrow um at noon in the L Iron's room at the public library and um Anna Lee uh who's one of the principal founders of small planet Institute and the author of diet for a hot planet and she's coming um for a brown bag lunch talk to talk about uh this movement in uh Berkeley that she was a part of and so I'd like to invite you all to that thank you Kristen next up is Darren o Conor pooling with Dory Glover and so we came here I Michael Fitzgerald thank you Darren please and then um Paula

[7:01] Stephanie and then an hawm hi council members I have a video interview to show to find help a shelter here I was thinking Boulder was bigger than M we should be able to find some help a shelter or something how old were your kids 9 and 10 I think and walked over here to the park and I I asked random people I said you know I don't know what I'm going to do I have these girls and I'm homeless is there a homeless shelter somewhere we can go for assistance and I was pretty much told good luck so I called the police and and I said I'm here at Boulder Park and I'm homeless with my two girls and I don't know what to do and they said well there's no shelters that can help you we ended up in Ned there was a fight at the campsite next to us and the police came

[8:01] and instantly we told them what was going on and that we were homeless and we didn't know what to do and it had been almost a week now and they had a CPS worker come in and when she came in she said we you know we can probably maybe get you a room for a few nights and I said well here's the deal well in a few nights we have nowhere to go this is a serious situation and I need to admit you know I have a drinking problem I'm an alcoholic and they said well then we're we're going to take your kids and um then right then and there yeah I went back to the C Campsite in Netherland and I couldn't breathe couldn't breathe my life was gone so I packed up and left the tent and I just packed up what I had and I came here and back to Boulder and I was stuck in this park for 5 and 1/2 months through the winter in the snow it was better to be out here most nights than to be in the warming Center crammed in with so many people and The

[9:01] psychosis that comes with being homeless and everybody's crazy and eventually I was crazy too and it seemed like an endless feat to even be able to walk to the Justice Center was like the castle at the top of the mountain that we couldn't even get that far to just to make it to court times over the 5 and a half months that I was out here I took myself to detox and I begged them and I Begg them I Begg them for help please I called CPS I called I walked out to to DH us numerous times down to be turned away all the time they wouldn't help me they absolutely wouldn't help me I got in the bus in Denver and I got to California and all I had to do in stay to California was file for food stamps be considered Indigent and go into the the rehab place there and show that I really I wanted help I was in a I was in a bed within 24 hours they they were going to they try to take all my rights for abandoning my kids for leaving the state but I had no

[10:00] choice I had to get sober they told me my kids were better off without me 30 days of rehab in in Atwater California and I I graduated then and I told my daughter I'm going to go I'm going to go get your sister's back and I'm going to get you to Colorado when her family's going to be back together I was paying $750 a month cost for my kids to be in foster care yet I was homeless and in this review I said I don't think it's fair that these Foster families just said we love Boulder County Boulder County gives us everything we need and I'm looking at you homeless and it didn't make any sense and jod said she stood up and she said you don't care about these children you'll never care about these children and the lady said that's it I'm calling this review closed the next day Jody contacted me and all of a sudden had the paperwork for me to get into an apartment then my family is back together now but unfortunately the doors that should have been open we're not open and they're not open for

[11:02] these people that are laying out here right now emaciated thank you Dar thanks for watching next up is Paul Stefani just a quick note as I call your name if you could be standing in the wings and be ready to come up so paulist Stan who is pooling with cars pus Mueller and by Nagel would you please raise your hands thank you and then after Paula is Anne hawm and then Rob smoke hello my name is Paula Stefani my address is 46971 14th Street in Boulder I am here with a group of Boulder residents today to voice Our concern about the fate of the prairie dogs on the Armory property at leh Hill and Broadway we are aware that the Armory project developer has submitted an application to the city for a lethal

[12:00] permit and that these prairie dogs will be killed if a suitable relocation site cannot be found for them within the next 3 months after looking into the situation we believe that the only viable option for finding a relocation site is for the city to revise its 2016 prairie dog relocation plans to accommodate this Armory Colony I also want to note here that the Armory developer has told us that he prefers to loate the prairie dogs and that he will pay all the relocation costs this Armory prairie dog colony is well known and an extremely resilient population it has managed to survive for decades the Des the destruction of all but an 8 acre square fenced in piece of land of its original habitat surrounded now on all sides by development we believe this colony is worth saving not only for the prairie dogs but also because Boulder has a reputation for being a leader in Humane

[13:02] Urban Wildlife Management in fact we recently learned that Boulder was chosen to be one of five cities to Pilot the Humane Society's Urban or wild neighbors program to find ways other than killing to deal with Urban Wildlife we believe that saving this Colony will go a long way in the eyes of the public to show that the city of Boulder will act on its good intentions and it good reputation and revise its priorities to accommodate these Urban prairie dogs whose lives are imminently threatened last week a few of us met with the urban Wildlife coordinator Val mat and a representative from open space and market and Mountain Parks Heather Swanson who generously gave us over an hour of their time to listen to our concerns and answer our questions after talking with them we feel there are at least two possible options for accommodating the Armory colony this year it would mean holding off on

[14:02] the relocation of one of two small colonies slated for relocation in 2016 and we would like to bring these options to the attention of the city council and I have provided you with a map and a photo of each one of these options the first is the Rolling Rock Ranch Colony just off South Broadway near South Boulder Creek our understanding from Valen Heather is that this colony is a priority for relocation because the city considers its habitat not ideal and would like to move the colony while the numbers are still small in visiting this property it does appear that the habitat it does not appear that the habitat is unmanageable or that the prairie dogs are in conflict with agriculture or other human or the human neighbors also this colony is not in danger of being imminently killed the second option is a stay decline Colony between Valmont but and the airport this is another small colony in what the

[15:01] city considers to be unsuitable habitat and again the habitat appears to be manageable The Colony does not to be appear to be in conflict with other human interests and is not in danger of being killed according to Val both of these populations are slated to be relocated to a 16 Acre Site on the city's Southern grasslands habitat Conservation area just south of Marshall Lake which Val says is the only acreage available for prie dog relocations this year we appreciate your serious consideration of our requests to hold off on relocating either the Rolling Rock or the Stray decline Colony this year so that the more threatened Armory Colony can be relocated as soon as possible thank you Paula thank you next up is Anne hawm Rob smoke and then Ellen Stark I'm Anne hwm from 2010 Upland

[16:02] Avenue and um I'm just going to read this since we don't have much time we recently applied to subdivide our land at 2010 Upland Avenue we were supposed surprised to receive the city's response that we must first build a road before we are allowed to subdivide it's a road on our Western foundary 285 F feet of a 15 foot RightWay we thought that a Greenway seep recommending an alternative option to this road which was later adopted by city council meant this road would no longer be necessary however although the recommendation was adopted the North Boulder subc commmunity plan was never amended to reflect this change we are appealing to you to correct this administrative oversight and remove this requirement from us thereby returning our 15t

[17:02] R um a little background during our lengthly six-year annexation process this proposed Road was vigorously opposed by the majority of neighbors and we were told that it was required because of the North Boulder subcommunity plan something we didn't actually learn about until we were already three years into the annexation process to skip ahead though however the city itself after conducting extensive studies and neighborhood meetings through Greenways community and environmental process advised unanimously recommended the 19th Street underpass option rather than the 20th Street access road this alternative includes quote flood improvements with a bicycle and pedestrian underpass at 19th Street and a combined emergency access and multi-use path path from 19th Street

[18:00] East to the Western Terminus of tamarak Avenue in February 2012 and February 12th 2012 Greenways attached the Four Mile Canyon Creek 19th to 22nd Street seep executive summary qu and I quote the 19th Street to tamarak Avenue alignment is recommended to provide emergency vehicle access to tamarak Avenue this alternative would consolidate the future bicycle and pedestrian access to tamarak Avenue with emergency access eliminating the proposed north south access to tamarak shown in the noo plan just east of 19th Street this alignment is the preferred alternative by public input responders selection of this alternative will require an amendment to the noo plan the current noo plan CHS a secondary Road access between Upland and

[19:01] tamarak avenues just east of 19th Street the city transportation and development review divisions agreed that a local access roadway providing full non-emergency vehicular access is not warranted based on current and projected traffic volumes generated by potential future subdivisions along tamarak by eliminating this road it would mean that three properties 4306 Upland 20110 Upland and 42701 19th Street would not be fronted by roads on three sides it would also keep Neighbors from having to carry the undo burden of building two roads the tamarak extension which we built already and um this 20th Street that's kind kind of like a road that goes to

[20:00] Nowhere um thank you an if you could did you email that to us prior to the meeting or could you please I can email that' be great yes thank you um okay great thank you an next is Rob smoke followed by Ellen Stark and then Susan Summers uh my name is Rob smoke I live in Boulder and um the uh story uh the heartbreaking story that uh we just saw on video from uh Darren o coner um a woman uh really uh going through a extremely difficult circumstances and uh I'm sure you know if I were to we were to sit down and have a discussion any of us private discussion here on Council everyone here would say well it's not really the fault of the city I mean

[21:01] maybe in some technical way there's uh concrete evidence of that and there's proof and certainly uh the City attorney would have no trouble proving or defending the city's actions in court but the reality is um it's it might we might as well be on the same planet with people who are in that kind of condition based on uh the kind of attention to policy and awareness on Council regarding these issues and it reminds me of a story I was in a Safeway last winter in January and um I talked to a woman there and a friend of mine walked in and said to this woman uh and she had a baby with her and she was homeless and uh my friend we were having a very casual friendly conversation my friend had said how much for the baby and she had a number and it was like $400 and something dollar and so you know everyone was sort of puzzle and said how' you get that number said well

[22:02] that's the amount a few hundred bucks that's the amount they offered her in the hospital to give up her baby and when she refused to do it she was not part of that particular um I think it was a religious faith-based group offering her but they had the right to come into her hospital room and offer her money for her baby so she had that figure as what a baby is worth in Boulder thank you rob I'd like to share more of this stuff with you um personally because I think the possibility for change is there but we're just than next up is Ellen Stark then Susan Summers and Thomas as asprey um so this is just finishing off what Anne hawm was talking about with the um 20th Street um we are there therefore appealing to the city to eliminate this requirement for the 20th Street Access Road change the 15t RightWay to a utility easement and amend the Boulder County subc community plan as recommended by the GAC and approved

[23:01] by city council we also wish to note that our annexation has already provided Community benefit by helping to fund Andor construct affordable housing constructing the extension of Tamar provided a utility easement between Upland and Tamar and increased Community safety by eliminating toxic seic systems that were potentially um contaminating groundwater we appreciate your consideration thank you thank you Ellen next up Susan Summers Thomas asprey and followed by Rick tazar can I go um I'm as a resident of Boulder County and a business owner in North Boulder I'm here to express my concern for the Armory prairie dogs um as you excuse me as you know the developer of this property has filed a kill permit for these animals as you've been told earlier this evening there are viable relocation sites for this Colony on City own l land I'm asking that you take immediate action to ensure these

[24:01] sites are made available for the Armory dogs the city of Boulder has a tremendous track record of doing the right thing for wildlife allowing these dogs to be killed will put a black mark on this record rules and plans can and must be changed now to allow this historic colony to continue to live and thrive in their home too which is Boulder that's all thanks thank you Ellen I mean Susan sorry Thomas asprey then Rick tazar and followed by Allison Smith Tom aspey I live in Boulder at 1441 Bluebell Avenue thank you Council for letting me speak on behalf of the municipal utility electric process the investigation a 2015 report by the seia the solar energy Industries Association details how large companies such as Walmart Target Costco and Ikea are forging ahead with large amounts of solar companies like Google and apple not only

[25:00] plan to provide Power for their own use they think bigger Apple has applied to the furk the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to sell wholesale power they are positioning themselves to innovate yes these companies do have environmental and sustainability sustainability goals to meet but they are not doing this solely for PR Apple Google and others see electric cars on the horizon and understand both the opportunity and the old Vision necessary to make this shift MGM is not buying this buying its way out of Nevada's power utility system for almost 90 million dollar to lose money by by just gambling these companies are in it to make money and ensure their future just like Boulder is we are in good company they see the trends and understand just how low solar and wind energy prices have fallen and are headed commercial solar just set a record low under 3 cents per kilowatt hour versus the average cost electricity and boulder around 10 cents per kilowatt hour they

[26:01] understand the need to invest in our future and that the status quo has to be challenged just as Boulder has challenged it if we think of Boulder like one of these companies with our citizens as shareholders it becomes clearly clear why Boulder is pursuing Amun Muni so that we can write our own rules and overcome the rigid central control of the past kudos to Boulder for catching the wave and leading the way like these Innovative companies are the road to the future is not always easy and requires patience but it must be taken or we stay in the past breathing coal smoke and drinking polluted gas gas polluted water Rick tazar followed by Allison Smith and then Frank Bruno evening all Rick taslar 1955 popular Lane uh in my day job I work in the field of finance and engineering and some of you may also know that in the 80s I sold solar Electric Systems so I've been close to the energy issues for

[27:01] most of my life um tonight I'd like to make two points around Boulders Energy Future first if I ask you to complete this sentence I think renewable energy sources are great but they're too blank and if you said expensive I suggest that it's time for you to rethink that assumption according to Lawrence Berkeley National Labs in 2014 the average PPA price paid by utilities for newly installed wind energy was 25 cents per kilowatt hour you just heard Mr aspey say for solar it's hovering around 5 cents per kilowatt hour so at these prices renewable energy sources are competitive today with natural gas and coal sources when we're building new capacity so my key point is that it's time to rethink our long-term held assumption that renewable energies costs more than conventional fossil fuel

[28:00] sources for The Times They are a changing my second point is in reference to reports in the camera about discussions being held with Excel Energy uh I read and I hear suggestions that Boulder might want to negotiate an arrangement with Excel that's similar to minneapolis's clean energy partnership agreement maybe use that as a template um I know a little bit about that agreement and it is indeed a big step forward for Minneapolis and for Excel but let me just say however that the agreement really has no teeth there are no specific deliverables such as lower carbon less fossil fuels and more customer choices so I'd caution you about using it as anything more than a starting point in your discussions because I think and I hope that Boulder can do better thank thank you Rick next is Allison Smith followed by Frank Bruno and then Mickey Kaplan hi I am Allison Smith I live at 3120

[29:03] Pearl Parkway um I'm a register dietitian and I'm also a masters of Public Health with a focus in health education and I'm a member of healthy Boulder kids Coalition which is a group of Boulder parents health professionals Health Equity uh Specialists non-for-profit organizations and we are working toward ensuring that every child in Boulder has access to health Health Food Beverages and opportunities for an active healthy life um today I just wanted to give you an idea of who we are and I wanted to give you uh some ideas of what our Coalition members include so Jorge de Santiago from El Centro alad Lynn Gilbert a former CU researcher RN and PhD Kevin Gilbert CEO of Heart Smart Kids Nicole Christensen the owner of CrossFit Roots Aon worker physician Manuela cifuentes executive director of

[30:02] Latino task force Dakota R west of Quinn Foods Simon Smith CEO of clinical Clinica Family Health Services Tina Marquez Boulder Valley School District School Board member among others in addition to that we have a long list of endorsers where you can check out at healthy Boulder kids.org um some of these recogniz organizations include the Latino chamber of uh Boulder County Livewell Colorado Latino task force of Boulder County the American Heart Association Boulder County movement for children El Centro Amistad dental aid Boulder County Public Health Apex movement and more and we just wanted to let you guys know that we've been collecting signatures and we'll be back on Monday with signed petitions thank you thank you very much Allison next up is Frank Bruno followed by

[31:00] Mickey Kaplan and then Anna Rivas thank you good evening m madame mayor members of Boulder City Council uh my name is Frank Bruno I reside at 235 Inca Parkway here in Boulder uh this evening I'm here to thank you on behalf of the uh board of directors of Vim Mobility Services uh for the partnership that we've had for many many years actually several decades I'm in my seventh year on the board of via Mobility Services to as president and the last two as past president via has served the city of Boulder for 20 nearly 37 years providing important Transit and Mobility Independence for Boulder residents via and the city of Boulder have enjoyed a long and vital partnership for quite a while in 2015 alone via's par Transit program provided nearly 50,000 on-demand driver assisted trips to people with Mobility limitations both young and old we provide travel training and Mobility options training and a big part of our

[32:01] responsibility to the community includes providing nearly 800,000 trips on the Hop and rtd's access accessori program which is an ADA mandated Paratransit program we cannot offer such Service Such a service mix without the city of Boulder's support and the transportation department contributed over $300,000 representing representing some 14% of va Boulder service mix along with revenue generated from The Hop the number is more like 30% of the boulder service cost total the Via funding support from the city of Boulder for 2015 20 uh 2017 is spend is pending so you may hear more about this from staff in the weeks and months to come our final message is simply this thank you to the Boulder City Council and Boulder City staff we really value our current partnership and we are eager to continue providing Transit and Mobility Sol solutions for the city of Boulder and residents we know that the need for community- based

[33:01] Transit programs will only become more important in the years to come thank you very much thank you Frank next up is Mickey Kaplan followed by Anna Ras and then Eric Harker hi my name is Mickey Kaplan whoa I can't see um I live at 1920 Tin Cup court and Boulder I'm also on the Via board of directors along with Frank and I'm a former city employee I worked for gold Boulder for numerous years and for 25 years maybe 30 I've worked in public transportation planning uh and so uh when I retired from the city I was always attracted to Via and I I want to give you another perspective about via being on the board and from my public transportation experience you know around the country I I've gone to conferences I've seen many other Paratransit nonprofit providers like via and they are via is very mature organization very well-run and we're very lucky to have via in our community

[34:01] uh and operating at such a high high level high functioning level as well as uh how much we appreciate the um relationship we have with the with the city of Boulder so I just wanted to give you that sort of P National and professional perspective and also on behalf of the Via board of directors we really look forward to partnering with the city on implementing the goals and the programs of the transportation master plan so thank you you thank you Mickey Anna Rivas followed by Eric Harker and then finally Alan Harker hi I am here as a Boulder County resident to speak on behalf the of the Armory prie dogs every day I read about the plight of wild animals all over the world whose existence is threatened due to human activities human activities have caused wild animal populations to drop by half since 1970 right here in Boulder prairie dogs who were among among the reasons I fell in love with the area have been getting killed off

[35:03] steadily the Armory prry dogs are next in line to be killed but as previous speakers have indicated there's another option one of our own oops um I'll keep it short with that in mind I wanted to read one of my favorite qu quotes as food for thought we need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals in a world old and more comp complete than ours they move finished and complete gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained living by Voices we shall never hear they are not Brethren they are not underlings they are other nations caught with ourselves in the net net of time of life and time fellow prisoners of the Splendor and travail of the earth so please keep that in mind as you decide how you're going to treat these little critters thanks thank you Anna next up is Eric Harker and followed by Ellen

[36:01] Harker I'm Eric Harker 3147 8 Street in Boulder salute to the Boy Scouts out there thanks for coming um I wanted to provide a little bit of context to the uh Boulder healthy kids initiative that you'll be hearing more about uh I'm a physician I've been in practice here in Boulder for about 12 years uh I'm a prevention specialist I've been uh working on uh diabetes prevention uh nationally uh and throughout the state of Colorado um for several years and so uh the context of of the problem that we're trying to solve is that really what we're trying to get at is preventing chronic illness particularly in children and trying to solve uh a Health Equity issue that exists here in Boulder Colorado um Public Health uh is tightly uh linked to Chronic poverty uh chronic poverty drives

[37:01] obesity obesity is one of the leading drivers of chronic illness and chronic illness is one of the primary drivers of chronic poverty and so the cycle continues um so why attacks on sugary beverages sugary beverages are the leading dietary cause of obesity in this country attacks on sugary beverages has been shown to reduce consumption while generating funds to promote a healthy living active uh sports activities and opportunities for children uh health education and so forth some compelling facts one in three children born today in the United States will develop diabetes in their lifetime one out of two latino children will develop diabetes in their lifetime uh this is really a serious epidemic uh that we have to address sugary beverages in particular one drink a day by children increases the likelihood of childhood obesity by 55% one drink a day increases the risk

[38:00] of death from cardiovascular disease by 30% thank you Eric thank you um Dr Harker could you send us those facts that would be great thank you thank you next up is alen Harker and if anybody else would like to sign up to speak please do so now um after if you don't up we will close the public hearing and move on to our next agenda item hi I'm Alan Harker and been a resident of Boulder coming on 12 years two girls up through the school systems and um proud of this town for what it can do I'm here tonight to ask for your support um to make the measure on sugary beverages uh something that can happen in this town and and I think all the things that have talked been talked about tonight really touch my heart um and so to talk about sugary beverages

[39:01] next to all of those issues it may seem esoteric it may seem uh nonintuitive that it's ex that's exactly why I think it's so important uh sugary beverages are Insidious um soda Cola soda pop in particular um is something that it's it's very easy to drink it fast um we're not anti- sugar but you can eat a cookie and it's easier to drink a soda it goes down so fast and you can drink multiples in a day and a cookie um is not evil it's just that um sugary beverages go down so quick and I'm totally losing my train of thought here in front of all of you um what I want to say is that um I don't well I'll just tell a story that's what I do best on a recent trip with my daughter with her middle school orchestra kids um I saw binging of sugar that

[40:01] was honestly it made my knees weak um I'm not a Puritan when it comes to Sugar um I saw a kid with five sodas um going to his room and he was planning to drink them all that's 100 o of Coca-Cola and he told me that wasn't all he had um our kids need help and their parents need help in the form of financial friction against the advertising forces that make this so seductive so please help thank you Ellen Heidi is anybody else signed up all right see no one else signed up I'll close the public hearing and move on to our next agenda item so can I respond a little bit oh I'm sorry that's okay no worries I out of practice Yeah so um yes any comments from thank for this yeah um so Val mat is here and she'll be talking

[41:00] to you briefly about the prairie dog situation but before we get to that I do want to mention that the two women that spoke about the issue on tamarak and 19th um council member morzel brought that to our attention today and the executive director for Public Works Moren rate is involved in the situation right now and is trying to understand more about it and work it out so um if you don't mind let us try to work it out behind the scenes if we can and then if not we'll be reporting back to you to see if some changes need to be made in the North Boulder sub community plan great thank you you Jame for that update and I just i' I've been emailing back and forth with them and some neighbors as well and I did uh I sent language on to Mo which I'm sure she's looking to but that that that seep that we approved does seem to say the connection shouldn't be there so I look forward to the response and right we're yeah we'll be looking into it and definitely responding on that and then let me hopefully if you will allow me to do so welcome to the podium Val math listen who can talk to us about prairie

[42:04] dogs so I just wanted to take a moment to put into context how we're planning on moving forward in 2016 with the limited relocation site we have a 16 Acre Site and um certainly understand the heartfelt request put out there in the city has a long history of limiting lethal control but our our management plans have over 700 acres of land designated for removal and because we have not been doing lethal control in those areas um we have annually acreage an acreage that builds up that we're waiting for a receiving site so we can re relocate these prairie dogs too and so um when these opportunities open and there's available land for relocation we are um working very hard to implement these plan the grass Urban grass Land Management plan and the urban Wildlife

[43:00] Management plan um and so that's our intent moving forward to kind of um address some of that backage or the acreage that we're been waiting to do relocations on just a question about how imminent this this issue is how long will the permit go before any lethal application would be allowed and um what would the steps be between now and then so are you talking about um the lethal control permit application from the Armory yes um so there are built-in lag times to the application process and that is um 15 days after the permits received um to wait to post a 60-day public comment period where we're asking the public to help us and the applicant find a relocation site for those prairie dogs and then an additional after the public comment period 15 days before the permit could be issued so it's a a minimum of

[44:01] 90 days for that process so we're we're looking at September um before that could be uh that permit could be issued okay thank you Lisa thank you for coming tonight um could you speak to I I understand the whole um issues and and not wanting to euthanize and just the back plug we have so do you guys have like a priority list and um now that this one has come in how how would that interweave yeah we do have a priority list so for our um you know 7 700 or so Acres we kind of chartred out um what's at the top Citywide um and so we try and take advantage of um a myriad of different factors when we're looking at what would be the best opportunity for a limited receiving site so for example rolling

[45:00] rocks um is a colony that was at 13 acres it is now at 1 and a half acres um and it is in conflict with some rare plant species associated with The mesic Tall Grass Prairie and so a factor is often when a colony is reduced we want to seize that and move them when they're small and not wait till they're at 15 Acres where impacts are much bigger and even moving them and we certainly don't want to do lethal control on that large a number similarly with um stratty Klein it was at 25 acres and it's at two and so that's a really unique opportunity to remove that Colony with limited receiving sites and affect that removal area when the numbers are really low and could I just ask about the density of prairie dogs per acre do you is there a preferred density or do you mean when we're relocating them to the site yeah you know um we have to apply for a state

[46:01] permit the permit um the guidelines from the state has generally been in the ballpark of 12 per acre um we have applied for nine per acre in the past if there was some sentiment that um less would be beneficial so I mean that's the range we haven't applied yet for the permit but that's the ballpark of the per acre prairie dogs and so when you speak to number that like on Rolling Rock you have 1 and A2 acres is is that now like um 13 prairie dogs on on those one and a half acres or is that what we're talking about in terms of relocation yeah you know in the um in the open space annual fall mapping they're doing acreage and not counting individuals so for our 700 acres in um removal areas we have have the acreage but not the individual numbers as we move forward in the application process

[47:02] um we will be doing those surveys of individuals but I couldn't tell you now what the density is thank you very much thank you Val any other questions for Val all right any other comments from city manager or City attorney no no any questions from Sam Tom I just had a question I know when the um sugary drinks tax first came in there was a little bit of an issue with the way the funding would be um managed and has there been an update to uh the the language that's being circulated right now I believe there has I think they took out the language that get rais the charter concerns but I'm not 100% certain uh Kathy hadock is sitting in the back watching and she's listening to my voice so she can send me an email very quickly and I can confirm that for you Sam that'd be great thank you thank you any other questions from Council Lisa Tom um would we we'll get a copy of

[48:03] the uh petition that went out won't we we can certainly get that that would be excellent thank you anyone else all right so now we will move on to the next agenda item your consent agenda includes items a through h all right any comments from Council Jan uh yes sorry about that I have sent some questions to Chief Tesa about item number G so I just wanted to um highlight that to the council that I had a a few questions that weren't covered in the in the material and uh he's

[49:00] responded back that he will get a response out to us before we have another reading on that all right any other comments on the consent agenda may I answer Sam's question they did take out the language that created a panel that was dictating how council could spend the money thank you all right thank you thank you Kathy thank you Kathy thank you Kathy all right so do we have a motion to approve the content agenda second so move by Weaver and seconded by morelle we vote for it um by show of hands so all in favor of approving the consent agenda all right passes unanimously next item is your callup check-in you have six of them on the schedule for tonight Upland Avenue to west of Broadway community and environmental assessment process report Four Mile Canyon Creek Greenways Improvement project 3107 Iris Avenue

[50:00] emergency access vacations 21530 Street public utility easement vacation 3200 Bluff concept plan 904 College Avenue non-conforming use review and 2949 Broadway site review thank you Lynette is anyone interested in calling Lisa I would just like to um bring up the um item number one the Upland Avenue to west of Broadway and as Council read the um the memo there are three options in there and all of those are very good options I think and I would ask that um in going forward that the city manager look at um uh how all three of those options might be funded and then get back to us and so that that's all I really don't want to call it up I just want to um Express that um need and I

[51:02] could go into detail but given the length of our meeting tonight and I spoke with Moren today about this one as well and she said that all three of those are viable and that we'll be following through on your request excellent thank you you're welcome thank you all right any other questions all right um so I don't see any interest in calling any of these up so we will move on your first public hearing is continued introduction first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only ordinance number 8119 intended to expand the availability of Cooperative housing units by amending title 4 licenses and permits by adding a new section 42069 Cooperative housing license fee amending Title 9 land use code by amending table 961 to make Cooperative housing and allowed use in certain own districts by amending section 963 eliminating the requirement of a special use permit for

[52:01] Cooperative housing amending title 10 structures by adding a new chapter 11 Cooperative housing establishing requirements for licensing housing cooperatives and setting forth related details as Council recall Council uh the the first reading began on May 17th Council heard um three hours or so of public testimony finishing around 11 o'clock Council had a very brief discussion I highlighted some issues for further discussion and scheduled a continued first reading at uh for this meeting uh just so that folks who are watching or in the audience or watching on television uh the city's Charter process requires two readings of an ordinance uh basically you cannot pass an ordinance at the same meeting at which it's introduced uh it has to be introduced and ordered published by title only at one meeting and then a second meeting uh for more complex situations like this generally it goes to more than three readings uh the we usually only have a one public hearing

[53:01] we've had the public hearing at first reading most likely we'll have additional public read hearings for people to comment the purpose for tonight is for Council to to discuss what they heard at the first public hearing and give some feedback and potential amendments to the ordinance before it comes back for second reading second reading is not currently scheduled so just to briefly overview uh council's goals were to facilitate communal living to provide additional affordable housing alternative and provide for more sustainable housing uh Council Express concerns about life safety that is too many people living in one place or in safe places impact on the neighborhood and impacts on the housing market from uh basically biding up the prices this is a brief summary of Where we've been um in November Council passed an occupancy ordinance November 17th uh Council directed staff not to enforce against cooperatives uh January 26th Council had a study session on uh cooperatives where Council gave initial

[54:01] Direction uh we published the the first reading ordinance on March 24th uh we've had several meetings that it was actually introduced on May 17th and we are here at June 21st uh the major elements of the ordinance as it was drafted and it certainly will change uh would be allow under the proposed ordinance Cooperative housing units would be allowed use in zoning districts where which in which there was pre previously a conditional use uh they would be regulated much like rentals including licensing initial inspections renewal inspections and they would the the the original proposal would be that they would be exempt from occupancy limits and there's some proposed amendments that uh impose occupancy limits um the of course the original the exemption the original one was was subject to the uh International property maintenance code which does have some occupancy limitations uh these are the issues that I have identified based on council's discussions uh on May 17th as you can see there are 14 if you

[55:01] take 10 minutes on each that's two hours and 20 minutes uh so I talked with Mary and Mary do you want to talk a little bit about how to you you want to manage this certainly so as Tom mentioned there are several um items listed up here and what we'd like to do if you're amenable to it we could go through each and determine how much time we'd like to spend on it and then hold ourselves to that amount of time per item so does that sound like a reasonable approach if we held ourselves to it right I was going to say sounds good in theory all right so do we so you're done with the presentation Tom I I have slides for each one of these and so for some of them like the separation there were the maps which we've got here I can project those but I'm not going to say much more except to give you a topic to

[56:00] look at all right yes I I wonder that because I think the amount of time it'll take will depend on the amount of disagreement that we have which is hard to know in advance I have ones I'm more interested in talking about and others may have different ones all right so maybe one thing we could do is just have a straw pole and see where people are at with that particular item as we are choices these aren't all verus B unfortunately yeah might be able to knock some things off the table quickly huh well and I'm happy to go through that but again I'm with Erin in terms of I don't know because I haven't spoken with all right so should we just start by going um starting with item number one any other unless somebody has some other suggestions I had a question for Tom before we kick off the discussion

[57:00] which was Tom I noticed you we we had an original draft ordinance and then you prepared a revised one for our first reading uh hearing and I noticed that in the the packet for today only the original draft ordinance is is included at least that that was my what I saw on there but but so the intent was to include the revised one okay but so then I just want to clarify that we um I'm assuming we're going to use the when is our jumping off point yeah does that make sense everybody that's what I thought okay good where is all right well I think I had to go back to the May 17th packet to get the Revis yeah I'm sorry that's a mistake it should the it should be the it says the original draft ordinance is attached and my intent was that it'd be the revised one right and let me know if I missed let me that's what I thought too well it includ I have to read it but the heading says original draft ordinance it does include criminal penalties which I know we struck struck from the Rev revised one so but the the revised one was attached

[58:00] to the May 17th packet y okay all right so certification uh this is the question whether uh there should be some process for certifying that a Cooperative is a legitimate Co-op uh the original the the revised proposed ordinance had a third-party certifier and the third party CER if charged with developing and Publishing criteria council's feedback was that uh some members wanted to have some draft criteria in the ordinance and also to consider whether it should be the city that certifies rather than a third party so attached to the the packet are two Alternatives both have uh the same criteria that it creates the concept of a legitimate Cooperative organization and has criteria for establishing that and alternative a would have a third party doing it and alternative B would have the city doing

[59:00] it thank you Tom would somebody like to kick off the conversation Lisa well I would like to consider a third um um option um other than the city manager or a third party and that's something I've raised in the past and that is the housing board that we've discussed and it's currently under discuss and my thought is that this is a perfect uh thing to put before um if we are if we go move forward with um seating a housing board this would be a perfect topic to come up in front of in front of that housing board to certify whether um that group applying is truly uh meets all the criteria of a co-op so I'm just throwing that out um and

[60:00] just to answer the questions to move this um yes I think the ordinance should include certification criteria um I'm fine I think with the um proposed amendment correct and then my third is the housing board Matt oh real quickly um I would not be comfortable with a third party in general um and I'd leave it to the city manager who could choose all sorts of various options obviously just just for people who don't know when we say the city manager we do not really mean that Jane is going to sit there and review everything what it means is she figures out some mechanism with City staff or whomever to actually make it work the housing board is interesting um I'd have to think about that because we would also need the housing board to exist um so it's kind of a little hard to do that tonight as for the criteria I'll just say this um it may be for the purpose of

[61:00] the ordinance that these criteria are kind of sufficient but eventually they'd have to be an awful lot more detailed I I think it would be trivial for virtually any rental to meet all of these criteria without breaking a sweat um and so I'm not suggesting that an ordinance have to go into 50 pages of detail that's why you kind of give the basic and you turn over the certification to the city manager right and can I just finish what I I was going to finish and that is I am not interested in a third party at all and I pretty much agree with what Matt said Aon so um well one one alternative that's not quite a third party would be to turn to Boulder housing Partners For assistance with this since they are are Housing Authority for the city and they have expertise in housing matters so I I'll throw that out there as a as not the city manager but not a third party per se um as well as an

[62:02] idea and do you have comments on the other well I I think in I think the having criteria is correct um I think we might um I don't have a final answer on exactly how we might tweak this but I think when when we get down to the certification process um there there needs to be more detail like Matt says so um I I would consider like a second reading potentially adding more detail in here but um we could also leave it up to the kind of Ru making Authority for a future step anyone else yeah I mean I just want to agree with Lisa on the housing board I really do think it would be a good thing for us to have and it would be appropriate I would also be open to uh in the meantime until that happens that we could go through BHP or or someone else that uh we decide on because I don't really want to necessarily hold this up over that discussion but I'm right where you are Lisa I think we should have a housing board I think it would serve a valuable purpose in town

[63:01] and that could be one of the things it does is certify um co-ops and set criteria you know another thing that we often count on boards to do is help come up with criteria all right Andrew yeah so the um I don't have a problem with you know there's the whole issue of of establishing a housing board and whether we're going to do that but if if we had one in place it seems like that would be a that would be something that um it it might do I'm a little worried I don't know if we've consulted with BHP about sort of extending getting outside the realm of what they do or or what they um desire to do um so you know one sort of hybrid here is whether or not um the city manager's office might be involved but nonetheless to get there you still have to get the certification um and and that is you know helpful obviously if you don't pass that private

[64:00] um hurdle uh which you know my sense is that right now at least uh that organization has an incentive to certify um legitimate co-ops as we've been talking about and we'll talk about in the sort of the definition context but um but having that hurdle first if you don't re if you don't make that hurdle then you don't even get to the city manager office and and we you know there's there's a lot of work they have going on in the city manager's office and we haven't received you know complete um you know feedback that um the process of what the city manager's office can do is uh um not Jane of course but but that uh you know people AR aren't necessarily Happy from you know about certain of the criteria or the you know the the approval of certain rental licenses and various other kinds of things so you know and the city's only got the manpower to do certain things so to the extent that we can

[65:00] essentially privatize this on the front end and make that first hurdle there I think there's some benefit in that all right any and um anything else all right I guess otherwise I'm on I'm on board with the rest of this so okay so I'm going to jump in here and then Jan um I am with Lisa and Sam on if we do have a housing board this would be a great place to utilize that board I also think that there needs to be more criteria higher bar and maybe we can have some more in the next ordinance and could somebody some tell me what those are because that that it's not really very helpful to just say more and I've try and or just tell me what kind of things you notice the things that I put in the proposed ordinance were things that are verifiable on paper um the the one that we got from booa suggested things like sharing of of food I'm not

[66:00] sure how we a city certifies that so I I I I GA gather that but I've struggled with spent some time trying to think about what other things could we actually check and and these are the kind of traditional things you te to see whether an organization is real the corporation or anything else so that's that's why I focused on them I've heard several comments about more but I haven't heard anything about what those are are so what can I just say something real quick this is a prime example of why um we we may want to have um something on the front end because the city's approach and legitimately um is it's a check the box kind of thing and um and what we're talking about at least right now with the with the nonprofit um that is involved in certifying and that nonprofit presumably would have to be approved by the city as well uh in the city could yank that nonprofit approval Authority uh is that um you know they

[67:01] live it and they're a little bit better in terms of telling if something you know Walks Like A Duck it's a duck uh as opposed to the city just checking boxes so it's just it's just a it's a concern that I have and it's something we've seen in other enforcement and approval areas so so does somebody else have any suggestions as to what that criteria it could be I'm sorry I don't Tom so sorry I didn't and I didn't really mean to put you on the spot but I just if we're going to do this it would be helpful if I had some idea what what you wanted and I haven't really heard anything yet right but since could I just please since this is a first reading um maybe we could think about that and make that um put that in our heads and come back with you with some more thoughts and I was just going to point out that the materials we received earlier today about what's going on perhaps in Minneapolis might be something to also look at there were criteria in there and I thought some of them were interesting I can't remember them off the top of my head but that would be another source of

[68:00] ideas yep it's a good point not not easily checkable all right well we'll we'll filter for that okay thank you Jen yeah I don't I didn't come with uh prepared ideas about exactly what would be the criteria but I think this is the part that is the most important and um I think we need to Define um the co-ops really well and I didn't see the new um amended one but I didn't see it in the first one so I think the definition is really important and then this to me kind of reminds me of hiring an employee you either do your due diligence UPF front before you hire the person and then likely that person will be successful or you mess around and don't do the due diligence and then you end up having to fire them it's better to do the work on the front end than it is on the back end so I think the criteria having it really clear and having a certification against that is really important so can we send you ideas

[69:03] through the hotline or how should we do that if we want to follow up with you so it sounds like if nobody really is ready tonight we can if you can give me direction on which one of these proposals I should put into the second reading ordinance you can always amend it on second reading as I said I doubt this is going to pass on second reading so uh that it's just that's just we could have a further discussion on that and also you can charge me I've heard you want better criteria I can think about it and make some proposals to you Lisa so I would just point out that right now we don't have the second reading um scheduled and so the soonest this would come to it might be September October November and so I would just say we have a little bit of time we have um we're going into recess and so I think we have plenty of time before you get into that section of the second reading so so I mean we have a lot of input from

[70:01] people much really good recommendations so it I mean i' I'd be very willing to to spend hour some hours sifting through that and then coming back with some criteria to you if that's an acceptable process so I think um I think if you just include what you proposed in the second reading ordinance it sounds like we'll all think about it or go back through the email and look at the suggestions and um I think Tom has a fundamental question though is like do we want it to be City manager's office um do we want it to be third party I mean what should he come back with as far as is that right Tom yeah and so it's it's sort of what's the working next draft and so uh option A which is on page uh 10 10 I'm sorry 106 of the packet is the third party and option b which is starts on

[71:00] page 108 is the city manager so if somebody could make a motion to amend the uh revised proposed ordinance with one of those then we'll at least have a working draft that you can go from have you to make a motion Le I would so I will move that we go forward with the option b the city manager choice and as Matt pointed out um you know that could be a housing board it could be BHP it could be something other than um the third party so I'm putting that out as a I'll second that motion great and can I clarify that if we give that authority to the city manager the city manager could designate you know Boulder housing Partners or housing board to assist with that the city manager always has authority to delegate her further delegator and she always does uh so it could be the planning department could be whe and I'd have I I hadn't heard the boulder housing Partners proposal before

[72:01] tonight I'd want to do some research on their Authority they're a state created agency and I'm not sure that they have the authority to do this so because they're not completely free to do anything because they're they're a creature of state law so if we leave it with the city manager's office then it allows us I think some wiggle room and it allows you to look into BHP and what their Authority is and what I would do is come back with a second reading memo that has an explanation for their Authority and answers to some of these questions and maybe proposals for better criteria that you could consider on second reading excellent and and actually would it even require us to come up I mean the criteria then while we might give some guidance it's going to be the the me of it's going to be in the actual city managers um you you know what do you call it the rules or the well it could be rules or the the scope of the delegation yeah could be either and I could I could certainly add some

[73:00] language to this that allows the city manager to add additional criteria by rules so so for example she could even ask that you know at a minimum you've got to get some sort of approval by a third party as well yes okay okay great all right any other comments on this okay we will move on to item number two did I miss something so I I'd like V oh a vote thank you sorry for being stickler but it helps a lot if I know exactly what you want all right so we need to vote on the motion made by and can we just amend the motion that that the amendment will include additional criteria by rules yes please okay all right that's okay with this you want to really be a s I'm not sure we have a main motion that we're amending Ah that's true yeah so the motion was to put the Sor let me responsibility so so what Matt's pointing out is that nobody has made a motion to adopt on first

[74:02] reading anything so we're we're you're amending something um but you can do it by this process too you can you can say we're gonna at the end of this we can move by first reading so why don't we just go ahead you're the one who was yelled about me about Robert's Rules okay this can just be straw poll so you I would prefer a motion and and take all the Motions together and at the end you you'll say that you're going to introduce the revised version as amended so these are amendments to yet to be made motion yes all right all right so the motion made by morzel and seconded by Weber to Amendment adopt option b is the adopt option b which is the city manager um option and that allows a lot of breadth in terms of the actual group or mechanism in which that would be

[75:01] certified all right is this show a hands and and Tom wanted the language about the rule and and add Tom's language sorry all right great all right ready to vote show hands all in favor all right unanimous support item number two okay property right for cooperatives uh so on page 110 of the packet attachment e is a new proposed section we're just calling it 101 1112a to fit it between 12 and 13 uh rather than renumbering everything at this point uh and it provided for uh a limited property right for Equity co-ops so the questions are is this is it the right direction uh or does so one of the things we talked about was if you're going to create a property right do you want to go back to a use review process which was in the original which is in the 963b which is the current

[76:00] ordinance uh and what is the nature of the property right should it be property right and owners to the property do they have a property right in over occupancy and one of the things we've argued for years is that there is no property right in over occupancy because you know the city's occupancy ordinance has a provision for grandfathered occupancy and the city has always taken the position that we can take that away because it's a use not a property right this would be a new property right so those are the questions I have and I have a question before we go um could you explain to me what the language in Part B of this is supposed to say I mean I I just don't understand page please what the intention what this is on page of the packet yes I'm on page 110 and it's Part B this packet not the May 17 I'm on this packet an attachment e okay yeah the purpose of that is to distinguish the rental co-ops from the equity co-ops and make it clear clear that there's no property right in a rental license the part I was confused about is upon the abandonment expiration or revocation of such license the

[77:00] property will be considered to be dwelling unit I assume there should be an A in there but I I still didn't quite get uh it's a dwelling unit even when it can be over occupied is it not yes so I didn't see how this changed really anything you know saying it's now a dwelling unit doesn't say occupancy has to be back at the zoned occupancy or anything like that yes we should fix that and then and I have a question before um we move to other comments so if this becomes a property right property rights are tied to zoning isn't that correct or established by zoning and we were going on this ordinance by establishing cooperatives as privileges so if we give it a property right doesn't that tie to zoning well it ties it to the it it makes it to land use so okay so if it's tied to land use then how is that not spot

[78:00] zoning I'm not sure I would consider it spot zoning I consider it giving it a a property right in the use of as an over occupied Cooperative okay because I I would apply it to zoning I'd call it a land use okay okay got it all right any who wants to Aaron well this this was my request to look at this option Tom I appreciate you putting it together and as it came out in the language in the ordinance it came out quite simply which I was pleased to see so just my my thought here being that this would obviously this would be for Equity co-ops only you know rental co-ops would not they would be governed by licenses and licenses would be revocable but that if you're going to be if you if you're going to have a group of people putting down money and buying property that um as long that that that's not something that we should be able to just take away from people um so that like you know I I bought my house a few years ago and I you know I don't think people can just evict me as long as I'm up on my property taxes and my

[79:02] mortgage so it seems like the same kind of protection should be available to people uh purchasing property and for an equity Co-op Andrew so I guess I want to play Devil's Advocate on that for a moment and that that you've got um you know you still have the same property that you bought before and you can still sell it on the open market and and the only re the only reason that it becomes more valuable is if you actually increase the property value as a result of the over occupancy so what you're doing what concerns me right now at least the way it's written uh I'm I'm still open-minded to to some way to make this work but is that is that you're basically you're you're allowing the property value to increase and then you're giving someone a property value in that right in that increased value value we're we're moving property prices up and just backing up I don't think if if eight people go in on a you know $2

[80:02] million home $1.5 million home that's the cost of it on the market if they have to sell it because and and I doubt this is going to happen but if they have to sell it because for whatever reason they lose their right because they've gotten in trouble a bazillion times then they can still sell it for $1.5 million which is the price they bought it for so I'm not sure I see the sort of the INE in the situation Aon well just just to respond to that I mean I it's not a financial thing it's about uh living in your home so you know if someone were to come to me next month and say you know what you have to move out of your home but you know you'll be able to sell it at a market price and it's appreciated probably 20 or 30% so you'll get your money back I I would not feel okay with that because I would be losing my home so it's it's not about that you couldn't get your money back but it's about um the the losing um your place of residence in your in your home and uh and so and I'm specifically thinking about you know if we if the rules get changed you at some point down the line

[81:01] so and and I'm sensitive to that as well and I guess the question then and then that makes sense I mean that concern the question then becomes is there a way to um essentially make the pain of U of enforcement for nuisance and whatnot um felt the same for an eight or 10 person house as it is for a lower volume occupancy house at the moment if if eight people are splitting a $100 fine you know it's not much but if we started moving them up I'm hearing people talk about the bare fines I mean those are really making a difference uh and uh had somebody complaining to me the other day that a be Fine's higher than a brawling a brawling fine in the city of Boulder and uh but you know you shouldn't hit I won't go there uh with bears so anyway all that being said you know maybe there's a solution in terms of of sort of doing both and that and perhaps um

[82:00] having a a a multiple Factor on the fines for a co-op y so so um I wanted to jump in here if that's all right and say for me the concern is financing I mean if you end up with an inability to finance because this might go away suddenly I could see Banks finding that to be a big risk so what I would be interested in exploring is a possibility of if it's going to have this property right if it's going to be more longterm than just a rental um which could go away fairly easily then shouldn't we do a use review you know shouldn't this be something where we have it as conditional you know where they vest the property right because that's a more meaningful step and we do a use review and if it passes all the Muster that it needs for a use review then it does have this more durable property right that stays with it until the people who own it dissolve it and then the question becomes if they dissolve it does that use review go away

[83:00] does it have to come back for use review again if it's a different Co-op that wants to be part of the equity so I'm interested in does use review planning board planning board planning staff planning board and you could change it to be a housing board too you could move perhaps this one into housing Matt well I'm I'm I'm more wai Andrew is although it's not just cuz of the fines although that's a good point I must say um I I am just maybe it's my uh just concern in general about long-term implications you don't completely understand I'm always nervous giving somebody a permanent property right because that's a long time um and we've got gazillions of grandfathered in stuff that someday maybe somebody will have the nerve to do something about um but it's just crazy making I don't quite see the financing thing although we could talk to somebody who knows better than me cuz of vre's Point um the thing is

[84:02] still worth what it's worth um and what a bank is financing is the value of the property and the house on it and that doesn't go away with or without this right it's still worth what it's worth um and now if somebody is going to jack up the price because they know a co-op's moving in that's got its own problems we're not so thrilled about that concept either um so I I would have lots of problems with the property right as for use review that's kind of a different concept I mean it you're right Sam it comes up here frankly for me it also comes up on the notification because what's the point of notifying somebody if there's no process um I see no point I'm not sold on use review yet but it seems like that's yet another issue that has its Tac both here and in the notification but then you got to come up with criteria I mean what what's the basis

[85:00] what why would you say yes why would you say no we don't have anything that that helps us in that regard um right now what we have is essentially a checklist or maybe a you know a circle around you're can have one within this area you'd have to come up with a whole set of criteria otherwise you know what's the planning board deciding based on I have no idea right so I'm not saying we don't do it but if we go that route we need a whole additional piece of the puzzle here about use review criteria Jen one thing I would have a concern about with their use review is it seems like it would take a while to get on the calendar of the py board and work through that process and I mean these people if they're going to buy a house for for the cooperative and that's am I on the right topic here well you know people are making cash offers in a day

[86:01] so there are multiple offers for a property every day so I think it would really be owner owner to require a co-op to go through a use review when they they never get a property they would never win one out so I'd just like to follow up on that um wouldn't it be the case that a subset could buy you know under the legal occupancy they could go ahead and purchase it and then set up to to be a higher occupancy and then go through that so there would be some conditions where I think people would be able to respond very quickly as you're saying be responsive to the market there would be others where maybe they couldn't but I don't know that it would shut out all groups who were trying to do this but but then it wouldn't help you with the financing that you were concerned about on the front end I mean if you if the if the subgroup can buy they don't need special financing based on it being a co-op right absolutely they would just have it and then they would do I guess they do a quick CLA Claim Deed from one smaller ownership group to the larger yeah but you'd have to have your

[87:01] financing lined up in the first case and get pretty elaborate correct but still in all everything we're talking about as just to just to put it in context everything that we're talking about as requirements to get certified you know as an equity Co-op is going to add delay as well if we're trying to get people to be able to buy a house you know and very quickly that's going to be a process that's going to have some front end to it as well so I have a question for Tom in the memo you said that this would create significant obst obstacles to enforcement and um page please and that's on page 78 actually it starts on page 77 and goes into page 78 um so could you explain a little bit more more about that well so the the way we set this ordinance up was you get a license if you lose a license you lose your right to have it the license is revocable if you're not compatible with

[88:01] the neighborhood that's the the standards for that you'd have to the city manager would have to bring an action to to revoke the license license would be revoked if they it was a big problem in the neighborhood um you couldn't revoke this so the the the way I was thinking about enforcement of this this would undermine so you you would be left with your normal enforcement tools so citing folks for weeds uh for noise not much you could do about parking so that's my concern about this once once it has a property right it's much harder to revoke and it's not that you couldn't do enforcement but the model of enforcement I was thinking about when I wrote this wouldn't work with this proposal Aon and just my comment on that is that with a again with the rental cup I think it the revocation uh option is appropriate but what we'd be looking at would be a model for Equity co-ops that would be then analogous to those for other uh owners

[89:01] of homes in Boulder so I mean if I if I'm misbehaving in my home you can you can find me you can uh uh you know take me to court you can sue me for misbehavior but you can't kick me out so that if you're if you're a homeowner I just think it's it's appropriate to have similar but then but then you're right back where we are with all the rest of or the current enforcement issues with noise and trash and parking that it's basically unenforceable well I mean there's all kinds of enforcement things you you can do and we need to do a better job but I we can put it out there for people to I just you'd be analogous to to other homeowners one one of the things that that I was thinking about um when I was doing this is uh it's going to be hard to staff for this and so because when we did rental uh short-term rentals we figured out how much money we were going to get and allocated that to specific Staffing to do enforcement uh with only 20 a year the

[90:03] fees aren't going to cover the processing it's un or well or they'd have to be pretty high depending on what level of processing you want so one of the things I did originally was have very simple processing so it it could be absorbed within the budget if you're thinking about going down a route where you want to enforce you might want to think about how we pay for that and whether we fund specific resources to enforce um again with a very small number I'm not sure you hire a person to do this with with uh short-term rentals we were looking at 500 potential applicants and so that's a whole lot easier to justify with 20 I'm not sure how you do that so as you go down this route um you there there's there are options that we could think about to fund a way to to do this Lisa and then Jan I'm um I'm going to say I'm with uh pretty much where Andrew and Matt are I am not comfortable

[91:03] with giving this a property right I see this as a privilege and um at the very least I would want a use review um and I do not think that would create a obstacle Jan I'd just like to ask ask what the process what what you see the process to be cuz so do you see this group who is applying to become a Cooperative um they are filling out the application and they're getting approved before they go look for a property well we we'd have to talk a little bit about how it's working because there's there's a potential change to who gets licensed uh but yeah they they would they would the no they actually have to own the property be a Cooperative apply for the license but I modeled it after our rental licensing system which is a relatively quick process okay but but

[92:00] hang on here let's just assume we don't have a bunch of them sitting out there let's just assume there's a group of people out there right now who are wanting to become a co-op yeah um I mean they're never going to buy a property until they know from the city that they're going to get approved right and same thing looking for a uh a short term so the process really is and maybe you know the ones are already in homes that's something different but the process really ought to be that they build their plan they go to the city and the city says yep you've met all the criteria and we're comfortable with you as a group of people being a co-op and then they go out and acquire their property whether it's rental or uh a purchase so that's one of the proposed amendments is is divorcing the license from property ownership so we'll get to that later um as I said this was modeled after rental licensing where it's always

[93:00] somebody who owns a property who then applies for the license but that's another way you could go okay I mean that to me seems like a reasonable the way it ought of work other than the potential backlog that we've got with people who are maybe already in houses so I think we really need to be thinking about it broadly about how how will this work over time um and in that case then if they've already been approved as a co-op according to our very stringent criteria then I see no reason for a use review on a piece of property be assuming that we have already said you can go to this neighborhood you can't go to that neighborhood because we already know where we have the numbers and obviously we get to that too but a use review to me just seems you know way out of the line to to put these people through and so I just to be clear I used use review the um the current ordinance is conditional use review I use that

[94:00] kind of as short term there is something of a difference conditional use review is quicker but it still I think can be called up by planning board Andrew um I guess let me ask Tom is it is it possible in connection with if we were to Grant um some sort of property right is it possible or would it be problematic under the laws to have a different fine scale I don't think it would be a different fine scale I don't think it would be problematic as long as we had a rational basis for doing it and frankly just thinking about this more broadly if you're a if you're a um duplex or something like that that's grandfathered now could we do that as well just Citywide ACR for for for for grandfathered over over occupied units could we create some sort of multiple to make the fines assistant basically consistent uh across the board for the

[95:02] you know the way people feel them yeah the general test is is it for for for equal protection purposes is is it rationally related to a legitimate government purpose I I think I could find a rational basis for that I I don't it have to think if there's any discriminatory impact that would have more strict scrutiny but I can't think of one off the top of my head Andrew okay so anyway I I'm I'm certainly in favor of exploring something like that further I think it would help a lot with a lot of the neighborhood enforcement issues I think that's a lot of the push back that we're getting um and I'm still open to the idea of the of the um property right I I I don't think it's uh tied as much to me to the financing for the reasons that that Matt and I described but that being said um you know if you if you think about this you know I mean to Aaron's Point um you know why treat um a group of people different you know their ability to be in their home differently than a than a family uh

[96:02] and as long as you have a fine system with teeth that can actually um that can actually be enforced and so you know if you've got trash maybe it's $400 instead of $100 or whatever uh and uh and frankly that may have uh that may have a real effect so all right any other comments on this one do you want a motion yeah yeah so I I gather that that you're generally accept okay with the language that's in the packet is attachment e um that second section needs some work because it doesn't really make a lot of sense uh and do you want me do you want me to propose a uh a more stringent fine uh uh schedule for Equity co-ops I mean I think I'm comfortable with that if this is the way that we're going to go I would also just reiterate that um conditional use review is Staff level if

[97:01] I recall correctly and I can't recall calling them up hardly ever from the planning board so it would have to be a pretty exceptional case so I'm still interested in the possibility of a staff level review around things like um are the number of people uh per the guidelines and so maybe it would even be after the fact of a purchase but it's when I the number of people if there's a certain uh 200 ft per person you know is that match with the plan or would you do that through the city manager well it it to me it depends in part on where you go on some of these other things uh the that remember there's been a push to say do a transportation demand management plan that's not really something that we can review as part of a rental licensing evaluation and so something like that's going to probably require conditional use review so I've tried to keep the criteria relatively simple and and pretty much paper checking if Council desires to go to a place where you're going to require

[98:00] more in-depth analysis my recommendation would be then yeah you probably want to consider consider a conditional use review because you're making sort of substantive judgments on does somebody have the right Transportation demand management plan if that's where you go uh but maybe we should just hold that thought until you get through all of these and perhaps come back to it because it's it's a it's it's more of a who how do we do this as an organization question rather than tied to this particular issue Lisa um I have um a problem with just a conditional use review and I'm more in favor of a use review um because it gives um it does come before the planning board the community has an opportunity to weigh in Pro cons and then the planning board has the ultimate decision that they can make and then Council if necessary could call it up if

[99:01] they want it to so um for me I am not okay with just a conditional use review um I know in a conditional use review the the planning board does have an opportunity to call it up but as Sam said that rarely happens and so I think as we start on this this um we want to go slowly we want to go baby steps and we want to make sure that what we do works for the the community and so anyway those are my comments so I have a question on do we do notifications on conditional use reviews Charles phoh happens to be here Charles is in the house good thing to make okay hi good evening Council Charles FOH Community planning and sustainability um so just to be clear there's two flavors of use review there's conditional use review which is an

[100:00] administrative staff level approval no call up Authority by planning board oh regular use review has full callup Authority by the uh the planning board uh full use reviews are publicly noticed to uh Property Owners within 600 ft of the property there is no notification requirement for conditional user thank you you bet well that's good to table later for the notification discussion um Aaron so I just I I had a motion to move as forward on this issue mat did you want to chime in before I did there you yeah I mean at this point you know I'll undoubtedly support whatever motion you make but I am still do I get yeah anything go e go I'm running for it yeah I know you too well you're just not very daring it'll be you know all those years on planning board you're safe with me right I am still a little nervous

[101:00] about the equity the property right stuff I mean I get in a sense the the need for it and the the nominal fairness but I do get nervous about something being permanent um when we're not really quite sure what the implications are and what happens when these things turn over and be sold from one to another to another over time inevitably and then something is literally permanent and you just never can get rid of it so I have a little concern about that I'll think about that some more that's not a for tonight issue um and the second thing which I think we all need to think about some more is the use review question which again kind of comes up here and then again in the notification you know why byother the notifying somebody if there's nothing anybody can do about it I'm not saying that in a negative or positive way it's just these are part of the the conversation that we're going to have to have and if you're going to have a use review then you really do need some

[102:01] criteria and I think they have to be some of them at least have to be place-based criteria and I'm not pushing for this believe me but I I think that has to be part of the next round of conversation but for tonight just to move past this I'm okay with it but I think this it rais some other related issues we're going to have to come back to it so um Aaron and so I'll just I'll just move that that we move forward with property rights for Equity cooperatives as laid out in attachment e in our packet uh subject to the modification to Part B Tom that you want to make okay and I would also then um it was a technical clarifying thing on on the language doesn't make any sense I didn't want to say it that way but I apologize for that I'll just put put that out there and then um to say it sounds like we should revisit the use

[103:01] review discussion as we get near the end of the rest of it so um I'll put that out there just one real quick comment in regards to what Matt said I would not see this to be if if a co-op has gotten approved and certified and then they buy a house they cannot just sell the house to anyone they have to sell it to someone who has been approved by the city as a certified Co-op so they don't just get the right to sell to a bunch of students who are going to un occupy no I presumably that's correct I'm assuming that that's accurate but what's also accurate is that the right for that property to house a a co-op is essentially Eternal even as things around it might change over time this is how we end up with all these stupid grandfathered properties that make us a little crazy

[104:01] so they're both true and the question is how do you balance that and I don't know I'm just there's a little solity to answer Jan's question in the language we said it was subject to the non-conforming use standards and one of those is if you abandon it you lose the right so so you would you could sell it to some to a family right and then you you would just lose right to operate as a co-op right so you could still sell the property to a non- coop they just correct yeah but you could could continue to sell it to a co-op which again it isn't a bad thing but you have the right to do that right so there's a motion on the table by Aaron and is there a second and second it by Jan all in favor of this motion all right in this form yeah Lisa says no

[105:00] so I I say no so there's five to Zer so the motion five to I'm five to two I'm sorry and we will be coming back to the conditional use review when we get to the notification and I will propose some language on fines that's not part of this but which will be there for your consideration at second reading right so I got I've gotten that instruction and and the one thing too to be thinking about I mean to Matt Matt raises a good point there's a great example of sort of unexpected consequences and we're starting to think through these issu and that is you know you you sell it to I mean we talk about sort of well only a co-op can can buy it but if you sell it to a group and you can't take away that property right yet they stop operating as a co-op you know two two of them take off and they're yeah I don't know I'm just you know again it gets this idea of just counting on future Co-op opness is um I think is a is a bit auser but um

[106:03] but that and I think I think you know I think we just have to assume that it is going you know you you've increased the occupancy of this home and that's what you've done and I I don't people to Harbor illusions that it's going to be the same Co-op that bought it because what we're saying is you can't take it away and so um that's why for me the fines are so important and and the enforcement structure is so important so well and Lisa and I'm very concerned about um providing this right and what it does to the affordability of that particular house and I think I mean we're talking about affordable housing and um what we're doing here is we're basically giving value to a uh property that did not have that value prior to then and so we're promoting the increase of uh the value of that particular

[107:00] property so that all right so I agree with Lisa's and Matt's um sentiments but that what you just said Lisa brings up the idea for me of allowing it to be a property right if it goes along with a deed restriction so that would that would be a way that I would support it and and can you just describe a little bit more that deed restriction what would that look like so when it is purchased by The Cooperative as a Cooperative they would agree to make it a deed restricted dwelling unit so affordable deed restrict rest is what you're talking about yes affordable deed restriction and could it be I mean we're getting into the weeds perhaps but could it be sold to um at a later date um

[108:04] without the deed restriction if it's no longer got the occupancy limit the co-op so in other words you could I think that would be a good way to get middle income housing Sam so just to make sure I understand there's a few ways that deed restriction work one is that a house can only appreciate it at a certain rate per year right there's another way which is to say that the people who live there have to be paying you know um rates personally that are within affordability 30% of their income do you mean one of those in particular or the other I don't mean either one in particular and be open to whatever might work better to get that sort of affordability because I've been pretty sadeed by the argument that the co-op people make that there's no reason that if it's all their own money in other words the city is not putting in any money to buy affordability that there's no reason to penalize them on the

[109:00] appreciation rate but at the same time if we could be sure that we were getting affordable housing in exchange for getting a property right that would be an interesting conversation to have so Aaron Ain yeah and I'll just in to Lisa's point about um affordability I think what you get if you have you know say um in in an equity situation like six or eight people buying a house together you have an inherent affordability on your per person level because you're dividing a similar cost over more people so you're not losing affordable housing you're you're gaining affordability for the for the owners the new owners of of that house and and then I I've heard I just wanted to address at this point uh an argument I've heard from uh a number of sources which is that you'd be hurting um the affordability of the housing market in general and I just want to say that with the numbers of co-ops that we'd be talking about here you know we we have um what I think 40 odd, dwelling units

[110:01] in the city 44,000 or something like that of which maybe half are are ownership units and we're looking at at least the way we have it structured right now a maximum of 15 uh co-ops per year so that after 10 years you'd have it at most 150 and I think that's really unlikely by the way cuz cities that have had cooperatives for decades like Berkeley and Madison don't have more than a couple dozen maybe maybe three dozen as we've heard before but even if you went with a very maximum allow You' be at 150 well 150 um out of you know 40 odd th000 is a very small percentage and extremely unlikely to have uh any Market uh impact um because the numbers so particularly if we also put in concentration requirements like we're talking about we'll get to those later so I just wanted to address that I don't think we're going to be impacting um the Market structure of housing in the City by these very small numbers of units if I could respond Lisa um I I don't agree I understand the whole concentration

[111:01] thing but I think you'll be putting a multiplier effect so while it might not um affect um that particular house that particular house is going to increase in in value and then the adjacent houses are also going to increase in value potentially and then the taxes associated with that so I think it's not just the number of co-ops it's how it affects that particular neighborhood or Street on which it's on so all right so can we move on to the next item so now we get to the easy stuff occupancy uh so uh the council asked at Sam's suggestion that we draft up a sort of an occupancy limit that differed based on the Zone District so so what we've done is said that uh for Rural residential ruro density you could have one occupant per 400 square ft of space in residential medium density you'd have

[112:00] one occupant for 300 squ feet of space and all others it would be 200 square feet of space and in the proposed amendment I changed the language from habitable space to uninhabitable space so I I sort of flipped it and that's because we've we've long had a definition of uninhabitable space in our code and so I thought using an existing definition made more sense than adopting it and I think I may here this is the existing definition of uninhabitable space m so it's not a lot but at least it's clear and one of the things we' got some feedback we gotten on some of the prior drafts was uh defining habitable space if you say subsurface well a lot of people have bedrooms that are legal subsurface and you wouldn't want to not count those so this just basically makes it things like that are not really occupiable so a room with a ceiling that's less than 6 feet or a room that's dedicated to a boiler uh would not be

[113:00] habitable space and not countable so just for fun I remember in our last uh presentation I I used a house that I'd found on the market a, 1500 foot house uh and broke it down under the various things that we've done and I I added these Provisions to see how these would be occupied this this particular house if we moved it around the town and it was in different Zone districts so uh as you can see under the ipmc you could have 11 under the revised proposal which was I think 200 square fet uh per person it would be seven uh under the Community proposal that we gotten it would be 11 in a if it was in a rule that should be RR or re it would be three in uh mixed mixed in uh medium density it would be five and all others it would be seven again because again it's back to the 200 can I ask another question that RM is like rmx is included in that okay thank you and and can I ask a question you go back to your definition of

[114:00] uninhabitable which I I do actually remember but this would it this would suggest the garage is habitable yeah well it it would at least be counted as habitable space well that changes your what you just showed us if that house has a garage maybe I don't know how the square footage was measured in that house well I assure you what you just had the square footage never includes garages ever and so if that house has a two-car garage which is 400 square ft numbers the numbers would go up which I find a little bizarre which is why I was asking the question so I'm not so sure using an inhabitable is quite the right thing but it's a good start I mean it's certainly the right way to start so and and one more thing go to your uh your proposal just a wording thing so you say 400 square feet of space or 300 square of space I I would assume you have to say something like interior space or dwelling space I mean that

[115:02] could be the size of the lot yeah the way you've got it written right which is another question I've got but I'll come back to that I just wanted to ask those two two specific questions yeah and could you go back to inhabitable space please so any parking facility located below grade so to Matt's point it doesn't include garages and we're not supposed to be living in garages are those I mean somebody offered me to rent a in a garage a long time ago but um um but our garages are those legal um Living Spaces well no okay so they wouldn't meet the bedroom requirement but according in to that you could have a garage and live in it yeah we'd have to restrict it to not include garages yeah okay Mary right Sam yeah so

[116:00] I kind of suggested this at the last hearing so I'll take a crack at why I think it would be uh a balance between what the co-op Community is trying to get done here and which I support and what the neighbors are concerned with which I understand and you know it's just the idea in a neighborhood that has been traditionally single family dwelling we're now going to allow these new privileges in the neighborhood um and you know what does it really look like in a neighborhood if there's a 2400 square foot home are we talking 68 or 12 people right and that has a big impact I believe on the way that people in the neighboring houses will look at it so I don't know if I picked the numbers right they came from the pluck and place so they're as random as anything but I was just trying to think of okay in a you know lower density neighborhood if it was six that wouldn't seem to be as much of an impact Eight's a little more and 12 sure seems like it could be a whole lot you know depending on the number of

[117:01] cars number of visitors you know what I think about sometimes is we think about this as far as the number of residents but there can also be boyfriends and girlfriends and and you know visitors and and so on and so forth so I would just like to say that I do understand there's one argument against this which is to say lot size you know re and RL are are bigger and so there's the idea that if you're further away you would have less impact but that's not where I think of most of these places and the ones that would have the most likely impact so anyway that's why I was thinking about it and that's I was trying to use this to balance interests Lisa um and Sam I appreciate you bringing that forward um one of my my um concerns in is in the residential medium density zones is that some of the set by setbacks are very small and so

[118:00] and there's seems to be a whole variety of setbacks and and so I guess before going too far down and we're not going to do that tonight but I would want to look more at the variety of uh medium density zones and the setbacks in those um I visited one that is in the rmx1 and I think the setbacks in that is something like 3T so you have or maybe it's 5T but there you have a very minimal space and I think we have to be sensitive to um the impacts in there so it's just it's more a comment Matt yeah no I I mean I think I think this is the right track but I really don't know what the right numbers are are um and just going to have to think about this some more yeah lot size is a puzzlement um because it kind of works in the inverse and that's what's a little confusing about it I I am sure that uh

[119:03] most of the people in our RR and re zones would not be thrilled if we said there could be more people there and frankly most of those houses aren't affordable even by co-ops or by anybody at this point but there are exceptions um there are definitely exceptions and and it's the inverse for the obvious reasons I mean Sam was alluding to it that at least in theory the houses are further apart although even in onzo the side setback is only 10 15 feet so it really depends on how it's literally laid out not what the rules are um you can be in an ER Zone you can be 10t away from or 15 feet away from your neighbor you could be 70 ft away from your neighbor that's another argument for a use review yep well yeah so I'm I'm I'm I'm not going there at the moment but I think this is where you you have to decide you either kind of have a one-size fits-all and it's

[120:00] good enough or you start doing specific site by site types of analysis because I don't think there's an in between I mean yeah every site's different so either you just say it's good enough so I'm not sure about this the one thing I would probably add and I don't ask me for the number either is I would add I would probably add some absolute cap yeah um fine so you have a 3700 squ foot house of which a whole bunch is a basement and maybe some is a garage people have finished their garages legally or not because we're going to have to do something about all the illegal space in a lot of these units which I don't know what we do there's a gazillion amount of uh you know unpermitted finished space in Boulder um including garages all over the place do you let them get away with it does it have to be per have been permitted I don't know um but nonetheless you could have you know a 3700 ft house in a LR neighborhood or RL

[121:05] neighborhood um with a bunch in the basement and you know you divide by 200 you get a lot of people can I tag on this is just a colloquy I I've also been thinking about floors and minimums you know we could say floors and Floors minimums maximums minimum he just proposed a cap or Max minimums are good too by the way you could have a minimum that would be workable from a co-op standpoint so you could say that you know you don't want a co-op in too small of a place you want it to be if it's 200 square feet per and six would be something that you'd want then you could say needs to be 1,200 square feet but you could have at least six if you meet that requirement you could have at least six people in there and so the the thing I was thinking through is you know co-ops explain that you need a certain number of people to make them work and so I didn't want to set up things that aren't going to work for the co-ops or for the

[122:01] Neighbors do we have a motion Aon what just I'll chime in here that's an interesting idea Sam if you if you talk about as long as you have a building that's a reasonable size to have a floor so that you can make something workable I think to me that makes some of this a little bit more workable um more functional I just want to bring up um you know uh Suzanne wrote us a a nice long email with some of her opinions and she she looked at uh more of two tiers rather than three um which you know I think is more uh along the lines of what I'm thinking but you know in terms of the the public um testimony that we've gotten both in the in the public hearing that we got and a number of emails the the concern that I'm hearing emerge uh more often than any other is a change neighborhood character predominantly and what I'm hearing is really about the the zones that are basically RL you know whether that's one or or two but uh people who live in Martin Acres or the

[123:00] hill and say you know I don't um I don't want 17 people living next to me because that's not what I signed up for so that might be the the carve out that we might make is it might be a one category as the rl1 and twos that do um have smaller lot sizes on average and that are I think the the neighborhoods where people are most concerned about neighborhood character and changes to it so I'll throw that out there as a possibility for moving forward as a as one one place where we put a a gradation on Lisa yeah I would though um I guess I would include how it is right now the RRS and just the RLS um as one I think still um you have to ask people why did they move to a particular place and um and putting 25 people in a r e or RR or residential low density it just I think you're creating conflict

[124:00] just from the start so so I'm willing to put a motion out please so I move that we move forward with this amendment to have different uh occupants per square footage based on different Zone districts without determining what the number is whether it's two or three classes and whether it's 200 300 or 400 I would just like to keep this concept in place you can pick Tom and bring them back to us because I think that we will have some more to say about it so how about we we use what we've drafted and then you can mark that up at the yep so I move that you want to say anything about uh Max well I I agree that I would like us to consider caps and Floors I don't have anything very helpful to give I mean I guess I could see a floor being six you don't want to have one that doesn't have six so I'm comfortable there Cap's more difficult do you is a little more difficult I agree um but I could see the Caps being

[125:01] also by Zone District would you be interested in doing it per bedroom no no people can you can do you can you can make bedrooms out of anything legal bedrooms you can yeah yeah you can Andrew has a good bunch of examples so so is that clear enough that that we stick with the three that we have here and that we consider Tom you you put us out an idea for uh caps and Floors because I don't have anything right at the moment but all right there's a motion by Sam do we have a second I'll second it I'll second do whatever all right so all in favor so I'll just say this is better starting point than where we are but this also is going to take a little more work it will all right on to the next

[126:02] item license not tied to ownership can I just say on that last and you're going to amend the uninhabitable space to include garages yes to or to ex also I'll I'll put this in as the part of the ordinance and then propose some language to deal with some of the issues that you raised very good in the memo thank so license not tied to ownership uh so the the way I originally drafted this you had to again modeling on rental licenses you have to own the property to get the license uh Council asked me to draft some language that would uh allow for a group to have a license and then go purchase a property or rent a property uh so um I I used the definition I'm assuming that you're going to have a definition for legitimate Cooperative organization and so that was we talked about that earli in the certification section so I just carried that concept forward into here

[127:00] and said that you could if you have you you're certified as such an organization you could get yourself licensed and that's the the language and there's a provision this was also suggested by Council that you could only get a license with the consent of the of the property owner you could only operate I'm sorry you could get the license but you could only operate with the written consent anybody want to pick that off or is it I'll just make one comment I mean if we're going to allow rental licenses I guess I'm okay with this I'll just tell you I'm not sold on on rental co-ops and we're not talking about that tonight I'm sure that will come back on the next go around but I just still see huge problems with rental co-ops that I haven't yet figured out how to solve can you give an example uh yeah a lot of phony rental co-ops that's the example and uh I just and I'm not knocking the the people who are serious about co-ops there are a lot of people who are serious and who will do it right but I

[128:03] just you know it is amazing and all you got to do is look at current rental stuff and what's going on with the short-term rentals and the number of people who find ways to cheat it's just kind of unbelievable um it's very hard to not have loopholes um and uh there a lot of really clever people out there and maybe this goes back to and I mean this is where things get all intertwined it goes back to certification it goes back to a lot of things they're all glued together and you know the better we can have certification whatever on Earth that means um the easier it is at least for me to support rental licenses I'm I'm not quite there yet but again these are not stand I mean they're just not Standalone issues um they all come together and unfortunately you need to fix several of them to be comfortable about the the outcome so yeah I'm mostly concerned

[129:02] about people can set up lookalike co-ops and imposter co-ops imp coops yeah that's what Suzanne called them and it's I'm not not knocking staff I'm not knocking anything it's I think very hard to enforce all of that just inherently difficult Andrew so I I think this is the kind of thing that is that that starts to get us to the point where we don't have impostor co-ops I mean I'm especially if we get the certification which I frankly you know this why I keep coming back to the I get the acronym wrong but the the group uh the the the the co-op nonprofit group right now uh you know that it's not in their interest to certify a bunch of student you know um fraternities and whatnot to become these and so again I like the idea of having multiple layers of of of checking but that's why I would want them involved in some way and to be and on

[130:02] the rental issue I've you know I've struggled with this for sometime I'm more comfortable with the rental situation than the owner situation because for exactly the reasons we've been talking about the rental allows the re revocation of the permit and and it's the owner that starts to pose all these sort of equity fairness issues what do you do if somebody moves out and they want to leave and they want to sell their interest is it still a co-op is it this is it that but the rental if you've got teeth on it you can yank the permit and it's and it's with a group of people then um then we we can fix a mistake essentially it's harder to fix a mistake with an equity Co-op so y Mary Sam so I'd like to tag on to that cuz I have two thoughts um we have tied the fact that we changed our occupancy um enforcement mechanisms to trying to also have a co-op ordinance that makes sense

[131:01] and then we've also tied that to additional enforcement right we have said that that is a key thing is we want to clean up Matt I believe some of the rental situations that you describe and we wanted to do it without penalizing people who are being good actors and so I am very much in favor of we use this kind of momentum that we've got to increase enforcement around you know property conditions things that you know making used to bring up a lot I think are important so and so I agree with Andrew that this gives us a way to do that a path um that allows us to separate and I think this also does something else which is it gives the group that holds the license some pricing power you know in other words the landlords are going to be maybe able to charge a little more for the house but the people individually are going to be paying less than they would otherwise and so I I think this structure actually gives the people who are going around to the different locations a little bit of power that if we made it with the property then the landlords would have

[132:00] all the power and so I think this is our right way to balance those interests so so if I can add on to that real quickly so Andrew you make really good points um I guess again it comes back to the certification and the enforcement which we've all struggled with because it's hard again again it's not blaming anybody it's just hard you know I've asked several times what would it really take to enforce not just co-ops but frankly the problems aren't so much with the collaps with the gazillion rentals that we have the 20,000 rentals we have in Boulder that's where the problems are um what would it take both in terms of any legal um difficulties that we have as well as just you know enforcement people out there doing it and the cost of that um and then you know with the co up and I don't remember what's in the current version of the ordinance honestly but there's also some at least in my mind unclarity is to you know what is a what is a transgression is it complaints is

[133:01] it convictions thas told us very rarely do we get convictions because we things just kind of work through the court system which is makes all the sense in the world but that makes it very hard to base something on a conviction so what do you base it on just a complaint well that's kind of unfair anybody can complain about anything anything so I to me those things need to get sorted out they may not be that hard but they at least need one more round of sorting so I can see the whole picture Lisa and for me I don't know exactly where I'm going to land on this but my biggest concern is enforcement and um we had an issue in my neighborhood it took over 12 years to resolve and um that is unacceptable there's uh quite a few of these and um I'm I'm hopeful that we can have um uh a study

[134:01] session on enforcement um I'm not going to be able to go forward on any of this unless we are really upping the enforcement and unless we can show some kind of a track record that when there is a violation and it's just so blatant that um that is resolved almost immediately and um that has not been the case and so I don't know if it means that we need to hire a whole bunch more um uh Enforcement Officers for on a temporary basis for two to four years until we get this thing right but right now we're not enforcing um uh and this we're not enforcing what we need to be enforcing and I get the sense that we are woefully woefully woefully underst staffed on enforcement despite the fact

[135:00] that over the last few budget Cycles we have added additional uh enforcement and I appreciate that but um I think we just have to look at the short-term rentals and the creativity of the people who are taking those and um so that's not fair no I not even 6 months in the short rental and we gave people a 6mon so to say we're not enforcing that's just not fair and we have dedic Tom us here and tell us what we're doing so Lisa let me please finish because in in the enforcement of the short-term rental that we all know about that there's been a repeated complaint on before that this is not the first time this this particular homeowner has um really weasel the system and that that um in this particular case there were so many complaints prior to it becoming a short-term rental it was a over occupancy um situation and so all I'm

[136:00] saying so I'm sorry I picked short-term rentals because I know we had six months all I'm saying is we don't enforce very well or adequately um the violations that are going on and so let me just take you back through some history two years ago we had an enforcement study session and we laid out a plan to try to do it better and we we we're still in the midst of that plan I mean we did a whole thing on doing better occupancy enforcement and we've held off doing that until we finished this so it's it's not really fair to say that we haven't done it or we haven't looked at it we in Co on Code Enforcement we certainly have improved our performance on Code Enforcement over the last few years with the additional budget things so it it's to say globally that we don't do enforcement that's not fair we do and we try very hard in these areas it's really challenging and remember a lot of the stuff really lays at the feet of decisions that were made years ago in

[137:01] terms of so over occupancy grandfathering in folks uh that was a decision allowing uh allowing um to when you some you had to do but when we reson the hill we allowed existing uses to stay and we' we've we don't we don't really have a good way of getting rid of non-conforming uses so the some a lot of things you hear about is as non- enforcement are are things that are embedded in the system nuisance we've talked about nuisance I would love to rewrite our nuisance ordinance our nuisance ordinance was written by landlords to basically prevent us from ever bringing a nuus action in my view so we don't really have a lot of the tools we're doing better and we're in the middle of a process that began with a study session on enforcement I get that but I can send you a whole list of properties let's get back on topic Andrew so I just the reason I I want to explain a little bit to the public too who's here and I appreciate all the involvement of of everyone in this process and we've had

[138:02] you know we have these issues this enforcement issues for example come up in in multiple meetings so you know might not may not be privy to this and for the for the co-op crowd obviously we've got a you know a real perception in the community that um that our enforcement doesn't work so well uh and um and I've heard and been a part of anecdotally um many of those instances uh and um and on the flip side um you know well it's not for a lack of effort on the city's part um but but we do have some problems and I think Tom pointed them out it's not it's not just occupancy by the way it's nuisance it's all kinds of things you hear people's stories about the second somebody lawyers up the city drops the case that's that's at least an that's that's a perception out there and and it could be because of our of our um uh our laws need to be addressed and so I think one of the things we talked about in the

[139:01] last study session is addressing what the public perception of the problems with enforcement is so that we can then figure out how to address it from that end perhaps rather than just say throw more money at it or whatever because if the laws are no good and they're not allowing the city to enforce then we got to fix that it's not just adding people or saying the city's not doing its job it's that we don't have the right tools to do our job so I think correct me if I'm wrong Jane and Tom we're going to start looking at this here in the near future yeah okay so everybody realizes it's an issue Aon oh go ahead y well I just thought I'd try to move this forward still got a bunch left uh so just to make a motion that we um adapt the adopt the proposed amendment with the license not tied to ownership um as Thomas put forward here and just that that Andrew and Sam put it well and I think this is one of our our important tools to control Market impacts of cops and to make sure that we get good and legitimate cops I think this is a great way to go a

[140:00] second all right all in favor it passes six to one Lisa voting against all right on to numbering okay so it doesn't get easier uh so uh parking is is is clearly one of the impacts that the community is concerned about and the council's expressed concern about uh so uh the proposed ordinance would uh require the co-op to submit a parking plan to limit The Cooperative to no more than four vehicles uh at the last session Council asked me to come up with some more specific criteria and so I basically went back to the existing um uh 963b which is the current Cooperative ordinance and added us a provision on um uh requiring off street parking so one space for every two residents and uh

[141:01] having an alternative of getting an EOP pass for everyone there who wants to kick it off Visa so Tom do we have a um in this right now do we we have a uh in the last version we did not have a onsite parking management plan well the last version was they'd have to they'd have to submit a plan to show why they would never have more than four vehicles right but it didn't say where those four vehicles were and it didn't address that they needed to be on site or they can be parked on the street no this is this is the first time i' I've proposed something that requires off street parking okay well that and that was perfect purposeful because one of the criticisms we heard about the old ordinance was the the off street parking requirements made it virtually impossible to create a co-op so my original draft didn't have those when you asked me to come back with more specific I don't know how you get more

[142:00] specific without actually requiring off street parking so I at least wanted to tee up the issue for you to have a discussion on whether that's a direction you want to go I I can't I mean other than just being vague and saying you have to have a transportation demand management plan which I'm not sure Works uh I I don't know another way to go and I wanted to hear where you are on this well I I am interested in requiring an off street parking um management plan um and I be and I think it depends on where you are I mean I think if you go to certain neighborhoods this will not work and um and other neighborhoods it would work just fine but I don't know how how this can just be a one-size fits all so I guess I'd be interested in terms of um Sam's proposal about square footage in different zones I'd be interested in you coming back with something about um uh

[143:02] parking management plan with respect to various zoning um types all right Aon and then Matt well so Tom I appreciate you bringing forward the alternative but I I I don't support the approach of the the one off street parking space per two occupants um just as a city we we don't we're moving away from that kind of minimum parking requirement then you'd either make it impossible to to park it adequately or you'd um with that requirement or you'd end up with uh no landscaping and all concrete so that you could you know create the required number of parking spots so i' I'd like to see a TDM approach which is um transportation demand management which is how we go with our other kind of development approaches in town and including um saying that if you are in a neighborhood ecopath Zone that you're required uh to have Eco passes um but that maybe this is part of what gets certified by the city manager as the TDM plan for the

[144:02] development Matt well I kind of partially with Aaron at least the first part I I think there is some problem with saying on one off Street for two occupants um but TDM plans don't guarantee you any outcome whatsoever um EOP passes don't gu you guarantee you any outcome whatsoever either um they're nice but their relationship to the outcome is who knows it depends an awful lot on the people in the location and a million other variables that change over time um you know we struggle with this with our TDM plans for commercial and we've talked about making them outcome based um just because the plan doesn't mean much um the outcome is what you're really looking for um that is hard to measure so I don't know I mean I realize this is a big deal um and this one's got

[145:01] me puzzled as well I got to say um as to what to do that doesn't make them impossible but on the other hand reduces the effect of a co-op being there um Tom you said you know the four vehicles is essentially un enforceable I'm sure that's true I never really understood how we were going to figure that out or enforce it so although it's another one of these things that sounds good I don't think really we could make it work I don't know uh all I can say is TDM plans don't excite me um they just they're you know they're nice they're on paper but they don't they don't necessarily have a relationship to an outcome Andrew just in in the in the neighborhoods that have a parking permit system would this I mean if you if you have if you had a co-op we

[146:01] we're not we're assuming that it's still limited the same number of parking permits as a single family home is that fair or we is there talk about upping that or how how would that work so an NP you've talking about an MPP area yeah like on the hill for example that yeah great so we you know I mean Andrew that's a good it's a good point Alan it's Alan sorry you know I always forget who you are everybody does I don't know why uh that's a good point now we don't know if one of these is going to be in an NPP of course except I think everything's going to be an NPP eventually but you know we've talked about and I've been pushing this changing how many permits you get because when you add up all the permits you can get in your visitor permits and your guest permits you can get a heck of a lot of permits um so you can still have six cars on the street effectively and so but if you are in an NPP I think it should be part of this and we'd have to figure out what the right number is but that's a really good

[147:01] point now it only affects some portion but it's an important portion right I mean that's that's where the biggest parking complaints are in in theory the is yeah um and so I guess that that would be important to me is that uh is sort of not adding to the impact of sort of the homes in the neighborhood already um and I don't think there's a proposal to I don't think people are interested in adding a bunch of cars to the co-ops anyway but so for whatever limit there is for the existing house before it became a co-op um seems like that should be the number of parking spaces it gets uh at at the um at the time and that's that's pretty much self-limiting I if you don't have the you don't have your parking pass and you're in MPP you got to take right I mean yes yeah so um but that one we enforce what's that that one we enforce they do yes yes so do you know that personally they're going around collecting money yeah so Sam so I was

[148:03] going to go there to Andrew so thank you um the NPP intersection with co-ops is very useful and helpful um Tom what about contracts um because one of the things that we're asking for the the Co-op folks to do is to bring us some assurances that thus and so are true and so there's third party assurances there's also the internal practices that they practice where they will only allow a certain number of cars to be owned by people if they know it when they interview them at the time to join the co-op do you feel like there's anything that's useful there it it certainly it's it's a promise it's really hard to enforce sure and I'm not necessarily saying this would be easy to enforce but you know to the extent that we can at least require that the bylaws say these things and that that's a you know a requirement for certification some number of people will be good actors and some number will be bad so the the first one required them

[149:00] to submit a plan that they'd have no more than four vehicles so they they could do that that they could that their plan could be our bylaws say that you we only three people can own cars or have cars but I kind of agree with Lisa you know in some places for off Street cars parking or you know three off street is a pretty big impact and in other places it's a non-event and so the the other question would be you know with an NPP the problem is solved right that's just done um but in a case like this why did we come up with four I mean why why not three in some zones or two so I I think that um I could be Ming I think I got four it's been a while from because I think it's in the prior ordinance or this there's there was some discussion during the prior ordinance and that's a little bit more than a regular a family would have I think the average family has almost three vehicles I I think that's that's where

[150:00] it came from and so it it's one up from three okay thank you there's no magic to the number that's helpful um I just want to comment I agree with you Matt I mean I I think TDMs are quite useful and Commercial you know buildings where you've got somebody who's paid to you know at least do part of that work in a co-op it's going to be quite different and more fluid so I don't really Tom just my feedback is I don't really believe in a TDM approach here I don't know that it's going to get you anything um I would be more for contractual requirements to have fewer and have the number change by Zone District or change by occupant so you have four vehicles but what if it's a Sixers Co-op you know a pretty minimal one I'd rather see that be two uh and if it's going to be 12 person then maybe it's four but anyhow I I would see see it tied like that well one thing that is new I think new up here is the last sentence of the first piece which says you have to have a minimum of

[151:01] two off street parking spaces we we can debate that later but let's for this instant of tonight assume that sticks well not everybody uses their r street parking spaces a lot of people fill them up with junk and so maybe that's another piece of the contract people mm right um maybe that's another piece of the contract which is you have to actually use them that's actually pretty easy to figure out whether they're using them or not um that shouldn't be impossible for somebody to figure if you really if you did that and if you had some contractual to four and again these numbers are all fluid but for sake of conversation that would give you two off street vehicles which in most places is probably not impossible I like that all right any other comments would somebody like to make a

[152:02] motion do you want to do something along the lines of what you were proposing so may I make a suggestion yes please do so it sounds like you don't like the proposed amendments so perhaps we shouldn't incorporate that into the ordinance perhaps we should leave the ordinance as it is and I draft some language that strengthens it along the lines of this discussion for you to consider its second reading that would be great and I think for me like Matt said having two off street parking spaces doesn't seem honorous to me either so you could start there with that being you know a minimum of two off street parking and then one additional per X not one additional parking space I'm sorry one additional car allowed per X number of people it sound like you were thinking one car for three people something like that I guess can I just add I mean I wonder if that's you know you start quickly get into um zoning

[153:02] districts or what I mean if you think about on the hill there's not a lot of I mean there are places with with two off street parking places but there's a lot that don't have them true and frankly a lot of them you don't want people parking in in the spot that uh that they might be able to pull under the grass or whatever I mean you get some pretty junky looking stuff going on there so I don't I don't know about the I I'm still not sold on the two I'm assuming these are legal off street parking yeah but these gravel pads that they make and all that other kind of stuff I don't know how about one I mean I I'm I'm open to the number I don't know the typologies as well on the hill well so it may make less it may make less of a difference in a place that has an NPP right right right maybe maybe on an MPP you one of the things I'm thinking is that there's a separate provision dealing with places that are in already in an MPP but can I can I just ask a question we have ordinances though right now that you can't just pull up even though people do

[154:01] um you can't just pull up on drive on on your front yard and use that as a parking space no right next to your beer P TW right right so grass Andrew we're getting to that don't worry don't bring it up I mean I guess I I like the NPP discussion I like you know keeping in The Cooperative having a minimum of two off street parking places and that they have to follow our current ordinances that they don't do it in the front yard um so I didn't hear keeping in the two off street parking I heard uh so so the what's in here is two off street parking uh one a minimum of one off street parking for two occupants Matt suggested a new provision that says that at least two that you actually use well it says that I'm just reading from your proposed amendment um and I actually liked it I am okay with the

[155:00] potential change that we've talked about that Andrew kind of raised which is in an NPP yeah maybe the standards are a little different because the problem gets solved in a different way but not everybody's I mean NP PS are in some key areas but they're not in huge parts of the residential part of Boulder so right and we still need to have the discussion that will come back on NPS because there's some neighborhoods who would say they need mpps and we haven't done them we'll get we'll get back to that but the other challenge is that our enforcement for NP mpps are basically to prevent commuter parking so our enforcement is pretty much 9 to5 uh theoretically if someone's living there they could be driving their car to work every day and never be enforced against yeah all right that's a good point I mean in some places it's not and Wittier it's it's not but on the hill

[156:00] it's I don't know what the hours are in the hill honestly there's not a limit on the signs it's just it's full time it's not it's not the time it's when we actually don't tell people when we have all right let me just say one other thing about parking enforcement we've hired two new parking enforcement officers this year and we are enforcing on weekends in certain areas thanks so are we good with this one so just to go back to no we weren't going to have a motion because he just going to come back what Tom proposed right so that there was there was some chatter after yeah what what I suggested is leave the ordinance as it is let me try to draft a different Amendment for second reading that incorporates this discussion yeah great all right yeah maybe several fair enough okay all right move on to number six neighborhood notification so

[157:02] um so this is this is what's in 963b now I wanted you to have this so you could see the the the the the provision that is considered not operative and then this is what um of course the proposed ordinance is nothing this is the proposed amendment so what council discussed was having a u basically welcome to the neighborhood kind of notification system or we're coming to the neighborhood kind of notification system you have to certify that you've told everybody you're going to be there and I I chose uh because it seems to be where your discussion went the street face so everybody on either side of the block you'd have to tell Andrew can I first off is this um is this intended to be in advance or at the time of in advance so this would be part

[158:00] of your application as part of your application you would have to certify that you've sent a note out to everybody but so part of the certification process potentially no your application process but but there's nothing but there's nothing anyone could do right I mean it's just sort of yeah so it this also this strikes me a little bit like the short-term rental thing where you've got to have the property manager who's always available kind of thing and it's got to be published and people need to access it why not rather than having a mailing or whatever why not have associated with an address a um the the identification of the individuals and the organization responsible so for example if a neighbor has a problem they can contact that organization that certified them so interesting in the Minneapolis ordinance that we got today they have a provision that there has to be one of the occupants who is the sort of registered agent I for they used a different term I don't remember what it was and you have to notify folks if that person changes so it's it's the person you call rather than having a whole list of everybody so

[159:00] we could do something along those lines yep yeah okay so and I just I think the way that it's that I'd be interested in approaching this would be upon move in it's a as a good neighbor kind of thing hey guys we live in the neighborhood nice to meet you here so you can contact UM that that would be the approach I would be interested in taking and I think there's been a promise of cookies right exactly we need to get cookies in the ordinance so so again I'm thinking of how our staff processes these things so I put it as before because then you can you have to sign a verification that you've done it uh if it's after if it's upon move in we have no way to check and that that's fine but um we have these discussions of enforcement and this is the way we get things where why aren't you enforcing that well because we have no way of knowing whether they've done it Lisa well I'm the one who brought it up um last time and I

[160:00] guess for me this is still um use review kind of an issue and the way the original ordinance was written is that um there's the city manager Rule and um people can um after the uh Co-op has moved in if there's a complaint that people can call the city manager um night and day and create all kind of havoc and for me it's I think it would be wise to um allow some kind of input or whatever to find out whether this is a good fit or not um or else the city manager will be in the mediation um business all the time or could be potentially and um so what what do you mean by uh a good fit well if it's if there's

[161:03] um let's put it this way if there's 22 people who are going to move next door to you you might want to know about it and if you were the 22 people you might want to contact the people when you're planning on renting that or buying that and seeing what kind of issues do you would you have you know um on us moving in um this is not a um well we'll see how it turns out but I think this is a privilege that we're asking it's not necessarily I think we just talked about a property right um so I see that as a different thing and for me I would like these to work so if if we have um a real problem that you can see at the very beginning maybe there's a way to modify that I don't know but um I

[162:04] think a use review or some kind of a conditional use review um and I still don't know the full use review whether you get notification or not do you get notification so you know I guess I want some kind of notification before it happens either through a use review a regular use review um conditional doesn't give a notification Andrew and then Matt and then Sam going back to the issue of um you know providing sort of that that was talking was it Minneapolis is that what we were talking about yeah Minneapolis is providing all kinds of anyway um so uh they haven't passed their ordinance yet talking I know I know so they may be sitting there tonight going look at what Boulders I know exactly exactly exactly they've got puppies instead of kittens so the um that being

[163:02] said if we were it is enforcable is it not you know to require the sort of the posting of the on a website or somewhere maybe the city has a location on its website or maybe there's a location pull it up on on um you know City records from by the web this sort of this registered agent concept we could we could enforce something like that right yeah and and then um so we could have a provision that after they got licensed within 30 days they had to submit something right and I keep coming up with ideas now for our rental program in general could we do this with regular rental properties so that each student doesn't sign up to take the ticket and we could actually uh effectuate on Nu property about that and yes yeah so put that on the the property list okay so just just quickly U we we've talked about this I'm I'm fine with this I'm fine with the registered agent concept it's all good um but it's not

[164:03] notification in the sense that we mean it normally in our code and I just want to make sure we don't confuse anybody me notification in our code is Allah use review um again I'm not saying that's what we should do I'm just distinguishing the two um notification in our code is when you actually have some ability to be part of something or do something there's going to be some decision made by uh somebody it could be staff it could be planning board it could be whomever is it could be Boza it could be somebody who's appropriate this is a different sort of thing and it's perfectly reasonable I would just use a different word to not confuse the two and then we as a group will have to loop back around to that whole question of you know the use review or whatever it is if we decided to go that route that would be a true notification and they're just very different beasts I mean they're

[165:02] very different concepts so that's really my only comment let's be careful about our wording so people know what our intent is Sam so I I kind of like what Tom had started with and the sense that it's just informative it gives people a heads up and unless we do go down some use review path uh there isn't anything actionable about the notification it's just kind of for public notice and so I'm comfortable starting with that I mean it strikes a middle ground to me I'm not quite sure on whether I want the use review or the conditional use review something I'm still thinking about but I do think some kind of notification which is different than you know people get to vote on whether you're allowed there it's simply a we're going to be here kind of thing so I'm comfortable with where you started them okay so we'll start with this and then I'll also draft some things that incorporate this discussion such as the the some sort of agent concept and happening after rather than

[166:02] before as Aon suggested Dan you thank you can you go backward to the original one this is the current Cod this one this one seems to me I'm trying to process how how this works so this one seems to me like it would be uh it would work for a co-op who is in an existing building and now they want to apply so this is the existing code language and it's never been used I see so I put it up there because I I wanted to sort of draw the balance between what Lisa was asking for and what was in the original code and what I what I drafted so this is what I'm proposing with some the modifications that you've all talked about I'm with you okay it's yeah just one comment I

[167:03] mean I I have um I really think I think everyone here wants to um protect the residents we want to be cognizant about what the whole city is is thinking but we also don't want to treat the co-op people worse than regular renters we don't want to make it so you know difficult that they're really being kind of picked upon compared to regular renters who don't have to do any of this stuff and I know they want to be good citizens the ones that are out there now who really want to you know do this kind of of thing um but I think we just have to find that right balance and I think this is a a good example of that Lisa yeah my point is and I I guess I'm where Sam is is that there that there be when you do a a minor modification on

[168:01] your house or a re I don't know a remodel I'd have to ask the staff back there but um more often than not there's something posted in front of your house and people walk by and they see that and you can use one of those little Q RLS and you can find out what it is and then you can contact there's a project manager and so it just gives people just notification and it's just um basically a yard sign yeah that's all I just feel like it's a little bit of profiling you know no it's a little bit like uh you know sex offender here no if you it can't end up like that you know it's they're they're not sex offenders um I I don't see a sex offender out there but um the the the whole thing is just when you're doing a a a slight change that's usually been the protocol

[169:03] and so it's um then it's not the co-op organization it's that the building is changing from a rental to a co-op well that doesn't even um noted I don't think when if you buy a house and then you move from that house and you decide you want to rent it I don't think there's notification in that particular case but there are a whole bunch of different kinds of notification we use I don't have a list of them but when you're when you're um I don't know I should have I have a whole bunch in my all building permits have to be yeah building permits have to be posted uh when you um add something onto your building you have to post that and so I would just say don't give an exception just make this a regular kind of the process and so that people are at least notified I agree

[170:02] with um I mean I'm still thinking or am I like the use review um concept or some version of it but for me in this particular issue it's just about notifying people it's not necessarily voting one way or another and the use reviews would provide that kind of notification because they have those yard signs that say notice of use review and it's there and it's a notification again my question on that would be when does that happen in the process if there's a co-op group living in an existing building then I understand that but if they are out searching for a rental property or a purchased property how does that happen because they're duking it out with other people for access to that property yeah so I I I just yes so I Jan I agree with your comments and so that was why I put forward the uh notification after move in as a good neighbor thing so given I

[171:01] would we still have a lot more to talk about so I'm trying to move us forward Tommy said that you would give us the option of the upon movein version so if I would then make a motion that we we take Tom's proposed amendment along with the option for that to be after move in um can we see we can move us as well as the legal notification the the point of contact point of contact contact we do both those things great okay so go ahead I was going to suggest that perhaps uh Susan richone whispered in my ear that she has strong concerns about using use review for this and while since you keep you're sort of going back and forth on that you might want to hear those concerns at some po point so that you can understand what planning's thoughts would be on that so but you were just going to call for a vote Mary and I apologize for that I don't think we have a vote on this particular one I yeah I made a motion so we oh you did make a motion right sorry I missed it all right so motion by Aaron and seconded by Sam

[172:01] and and can I just clarify Erin does this have upon move in or prior it will have the two options both options yeah both option yep so we'll have to pick at a later time all right all in favor so then and then can we ask did you vote I did yeah okay okay unanimously can we ask Susan to come forward to express her concerns yes good evening Susan richone deputy director for planning so conditional use versus use review they're pretty fundamentally different a conditional use basically you identify a use and you say under these standards and conditions that are very specified this use is appropriate in this Zone District so and I can give you some examples of uses actually that's where co-ops fit today

[173:00] that I think you'll see there's some similarities to this and I think very honestly the journey you're on has been really about that it's been defining it's been saying in general this is a good use to have in the community and under these specific conditions in these Zone districts it would work you know these these many people etc etc etc this a use review is really Geared for deciding whether or not a use is okay in a particular location and whether or not it's compatible so the basic use review criteria are about compatibility and operating conditions so a really common thing is limiting the hours of operation of something so you're really saying only if they can mitigate their impacts or if they're compatible can they go in there and I believe that if you put co-ops in the use review category and it's a discretionary review you are setting things up to pit the neighborhood against the co-op and staff is going to be right in the middle because it's very discretionary it can

[174:01] turn very subjective and if we set up the co-op ordinance that way that GE on this specific use and I'll just give an example um gee it's not going to be compatible because that house is 5T from my property line and not 15 ft and there's going to be too much noise I don't know or gee there's too many people or there's I just think you're setting it up um for conflict and um for a very difficult situation I think you have to we all have to identify what are the con specific conditions under which these work in different Zone districts so that's my I'm happy to answer questions but I'm really concerned about use reviewing really setting us up for a for conflict Sam would conditional use review allay that so is it just the full use review that you're concerned with yes I would say conditional use would be totally appropriate because in conditional use basically you put a c in the use chart for the for uh co-op in the in the um

[175:00] specific Zone districts and then you write the conditions for each Zone District the way you want it you say in the rr1 and the rl1 it's this many people p you know you can you put all the very specific conditions and if staff can check off the boxes then they get their permit um I will add one other thing about notification um for us the worst thing is when we have to notify people but they have no ability to influence it that's what happens with adus and OA us and it is extremely frustrating for the public so there's a notification requirement people come in and we say well they met the requirements they can do it well why' you notify me so that is really in for us I mean a Good Neighbor policy the things you're talking about make perfect sense but this idea of I'm going to notify everybody but they have no ability to impact is extremely frustrating for members of the public which is why we shouldn't call this notification question so when Charles

[176:02] came when Charles came up and I appreciated his explanation he said there were three types of use review this a full use review a conditional re use review and a regular use review I thought there were always I heard I heard three as well I'll defer to on that I'm thinking of conditional use versus use review there are different levels of use review certain use reviews are staff level and call up by planning board and certain use reviews go to planning board but the general criteria aren't that different they's still the compatibility that I mention no and I said that there were two there's conditional use review and then there's a full use review the two and only the full use review requires notification typically yes there are instances like oeus and adus that are administrative reviews that do have their own notification requirements they're rare but oeus and adus are one of them to Susan's point they don't work

[177:00] very well so is it possible to craft regulations where you have a conditional use that has a notification requirement yes it is it's possible to do that has it worked well in the past um I don't know that it has thank you any other questions for staff that's I don't I just that's very helpful I think it'll help tee up our discussion at the next reading about just exactly how we do this all right so we'll move on to the next item rent regulation Matt asked um the good question of how do we establish the the benchmarks for this and uh I explained in the memo that um my original thought was we do it based on mediate income which is a so something that's established butun told me that well we don't price housing based on income and it's housing is a market based thing so I tried to come up with some Metric that we could base in there's a Denver area housing survey but it's not really granular enough to do this and uh we got

[178:02] that interesting thing from somebody in San Francisco where someone actually gone through all the rental uh offerings in the paper for years to track the rental market it's fascinating of course Very intensive uh we now have Craigslist and so it's not just rent list in the paper you can you can pretty much check but you know I I started looking at Craigs List they don't necessarily tell you where the place is in the ad in fact most of them don't so you you you'd have to you could find out generally what people are asking but to try to figure out by neighborhoods it's almost impossible so I I didn't put anything down here because I'm not sure council's all that interested in rent regulation and I'm not sure you want to spend a lot of time on it but it was a question that was asked I responded in the we can just move on if you have nothing further on that Sam so I don't have any anything further on this but I thought you know we we do want to incentivize affordable housing to the extent that we can and so I thought if we have over subscription to the rental um category

[179:02] you know we open it up and we get 10 that apply in a window and we've only got five to give for instance um we could means test you know you could means test you could do something about the applicants I mean first come first serve is one way to go um another way to go might be to try and incentivize um at least priority for the ones that are more affordable so that's not exactly this and we can move on from this but I just thought I would put out there that where there's a q we might rank that Q by affordability I can certainly put together some language there there there is EXA language in the rental licensing provision that's sort of it's not exactly a waiting list but it's it's a it's sort of a waiting list so let me let me think about that and see if I can draft something that helps you and I would be interested in means testing just in general for the

[180:00] rental cooperative for all cooperatives actually for that matter but me too so what does that mean what does that mean does that mean that people would be submitting their paychecks as part of the certification process every individual person however means testing is done well I'm asking testing I'm not familiar that's a qualification process yeah it's different I if I could just I mean we're we're um we talk about things the city can or cannot verify and all that kind of stuff I mean this one to me is just I mean how much somebody makes or what their income is or anything like that I mean I um I just think that's a that's a layer we don't need I mean there's just a certain group of people that are going to want to do this and a certain group that aren't and and I say this is one where the in my view you know we're

[181:02] doing a lot of things to try to protect things and and this is one area we just don't get into in my view but maybe I I also think there's another way you could look at it which is what what rents are being charged so rather than means testing on income you could say how affordable you know you just rank them in order of affordability per person or something like that are you saying we'd have a rent level requirement or a c no just no this should just be a way of ordering a queue if you have five a year and you've got 15 that want to be part of it you're just going to make the most affordable ones per person go to the front of the line and the others would have to wait that's all Dan I just think it would be difficult to track that I mean if they're in a waiting line and they have six people in their Co-op and then they don't get one for a year then another one's going to come in and the one's one's going to leave and one's going to come in so I just see it as a tracking Nightmare and um I don't know I just I I agree with Andrew on this one and do students get priority because

[182:00] they don't have any income well it wasn't going to be so I said means tested but what I really should have meant is it's rent tested so you're getting the lowest cost per renter um options move first so it was it means testing was incorrect I I retract that all right so are we good with this one what does that mean that that means that we aren't interested in rent regulation and so I should I'll propose an amendment second reading to take that out of the proposed ordinance it's in there and it hasn't gotten a whole lot of traction with Council so we'll just abandon it and unless it comes back then so so you're saying that the second reading version will not have it that's my thought okay great because it it seems to be you've got enough issues to work on I think and one that doesn't so this is the so separation is the next one um so uh the the um current proposal

[183:01] uh is uh creating these neighborhood areas and I'm sorry in the memo I didn't do a real good job of explaining this this is carried over from the prior ordinance and from other some other separation requirements we have in a code we create what's called a neighborhood area and then we limit the number of the particular thing as a percentage of that neighborhood area so the the current draft has two different neighborhood areas um one 300 feet from the lot line and one 600 feet from the lot line and then the Restriction is that no more than 10% of the dwelling units in the neighborhood area can be cooperative housing units and that came from an original so it's kind of the the current code includes boarding houses and other things and adus as limitations council at the study session said that you weren't interested in adding other things just wanted to focus on Cooperative units and uh this is again sort of a straw man the 10% is not a magic number it's just the number in the current code and since the the the current code includes those other things that of course reduces the number so

[184:01] Matt asked if we could get the GPS folks to do some maps and you have hard copies of these in front of you on your dis uh but I I thought I'd put them up so everybody could see them uh perhaps not so well this is University Hill which is includes both a high density and a low density Zone in this particular Circle and what what they've done is draw circles at 300 feet 500 feet 700 feet and 1,000 feet and then count the number of dwelling units in those circles and take what 10% would be and so uh I'm pretty sure that when Matt was describing what he wanted we weren't really thinking about 10% of the dwelling units in the circle being that that it being some sort of Separation requirement or some some other limit but this is just meant as a graphical display that's what these circles look like so if you want to choose um a a a circle and as Matt points out it's

[185:01] really a rectangle not a circle because properties are not circles and so if you go out from the property line you're going to get a rectangle uh I I think GPS kind of works in circles but uh I I don't yeah so that's what it looks like this is University Hill this is gos Grove again this is this is an RH and rmx this is um 17th and Quin Norwood and this is Martin Acres yeah Tom again your 10% um included adus so so no in the the original ordinance in 963b it includes adus and boarding houses I think uh and Council said take those out they're not relevant for the co-op discussion so then we might assume that that number would go down if we included those so you might want to reduce the 10% to 8% or some

[186:00] fixed number 10 no more than 10 within 300 feet or whatever uh the the the the per I think the you utility and Matt this was your idea so you can talk to utility for me the utility of this is it sort of shows the scale right and if if you're going to say 10% within 1,000 ft it shows that there's a lot of co-ops that could you can squeeze into this thousand feet of um so it's what is it for the thousand feet in Martin Acres it's what 36 co-ops it shows you what it gives you a sense of which is useful we'll come back to what I had in mind is just how many units total there are within a box of a certain size and that's kind of useful I mean yes we know of course that lower higher densities are going to have more units but this actually gives you a real number a real life example in various neighborhoods of oh well this is how many this is how many units there are that actually is useful I mean that gives you some starting point what

[187:02] is a little odd about this and I know our adus do this but you know we don't have very many adus at the moment um is it doesn't change the total number that can be in any area no matter how you draw the circles the total number that can be in a bigger box is the same because it's always 10% of whatever is in whatever box you draw what it does change is I suppose how many you can have close to one another and what's odd is is the bigger you draw the circle um the more you could actually have close to one another which is a little counterintuitive but that's the way it turns out um another way of looking at it of course which I guess is kind of what I had in mind but this is going to take some more thought too so I'm not stuck on anything is really what you're doing is you're saying within a circle of a certain size you can only have one or

[188:01] two co-ops which is very different than this and then as you draw the circle bigger or the rectangle bigger um you are actually limiting the number of co-ops that can be in that bigger box so they're just I mean it sounds subtle but the outcomes are totally different depending on how you interpret what we mean here but again I think the maps are really useful because they do give you a sense of just how many units there are and therefore if you said 10% how many there could be um within a box of that size that part of it is is I think really useful but I probably lean the other way which is you can only have just so many within the the circle and I sent out an email today clarifying something and I mean this is all very tricky there's no good answer uh the problem with drawing

[189:00] circles like this is that and I know some of the co-op folks have said this and they're correct is if let's say you said you can only have one within a 500 foot circle I'm just totally making this up but let's say you said that you know it could be that it happens within that Circle of the two best places in the entire neighborhood for co-ops and you've just precluded the ability to do that um you also and you start seeing that on these circles as they get bigger you start crossing over a natural boundaries um you know like Highway 36 and other things and so you start disallowing things on the other side of a highway which is a little wacky but you know how this is the usual problem of I would rather keep it simple and have maybe some weird side effects than making ourselves crazy with that I cross a major road that I cross this that I cross that I mean it yeah GIS is wonderful but it does get complicated so I would keep it simple and I'd probably

[190:02] go to x number within a circle of a certain size and that's as far as I've gotten so far and does the does the circle change the number change for the different Zone districts ah well now there is an excellent question isn't it um obviously in the higher density there is a lot more units within any Circle you're going to draw and US typically the case so you know you have Martin Acres up if you drew a 500 foot circle you'd have 125 properties so if you said there's only one in a 500 foot circle you'd be saying well there's only one in 125 properties whereas in a an RR District within a 500 foot circle you'd probably say there's only one within I don't know 20 Properties or you know whatever that's re RR would be you may not have that one um re so

[191:01] maybe um you know I think from what people think I'm just thinking out loud here is could be totally wrong I think what people think of as impacts is a little less than the number of units in the circle than the distance from you right and that distance is the same no matter what the zoning district is so I'm not so sure it should be different for zoning districts again kind of keep it simple Sam well I'm almost there um I I like the for sure you have a circle and you say only one so that you get the separation um on the circle but again there's an interesting point you brought up is that there's both the distance between them that's one way that people experience them and then there's the number the fraction of homes that become co-ops so another possibility is you pick what you want that fraction to be whether it's you know 1% or half a percent or 2% and then you draw your

[192:03] circle to try and make that happen so you're different zoning districts that have different and I think that's an interesting way of trying to preserve Equity between neighborhoods because the fraction you know one of the concerns of the higher density neighborhoods is that they'll end up with more of these uh and it will erode the the feeling of the neighborhood but if you picked it to be the same fraction whether it's an re or an RL or an rmx then you could draw you could pick your circles there just kind of on average and get the same fraction of of places that are eligible for co-ops so if I'm understanding that correctly the separation would vary by zoning correct it would vary by zoning district and you would use this exact kind of thing which Matt this exercise that Matt had us do to figure out if you pick half a percent then it means in Martin Acres you have a 750 foot distance does that make sense yeah that

[193:01] makes sense you if you pick a percent confused which would not be unlikely you would have more in the higher density the ones in the higher density districts would be closer to one another no he's saying you draw the circle so that it fits that percent said 1% of all units can be co-ops or adus or anything whatever whatever the district you'd have more of them within a certain yes space and a higher density neighborhood that's correct whereas if you went with the one size fits-all it's one per circle of 300 feet then whatever the zoning district is it's one per 300 ft even though there'd be a wildly different number of units within that 300 ft so you get different again I'm not picking one right this minute I'm just you get you get different outcomes and they're they're clearly different I mean they're really on the ground different just to clarify when you say higher density you mean smaller lot sizes as opposed to like multi dwellings yeah yeah yeah so if you just compare

[194:02] that's all that matters is the lot Mar Acres you can see it pretty clearly just look at the number like the 500 foot circle in Martin Acres there's 125 houses in 500 feet in norn there's 7 so it Greater when when they're more when the houses are Clos so Sim what you're proposing would be smaller circles for the smaller lot siiz neighborhoods that's what I'm thinking I mean I look here and it says you know a 300 foot area is 45 properties right and you say one per 45 properties that's what we're going to allow there so it would be two and then if you want that same rough one per 45 it looks like you in Quint and 17th would draw a 400t circle and say that's got to be the separation between any two and I I guess I don't know what the right answer is what the feel is but one of my primary concerns that I've heard from the neighbors is that they don't want too

[195:00] many fractionally and maybe just want to minimize it as much as possible but if we were trying to be Equitable in drawing our sizes and saying how many each Zone district will have as a fraction that would be one argument that you would make is that you want to am I getting that right you want to cast larger ones in bigger lot size areas well again and I I'm not trying really not trying to answer this tonight I was just trying to understand it that's I figured that was a great success if I could at least understand it tonight um I think we have to really think about and I'm not trying to knock co-ops here but if you think about the presumed impacts at least initially look you know over time this may all sort itself out and we'll change some of the rules but on day one if you think about the presumed impacts I guess I still feel like it's more distance based than number of units based um and if you're in a smaller lot

[196:05] size area well yeah it's true there might be 400 units within the circle but or 100 50 or 100 or something like that but that still might only be one block which means there could be one per block whereas in the higher density neighborhoods you know there would be many fewer units really matters is you know is it one per block one per two block one per three blocks I think that's where people especially if you start thinking about parking um that's where the kind of spacing even makes a bigger difference much more than the number number of units again you get to the low density neighborhoods and you have this bizarre inverse you know they don't have parking problems in RR neighborhoods it's just not a concept um but you certainly do in the in the LR neighborhoods or you can in

[197:00] some of the LR neighborhoods or R RL I should use the new terminology right I can't get in my head uh yeah so I I gu i' I'd be interested in in the a circle approach where like a one Co-op per circle of a certain size and I don't have the exact number but I'm I think Matt's kind of convincing me about that the distance is probably the most important thing rather than the number of units so I would I would go with the uh one one Co-op per circle of some size and I'm not sure what that size would be but anybody else and Jan um we were getting some input from people and emails about um in some areas of neighborhoods there maybe a fraternity or two or this or that that might impact that other higher density things that are already there do you think we should consider that and um or just let that be part of the process what what's your

[198:01] thought on that so the only way you could consider something like that would be through a use review because I cannot for the life of me I get the the issue I mean I think we all get the issue but I can't imagine a formula that you could check a box that says well there are ex group homes within some distance or there are why over occupied rentals within some distance or some number of short-term rentals within some distance I I mean I just cannot imagine how you would do that um I think that if you really wanted to do that I think you'd have to bring it to some decision making body and have them sorted out um because I don't know what else you do I'm not saying it's not an issue I just don't to how to fix it in some relatively simple way and so I would agree with Aaron to have it one um some X number per some

[199:01] size circle is and the separation is more important than um the number of units with or the number of co-ops within the circles so how about I bring back a proposed amendment that has a has a has some numbers and you choose sure next time because you'll have to at some point you it'll give you some time to think about how big the circle should be and I'm sure you'll get input from the community about how big the circle should be and you that can help inform your discussion at the next but I think we for the moment I think we've actually simplified it yes and then we'll see where we go yeah so I I'll draft a replacement that says you can have one co-op in a circle of 50 feet or something like that okay so we have nine more items to do in 20 minutes well but you've gotten most of the um yeah the big ones big ones so the other ones were Matt asked a question how do we enforce the international property maintenance code uh we do that through inspections and

[200:02] Matt's rolling his eyes but we do actually do inspections uh most PE most cities don't do inspections for rental licenses we're one of the few who actually does that there's a proposal that that inspection regime would be incorporated into this so certainly the basic life safety things would have to be met um the legal entity the there was a question about what can I say something about the yeah sure I'm sorry I didn't mean to I this is just quick and I I don't want to harp on this I mean it it kind of comes back to enforcement as always yes I think we do a phenomenal job we are so much better than many cities we actually do inspections and we do focus on safety mostly and that is the most important thing but but and I'll Channel making again here if you look at the property maintenance code there's a lot of stuff in it that isn't really safety it's kind of condition in many ways and I don't think rental inspections do that ever and four years is a long time between inspections anyway so you know and I

[201:03] don't want to look I do not want to go after somebody CU you know there's two feet of uh Missing paint on a on some bored you know it's just absurd but as you know there are rentals that are really pretty crappy and pretty rundown and no way are they meeting the ipmc um and nobody checks so I think it's a little bit of a bigger issue but honestly I think it's a issue for all rental properties and if we ever do something about it for rentals I think we just Loop co-ops into it and and we're good I don't know that co-ops are worse or better they're they're probably better so so Mt are you saying to basically increase the time frame or I I don't know I think certainly what we inspect maybe needs to be thought about I mean for the record I've said this many times we own two rental properties um we get good people

[202:01] to inspect them they inspect the safety stuff I don't think they inspect the the condition aspects of the ipmc I don't think anybody does uh and that I know grats on people sometimes but that's a it to me that's kind of a bigger issue I don't want to hold this up for that but that's why I raised it okay so legal entity I'm not sure there's much you asked for um what Nish had suggested I quoted it in the memo I she sent me an email and so I I think her concern was that you if I could voice it and uh it was that you don't spec specify a particular form that there are multiple forms that these organizations can take and we haven't done that so I think I think you're fine on that issue unless you want us to talk about specifying a particular form well does this get to the the definition of the types of co-ops or is this a totally

[203:00] separate issue I think it's a separate issue the definition for types of co-ops wasn't one of the issues that you identified although it we probably should be and you can certainly add that the issue is um my definitions are are pure owner renter uh the The community's Proposal mixes the concepts a little bit and so you've had both in front of you yeah thank you and if people don't mind me raising this at this point that because I I thought I'd raised this at at the end of our last meeting but maybe I missed it at that time but I I was interested in in adopting the the um community housing uh approach uh for um entities um types and I said Suzanne was supportive of that as well in her email and in particular I think the important piece there is that your um your owner your Equity co-ops um can have a couple people living there that don't own the property so because you know you have

[204:00] significant others or adult children or something like that so I think the way that they encapsulate that is pretty neatly done which is that a majority of the owners have to be residents and a majority of the residents have to be own ERS and so then you get something that's fundamentally owner occupied while still allowing for a couple people living there um who are not owners so so I'd like to see those definitions adopted as opposed to the ones that we have in the current Cent ordinance Sam so that goes to definitions the current one that was from May 17th the current ordinance had four categories correct yeah and I I'm where Suzanne is she suggests three categories um which are the private Equity Group equity and Rental Co-op so I'm comfortable with tweaking the definitions but I would like to still keep it to 15 a year five of each category and that's what I meant as well okay so so but you're I'm having a little trouble understanding we we're making a big difference between equity co-ops and Rental co-ops and we're

[205:01] talking about giving Equity co-ops property rights but now we're saying Equity co-ops can be half renters I think the word was majority so not quite less than half 49% it's it's it's a a change and it it's a major change so I mean you couch it in terms of definitions but I purposely said that you either an equity Co-op or you're not and if you're going it's fine but remember this isn't a small change this is a a complete change of philosophy when you add the two together you're making a big difference yeah I I would just say for now why don't you come back with both I'm not there yet because I agree with you I think it's a big change um but it sounds like people are interested in it fair enough so maybe you come back with those options and is it just to understand uh Aaron is it the slightly less than 50 slightly more than 50 is that where we need to be with it or could we come back and say

[206:00] 25% or have some other threshold for renters in inequity certain consider another threshold I I just think you need to make some allowance for somebody living there who who doesn't own okay who pays rent we're talking about that we have acknowledged that they could be contributing okay okay good point Tom thank you yeah Andrew I guess I'm still a little confused about why we're setting limits on subsets within why not just say I mean we have no idea what's going to take but we're going to allow 15 co-ops and why not whatever comes forward up to that 15 you know we get but why why does it have to be five Equity five rental five live you know what what what's the point of that division well it could be 15 and you you say whatever mix we get I I'm not I'm attached to the 15 a little bit especially we start early you know I wanted to see that um yeah I was just

[207:01] guessing that rental would come forward more easily um and if that's the case do we want rental to take up all 15 would be another question do you want to kind of preserve some space for Equity to come in or just take all 15 I mean I'm I'm of the view that we let so I mean this is we let it evolve and again I I tend to think that the the rental is less is lower risk be for all the reasons we've been talking about in terms of the ability to say you know what that was I mean if we have 15 rental co-ops and this turns out to be a disaster I don't think it will be but if it does we could we could fix the problem the next year uh if we had 15 Equity co-ops we couldn't um and so because you got 15 different you know groups of people that went and got loans and etc etc and so um I think those are frankly going to be harder to get anyway um oh yeah and so um but I mean I think if we're going to do this um that I just don't see why

[208:01] the sort of 5551 at just 15 and whatever happens happens but Matt well I was actually we didn't have kind of the numbers up on the on the list I was going to raise it but now that it's been raised I yeah so I got to think about that a little bit it it depends Andrew if you really think that the rentals are less of an issue I mean a lot of people think the equities are less of an issue on the theory that people who own something are going to take better care of them I absolutely get your point I think the odds of us actually tossing somebody out uh that's not our style so um we'll see and I'm not saying that in a negative way we you know we try to give people multiple chances we don't kind of race in and you know over in an overbearing way and say wow you made a mistake twice we're throwing you out that's just not our style and I don't think it should be um I'll tell you my

[209:02] bigger issue on the numbers and it's also not on the list and we can do this next time too is is it 15 per year and and Aaron is you stated um we have examples of other cities that have been at this for decades and they've got a couple of dozen and and they're bigger than we are in population I Madison's got 250,000 people um why do we think we have to have 15 per year where are they going to come from are we that different maybe and as that if we did that would we start seeing you know some questionable ones so I'd like to think about that and and that one I'm definitely basing it on experience in some other cities if after all those years they've only got two dozen legal ones really we're going to have 30 in two years why would that be the case I don't get it so I think we need to think about that a little

[210:04] bit okay we okay y do you want to talk about the voices for invisible population suggest one of my suggestions was they made a really good point that we have a a provision where uh when you C you're counting you don't count children and they suggested that we we limited to so so we only count adults uh that we limit it to competent adults so that people with disabilities could be included but not counted against certain levels I thought that was a good idea so I I can revise that portion of the code that was part of that was part of my Logic for allowing non-owners in an equity Co-op would be for this non-competent a word I'm not sure what the official term is but for competent or not counting competent or yeah well I'll I'll tell you I not not to be too much of a problem if you're going to do

[211:00] that I think you'd still need some Maximum somewhere I mean but I don't yeah I forget which it you could have an awful lot of people and an awful lot of kids yeah living in A600 foot Co-op if you so no mat it wasn't in the occupancy limit it was in counting the the percentages um I'm forgetting it it's not in the occupancy limit huh I did read it and I I guess maybe I didn't read it that way so fraction not not um who aren't owners if it was just about the ownership that goes back to Aron's Point that's a whole different question I think that's where it was if it's about the occupancy that that raises different issues although you know even that's a somewhat Fair issue about how do you count but if if the if the real concern is the ownership then I think that makes sense um and in the memo it's under on page 101 it's under occupancy of

[212:02] dwelling units okay yeah so that just needs to be clarified honestly it it has different implications of its occupancy versus ownership okay right so we're kind of running out of time which your schedule will go to 9:45 and that gets you out by 1:00 in the morning so uh there was some discussion about process do you want to talk about process staff you missed one did I property exemption oh property exemption for tax exemption for nonprofits there was a long discussion about whether or not a nonprofit Co-op would be exempt from property taxes bottom line is probably not because you you you basically not only have to be a non for-profit you have to be operating for a trital purpose and everything you does do have to be a trital purpose so if you're providing housing for some people at market rate you don't have a trable purpose therefore you don't get the tax deduction it's possible but uh it would be in a very limited circumstance it would probably be a circumstance that you would support so

[213:01] if if if if a co-op were providing entirely housing for disabled adults they would they would probably qualifi as a not for-profit and that would probably be fine but it that would be rare and it's not the model most people are looking at so most of these most co-ops in the model that you're looking at are going to be paying property taxes yep right thank you okay thank you so process uh staff provided you with a um some options uh there was some qu oh they're passing them out now sorry staff is providing us with I thought they're on the dis uh so uh I can run through the the the there are three levels of of process that the planning department has uh looked at and Suzanne Su Susan is or uh Eric uh Kirk I'm sorry is um able to talk about them if you'd like and I can walk you through them very briefly I have what's on your paper up on my U

[214:02] screen here so the the least level would be a Cooperative housing ordinance web page which we have not yet created uh it would be on the housing light site it could include a FAQ with additional analysis key dates linked to related Paces it would also provide a place for input directly to the city council and the city attorney's office uh the pros are minimal impact of the work plan commune members will be better informed additional opportunity uh cons were is the members might not feel this opportunity is sufficient opportunity for input uh neighborhood roundtables uh a short series of fac facilitated roundtables could be host posted in different neighborhood venues primary objectives would be to collect input from the community share the in intent around elements of the ordinance and dispel misconceptions a few M council members could attend to listen the city attorney's office and other staff would provide staff support union members ideas and concerns would be captured and shared with a full Council and broer Community the round table series would occur between first and second reading

[215:00] or after second reading based on Council Direction uh the pros are additional opportunities to inform the community additional opportunities to collect Community input easier access for concerned community members the cons intensive use of CEO staff and City at Council time would impact the work plan question here really quick um I was when I read this neighborhood roundtables I was thinking about Amanda Nagel and what she's doing and where she might plug into this is there have you had any discussions around that Kirk do you want to no no no we have not right we haven't spoken with Amanda about this and of course she's got a work plan too and this would be a whole additional set of round taes to add to what she's doing so this is not on her work plan either and and Sam one of the challenges that I see is I don't see how we do this without me attending because if I'm doing the drafting even if I read notes it's not going to be the same as sitting and listen to the conversation so it any of

[216:01] these things are in addition to my personal work plan which I I just sit around do I so it's okay facilitated citizen panel is is a is a more intensive level uh so this is where you would I'll just read city council could identify a narrow list of issues and conven a group with with help of an outside facility to discuss potential changes to the ordinance panel would include five Cooperative housing representative five neighborhood Representatives concerned about impacts panel would meet several times to discuss the specific issues by Council identified by Council this a summary of the group process and any recommendation provided to the full Council the city attorney's office and other City staff would provide support to convey accurate information on both the ordinance and City regulation Council would need to decide how Representatives would be selected staff recommends the represent be selected based upon written applications detailing the applicant's views on these issues the pros would be a clearly identified scope of issues authentic opportunity for input opportunity inform uh cons would be clearly defined scope of issues that's not a cons sorry authentic opportunity for input um I I

[217:01] typed the wrong cons sorry where do you want yeah uh the the cons would be the the impact on the work plan again and uh 10 people might be representative of the community as a whole all right and I posted on the hotline another option that's kind of similar to three but different in that it would still be five folks from um neighborhoods five folks from um Co-op advocates and they would self- select so that there would be no staff time in selecting and it would be facilitated and an open process I don't know if you would still need to attend that or not but what I was thinking was that um they would be looking at the draft of the second

[218:04] reading so whatever you would be bringing back to us is what they would be working with so that's what I posted on the hotline and um we can talk about that and see if there's any interest in that yeah yeah I don't know which of these options is best but Ju Just One clarification on a couple of them and maybe yours as well I find that there are some neighbors who are really open to this and want to make it work and aren't just throwing up a bunch of um you know roadblocks and it you know whatever we do to include a couple of those people I think could be really valuable because they're clearly just as impacted but they are having a way of looking at it a

[219:00] little uniquely and so I'd really like to figure out how to do that I think choosing the right people if we do something whether it's facilitated or not as Round Table is going to be really important Andrew so I mean obviously I mean Community input is is incredibly important here and I've met with neighbors and we're getting lots of emails uh and we've got a long process here we've extended this out longer than most uh for um uh for the type of thing we're doing um and and you know I I don't know I guess my question is are we not getting input from somewhere where we need to do a process like this I we're getting a tremendous amount of input I think we're going to get a tremendous more amount of input I think it's valuable I think we should you know read it and we can meet with people but I'm just wondering about the um sort of

[220:01] the benefits of of these kinds of nontraditional um approaches here in light of our um workload and and and staff's workload and and whatnot and and frankly when when an impacts the work plan it it bumps other things that are important for us to accomplish in the city so I guess I throw that out not because I'm not interested in community input I think we're getting it and I think we're going to have another we're going to have another hearing so um it would be different if somehow we weren't getting the input and we needed to go out and gather it but we're getting it and so Aon see I I agree with Andrew because I think we're getting really good input um actually and I mean some of the input actually that we're getting is that hey you need to stop and collect input but but we're getting the input I mean so those emails will say Hey you have to stop and get input and then give

[221:00] us several ideas on things that should be changed and I'm reading every single one of those and I'm sure my other council members are as well and so there's some I think some frustra with people saying well in 2 minutes you can't really get across complicated ideas or engage in discussion which is true um but the the emails give you more space and um we've had some really uh fruitful ideas I think come from a number of these different emails and and also I feel like I'm getting a good sense of where the major concerns in the community are and and what some people are excited about as well so I feel like we're doing pretty well we've uh it's been 5 months since our first study session um so it's not a fast process um or we'll have a second reading um it's not scheduled yet it'll be a while we'll continue to hear from people in the meantime the second reading won't be the final reading I'm sure we'll have a a third reading so um I I feel like we're hearing a lot from the community and it's it's doing a good job of informing our decision Sam yeah

[222:00] I'll agree with a lot of that in the sense that um we do read our emails so we get all the way through all the ideas that are are being brought forward and I think in a way this extended legislative process is intended to do exactly that to Foster more input um this was proposed by staff uh early on in my Council term as being something that could happen very quickly and it turned out to be we heard from the community loud and clear that they wanted an extended legislative process and so that's what we're doing now we did that same thing for short-term rentals and just to give a sense of scale you know we estimated that there were hundreds to a thousand short-term rentals in the community and we're talking about here uh a number that will be 15 a year up to some probable maximum of 50 so I think we deserve to give it due process but actually the decisions that we made on short-term rentals I think might have had more impact uh if we got them right or wrong so I I'm not I don't really feel like we need this right now from my

[223:01] perspective as far as me making sure that I hear what the neighborhood concerns are um so there you go add one thing I don't often do this not that I well sometimes I do say no because because we've been very busy and I'm extremely busy at at work personally um but on this this issue is near and dear to my heart for both sides and so if anyone wants to talk to me on the issue feel free to give me a call at my office and I'm happy to chat with them about it so yeah likewise I I have somebody a phone call from yesterday I have to call back but but I will I'll talk to anybody all right so what I'm hearing is no change in the way we're conducting the process yeah I guess the um the value I saw in Mary's proposal is that you get a

[224:02] group of five and five and um you actually get them engaged into a constructive discussion and um exchanging ideas and seeing what they might come up with in terms of um some some recommendations I don't think it would work for um any one of those 10 people to stake out a strong position at the beginning um but I really liked trying to get the two groups together and get a dialogue and have them work things out as I explained to Nish um Abraham yesterday um you know um some of us have children or you know have had um these kinds of situations where two two

[225:00] different bodies aren't in agreement with each other and my thought was um as a parent you don't make that decision you let them kind of work it out and talk with each other and um and so my hope right now a lot of the emails yes we're reading all of our emails but I think there's a lot of emails that feel like well we've never been included in this process and um and that they weren't included in the um original ordinance and I I think that's where people feel completely left out and maybe that's where the step we took might not have been a good step and so my hope in supporting Mary's proposal was that some healing could come out of that and some Community dialogue could come out of that and maybe some better

[226:03] ideas that aren't up here at the at the dis and I don't know I mean maybe people could do it on their own but um I guess I would really really like the two different sides to talk with each other and get to know who the other person is and that neither side is a ogre and that they're um people are well- intended and that we get this dialogue so I don't know I mean um I would think it would need to be facilitated it just in a um in a fair way but not to try to direct it but just to engage in a constructive dialogue and so I think I don't know I mean maybe this could just happen on its own um but I really want dialogue to happen from the

[227:03] two sides and I can't say that more emphatically I also can count um and it doesn't seem like there's five people up here who would or how many are there four of us who would support that but I would just ask the community you know we're slowing down this process and you have an opportunity really to give us feedback and one of the best kinds of feedback in addition to meeting with us separately or as groups whatever um would be to meet meet with each other and to talk with each other and come up with some constructive ideas so anyway um that's all I'm asking and so um I just ask the community to kind of step up to the plate and find somebody who is

[228:00] on the other side and see where you can move forward so that there isn't an other side but that there's more of a United voice so well then that was the intent that I was trying to put forth as for folks talking to each other because I went through a kind of process like this and it really made a difference in relationships between the two sides and it makes a difference but as Lisa said I can count and um and I know that folks have been talking to each other and I hope that folks move Beyond just trying to convince each other of their own position um and try to come to Solutions because you know this this is moving forward and I hope that at this next reading that people feel like they were heard

[229:01] and that some of their concerns were Incorporated and that it's not at this point an ordinance that was written by only one group and that it has been that we've heard other voices and attempted to incorporate it and so I hope that if you do talk to each other that you use that as a starting point so Aon and then Jen well and just you said uh just to make sure that people know we've been getting significant criticism from all sides of this question uh nobody has felt like uh what was written was exactly what they wanted to see so we're working through those um those points as we go along um I had a motion to make but you you want I have an idea I have an idea and I and people are talking which I think is great I and I liked your idea Mary um one idea that I've got is there is a neighborhood um group and by the way I think in all

[230:00] neighborhoods there are there are people who are supportive and definitely not supportive um but there is a neighborhood um that I think really wants to see this happen and um I'd like us to look at a curro approach a what a curro approach where maybe we encourage a neighborhood to reach out and to Co-operators and and encourage them to move into their neighborhood and maybe what we would deliver is something like uh the truck for a street party for free or some snow removal or a Park event or something like that to you know if a neighborhood really kind of reaches out to the co-op community and helps them find a couple Properties or something like that to really work together on how that can work in a neighborhood and if we could find someone who would be willing to a neighborhood that would be willing to step up and set an example that would be worthy of us to throw some benefits out to them just an idea make

[231:01] them cookies yeah sounds like Jan's going to shovel their walk I mean I might Aaron okay so i' I'd like to make a motion and tell me if I get this the language wrong but I I move that um we accept the the first reading ordinance uh in our memo as amended by the various motions made tonight it would be the the the revised ordinance in the May 17th memo not the one in the memo tonight thank you very much the revised ordinance for the May 17th memo um as mended uh by our various motions tonight regarding Cooperative housing I'll second Jan got it all right do we vote by show of hands or show of hands first reading okay all right all in favor all right passes unanimously could I ask one question we don't have it scheduled to come back do you want to give any guidance to CAC about when you'd like to see this come

[232:00] back or do you just want them to try to fit it into the schedule one one guidance would give to CAC is make sure we've got time it's going to be a whole night it's going to be a big one so let's you know and that's fine it needs to be I mean not just for the public hearing which is fine too but I think we still need to work through some you know 's going to come back with a lot of options we still need to work through some tough issues um I think it's pretty much a whole night yeah I mean so it just needs to be scheduled accordingly I have to be a special meeting I don't know but somebody has to think about that um I would just ask um back to my point before we went through this ordinance and all of these different kind of um subtitles and um that's how we're looking at it and so when you do have

[233:00] dialogue if you could kind of parse out those subtitles that would be or subcategories that would be really help ful so all right okay thank you all and thank you all for coming out tonight and for all of your feedback and effort on this and we really appreciate it we know it's tough for everybody but we'll get there absolutely and yeah I look forward to further Community input on the issues we'll be drilling into next time thanks for coming out all right the next item is two election items second reading in consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance number 8113 amending chapter 131 elections adopting the municiple election code in place of the uniform election code and second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance number 8114 amending chapter 132 campaign Finance disclosure 133

[234:00] campaign activities and 134 complaints related to election procedures and regulations and Kathy hadock will be presenting please thank you Council um oh actually may I the uh I got an email from Nicki McCord from voices for invisible people and she said it was ownership not occupancy that they were recommending so I apologize for not sorry go ahead that's okay um probably want this down for con thank you okay we have two ordinances here that um were presenting you had first reading a few months ago and we're looking for a second reading because we have an election coming up and we'd like to get some things in place so before um going through starting through them that we were trying to address the basics that are covered by various laws that have been changed with respect to elections and um also I want to address

[235:03] the concerns and some of the emails that you have received I have received some of those so how do I do this um the history of the city's um election code is that the uniform election code was adopted in 1994 think to implement the state's adoption of election Provisions to go with Taber when Taber was adopted in 1992 elections were changed substantially Boulder was very active in litigation at the time and trying to do some litigation that would interpret some very confusing provisions of Taber and so so the uh election code was adopted it was not adopted by other cities other cities didn't follow suit and uh the next legislative cycle the municipal election code was adopted in or was revised so that it addressed all the Taber issues so most of cities in

[236:00] Colorado um and all as far as I know um have adopted the municipal election code for Municipal elections as required by law when they do the coordinated elections in November they follow the uniform election code because that's what governs the county clerks and the county clerks are the ones actually conducting the uh the November elections I listed the cities here that I checked to make sure that that was accurate because I know you've received some emails that nobody else adopts the municipal election code and this is just to show you this is the current status of the Boulder County cities as well as some of the other other bigger cities that we look at the purposes of the codes for the uniform election code is that it's Statewide it's rep partisan elections it's run by city county clerks under the direction of the Secretary of State it's required for all coordinated elections run by the county including those that the city participates in and um all of our November elections our coordinated

[237:02] elections for Municipal elections it's for Citywide elections that are nonpartisan run by City's clerks um allows for special elections and for elections on General Improvement districts um there was a concern that you could use uh lever voting machines or other things for Municipal elections the definition of voting machines in the municipal election code is the same as it is in the uniform election code so the procedure and what you have to do for testing votes testing machines and everything is the same for both it's just the procedures leading up to the election are different at in the municipal code than the uniform election code so that is ordinance number 8113 8114 is the campaign Finance ordinance um we did it to address State Law changes the or the changes recommended are to address these state law no longer pref refers to political

[238:02] committees and we had a section on political committees now those people will have to form issue committees or candidate committees is like everybody else because there's no longer registration at the state also when the campaign Reform Act was passed by the voters in the 90s the a formula was put into the ordinance to show that in order to qualify for matching funds it you had to meet certain things that formula depends on the voting records being purged of people that have died people that have not voted in a couple years or whatever and the state no longer purges election records so we are um recommending that you adopt dollar limits and um the minimum level number of individual contributors those are the two things that previously had formulas these are what the current formulas would come to is your expenditure limit if you want matching funds is $20,000

[239:00] for an election and you have to have a minimum number of individual contributors of 80 contributing $25 so we're recommending you adopt that to address the state law and again political committees have to form uh issue committees or candidate committees also the changes are to address Court decisions Court decisions have continually narrowed what you can do as far as for limitations on any campaign because it's tied to free speech so basically all of our limits that we have on uh on issue committees are gone um we now have reporting requirements are still upheld but in very narrow circumstances and those are when it there's a public informational interest to address it disproportionate corporate spending and if the forms to do the

[240:01] disclosures are difficult for people to understand so that's why in the first part of ordinance 811 for there's a lot of underlining in the legislative intent to address those issues and that's an area you really need to make sure that you agree with all the reasons there I think that they are fully supported especially since campaign Finance disclosures was so important to the boulder voters that they adopted an initiative on it the um the there's a couple of other things for cleaning up things um as the when the campaign Reform Act was adopted there was not technology and there's been a lot of questions about when people campaign by sending email blasts or something that they used to do by leaflets or hand bills or something like that do is that covered by the campaign reform provision we've determined that by the

[241:00] intent of it the intent of the campaign reform initiative was to so that there would be reporting of that money was spent who it was contributed by and what it was spent on so the way this is written it doesn't cover and this makes it clear it doesn't cover campaigning that's done by technology that doesn't cost money and other cleanup items that we have in there the last thing is that we are asking that you adopt ordinance 8114 about the campaign Finance part by by emergency we have been waiting to publish the guidelines for all of the issue committees for this year's elections until we know what you're going to pass as the law but we're getting several committees are already formed because we have four initiatives out there and very soon other committees will be forming and we'd really like to get the guidelines out to them if we go

[242:02] to another reading and then a 30-day effective period these won't be effective before we have a lot of committees so that's the quick and dirty of what we're doing here any questions thank you Kathy any questions for Kathy Matt yeah two two minor things so on one of the cleanups this is pretty minor this is on page uh 142 where you change the candidates Financial disclosure statement to the candidate's interest disclosure statement which certainly weird wording but it's but it's not consistent um because I mean the very first sentence says information regarding Financial dealings and then in Part B it says any person required to file a financial disclosure statement required by this chapter and I didn't search the whole document to see if there are other references to financial

[243:00] disclosure um but just seems like you Chang the title without changing related items and it's hardly the end of the world and you could fix it later but anyway those two popped out okay and and actually I see a mistake where you're right on on line 17 we have Financial disclosure rather than um interest disclosure the reason was this is was confusing to people because as incumbents you just have to disclose what you have a financial interest in you do not have to disclose the amount of that financial interest and so people had been looking at forms expecting to see numbers on them and your incumbent statements don't have numbers on them so that's a reason for the change to um control expectations I'm fine with another word under than interest statement if if there's something that's better but financial statement was leading to questions because people weren't seeing numbers it's it's not

[244:00] enough to go nuts over but it's a it's a somewhat odd juuse of word I think I think that's actually kind of more confusing but all right I'll let other people worry about it or maybe it's okay for now and the other question it's a concern it's it's really it's more of a question so the eligibility for matching funds and the limit of $20,000 and they're related to one another um you decided to simplify and I get that instead of having some formula you decided to simplify it but it's an important number and it's based on the theoretical registered number of Voters which we arbitrarily de ided was you know 990,000 um if you look at the 2015 census estimates there only 88,000 people in the city of Boulder who are 18 years old or older so given that they're not all registered we know 990,000 is High um and I don't know that has an effect I mean it lets people spend a little more but it also makes it harder for people

[245:01] to qualify for the matching funds and furthermore the number never changes as the population changes So eventually you'd have to come back to council I suppose and say well we need a new number in here because we're at a sync with reality um so was it mostly just you wanted to simplify it even though we could run off Census Data well if you want to substitute census data for the unpurged um election record registration records you could do that um we do not have Purge registration record it goes by registration record s are useless I think at this point I get that okay so if you would prefer um to do a census number rather than uh a specific number you could I think either way you're going to have to look at it and be making changes periodically because just the economy doesn't necessarily go with these issues but it's totally up to you we thought it was easier with a number

[246:01] okay well as a question I after the public hearing we can talk about it but I was just want to make sure I understood why you what you chose Lisa um on on the number of 20,000 I mean in the original ordinance wasn't all of that um originally like uh supposed to be adjusted for inflation and wouldn't it be the same thing in terms of the number of people or signatures you need um to be get or not signatur but people who would be matching funds so I don't know I don't know if it would improve it to say that we'll look at this on X you know um X number of years every five years or every 10 years I mean I think it should be probably an even number of years since our our elections generally are every two years but um I think it would behoove us to maybe include something in

[247:02] here that would remind us that oh maybe we should look at it not necessarily change it but just look at where we are with respect to uh inflation our population and things like that would that um what do you think of that sure that's fine we can put language in the legislative intent that that's your intent since there's a Prohibition against you um binding future councils you can't make it a requirement so the legislative intent may be the best place to that yeah I my whole thing is that it' be important that it be brought up again yep Arin well but couldn't we do it with the formula instead of saying hey check in every so often to consider the following factors that's yes you can do a formula right I know we had a different formula before okay I just want to understand I had another question if you're done with that I'm so my my question was about um on page 147 of the packet um it say this is about

[248:05] um this is the statement of contributions and expenditures of the official candidate committees and the specific section says that this is f says copies of documents supporting the contributions and expenditures included in any statements required by the section shall be provided to the city manager at the time of submitting the statement so um just went through a campaign a few months ago so uh I remember the scramble that you had to submit each of those statements and the filling out the form online is complicated and takes a long time as I read this at the same time that you submit the form form you would also have to scan any documents you might have that you use to produce that report or if you had an Excel file great but like that you'd have to then kind of separately gather all your other materials and then bring them in or post number is that correct that is correct you could bring them in or you could scan them um the reason is that the

[249:02] reporting that's done is on a form so the public can look at it and it's just a lump some number we have a campaign Finance administrator who does actual Spa Audits and you need the background information for the spa audits so I'm sorry the lump number you you have to put in the name of you have to put in the is it just the total amounts that you in well when you list your contributions and expenditures you have to do all the individual names right yes you already have to type in every name and every expenditure so the full details in the report so this I I guess what I'm missing is what are you submitting separately that's not in the report that you're submitting receip and Diane Marshall would be the one that could answer that perfectly but the answer that I know and Lynette can help me if I know anything different it's the um copies of the invoices and that type of thing okay yeah so proof

[250:00] basically so I'm I'm a little confused I was the lucky one from my year who got audited for the campaign finance and then you can answer yeah so I recall having had all that in a file and then we had to go have a conversation about it and and she went through all of the details um why why do we need to turn in the receipts I mean I could see the report being sufficient and then the receipts we need to have if we get audited um because you at least get that spot check it seems like an awful lot of work for every candidate only some of whom will actually make it to office to have to do all of that because scanning is fine but the truth is that's a lot of reporting by the time you're done so do we feel that that's necessary I mean we're reporting already we're saying who it is and who gave money and who we expended to but is it important to have the actual documents for everyone well it we don't know who's

[251:01] going to be elected at the time that we're doing the audits during the campaign sure the thing so I think I'm don't think there's any audits after the election season or it's very they are after okay there's one one person who got elected goes through an audit okay okay um so this is what Diane asked for as the administrator that would make her job easier if you think it's switching the burden inappropriately to the candidate um we can make it is that I think she's really helpful in trying to I I mean it was a little complicated the whole thing um but I think she was very helpful in doing that um but I'm with Sam on this you know I mean you're in a scramble to meet these deadlines and to have to copy all these and or

[252:00] scan them I mean my printer never scans right and you know it's just just I don't know I think it's it's arduous I think you know maybe say there will be three people audited so you must keep them and I think there's a you know there are some finds out there that I worried about you know I worried about whether or not I was doing everything appropriately and I think keep those in there and you know maybe audit three people instead of just one but to require all of that paperwork man I mean is she going to keep it on file that's going to you're going to require an office an alternative might be so I recalled that um when my election was over one person who got elected and one who did not get elected got audited afterwards and had to go through the whole thing another way you could do this if you want the records is at the end you know when the election has ended we could turn in all of our supporting

[253:00] documentation and they could keep it on record and and audit whatever they wanted but rather than having to try and get down here and turn it in during The Campaign which yeah and I I'll jump in here and I would agree with that it's just you're hardly sleeping so to add one more thing is just really really difficult Lisa yeah and I I have to say um that the process has really improved over time I can't tell you how easy I found it this year to do compared to pre previous elections so that makes one of us yeah but um I have to compliment staff uh for making it so easy you used to have to walk in or your treasur had to walk in your statements and give a hard copy um there

[254:01] we didn't have an Excel sheet we didn't have anything in in Prior days and it is easy just relative it is easy but I would concur that I think it's sufficient I think everybody keeps a several folders of you know expenditures contributions all of that um and I would just ask that um we don't have to do that at the timelines unless we get audited during then but that it be very clear that everybody body has to keep their folder with all of the appropriate materials and then whether you get elected or not you are required by some date certain um let people sleep after the election um and bring those materials in at at that time and um then the um

[255:00] administrative clerk could make um a determination as to when she doesn't need those materials anymore right and we do have a retention schedule for that so I wanted to point out we don't keep them forever so I think what you're asking for is we change this language from that um we should hear from the public before we to that DET I think all right so any more questions Jan well I just I thought I was going to agree with you Lisa but I'm not sure that everyone should bring their stuff in unless the clerk is really going to do something with it if they're not then just do it as an audit like she's done before which I think is probably good for our purposes and if everyone knows that they're going to be audited then they should and maybe you audit a greater percentage but to bring in everything unless she's going to really go through everything which would take weeks then I don't see a purpose for that well I was just trying to agree with

[256:01] Sam sorry all right let me ask one more question for you move on then you say you have a retention schedule for all these materials are you required to collect them at the or to have them at the end no it's just that I want to give you assurance that we don't maintain them forever and and I'm sorry I forget what it is I believe it's six months after the election but I would have to double check on that okay so yours are gone already what's that so yours are gone already all right any more questions all right so we will move on to the public hearing and we have have a couple of people signed up I will call your name and you have three minutes Mary Eberly and Neil mcbet good evening I'm Mary Everly I live at 1520 Cris court and Boulder um

[257:02] I'm very interested in the conversation you just had because you didn't address um ordinance 8113 at all because you think everything is going smoothly with our elections I believe and um you are very concerned about the campaign Finance changes so it that's just interesting to me I've been working on Election Integrity since the bush Vore situation and if you've seen what I've seen in this state you would probably ask more questions about 8113 so I'm going to start at the end um I hope you as the council Representatives will table the current proposal the 8113 proposal on changing the election code and that you will ask staff to do comprehensive research on all the Colorado cities listed on that table um the population of Boulder or larger to learn the improvements to that

[258:02] those cities have required so that the municipal election code Works in a modern election this code was written originally in 1965 and it's barely been changed um I urge you Council to consider appointing a citizen board to assist the city clerk and city attorney's office in formulating city code language to bolster the 1965 MEC Provisions before adopting it my fondest hope however is much bigger let us as a smart caring City come up with a municipal approach to non partisan elections that is so good that our local state representatives and Senators would bring our code language to the state capital to improve and modernize the municipal election code for all cities and towns in Colorado Boulder citizens and Colorado Citizens who live in cities and towns which is most of us deserve much better can you

[259:01] decide to make this a goal now I have a lot of specifics I've emailed some specifics to some of you um maybe that has sparked some questions um I'd love to try to respond to questions um the municipal code is just not ready for prime time without a lot of help and those uh cities that were shown on the um display by um Kathy hadock have all added things to their code Denver I I mentioned had 24 pages of additions Aspen for for Pete say Aspen has nine eight or nine pages of editions so that they can run decent City elections we don't we won't have any if we just do it the way that it's set out tonight please don't do that thank you thank you Mary you have some a question yeah I was do you could

[260:00] you just kind of highlight some of the um changes or additions that Denver Aspen have included and um that we are not and that you think are critical that we do include um I apologize I cannot do that I can tell you some things that we would not be doing that you probably think we would be doing okay uh first of all when we vote in our normal November elections as we did last fall um we have generally mail ballots and we sign the outer envelope and the county clerk checks that signature against signatures that we have on file for instance with the Department of Motor Vehicles to see that that is a legitimately submitted ballot envelope before that ballot is is taken out and counted that

[261:01] process is not part of the municipal election code and it it will be eventually but between now and then it isn't and I know of a situation in Georgetown uh where the lack of signatures the lack of indication of who submitted ballots changed the outcome of the maral race it that's an elected position in Georgetown um and yet there was no way to quote get to the bottom of it no data um so can I just ask you in that particular one so how do we in the city um verify signatures or how do we verify that you're saying who you are and that that signature or that whatever is a real accurate identifier we coordinate and the county clerk does it

[262:01] that's how we do it because we have chosen to follow the uniform election code and so we have our city elections in November um when that process is in force MH and um we have the Secretary of State to make sure that things are going well and we can um Lodge complaints to the secretary and the uh people in his office the technical people the legal people can come and see what's going on and strain it out we don't have we won't have that under the Min we will be just just a drift we need to have stuff in our code to make it good and make it work that's you Sam so um my understanding is that in this November's election we'll be governed by the uniform code and we'll do a coordinated election so what do you see as a risk of going ahead with this and passing it the way it is and then

[263:00] modifying it because the next time we'll use this will be when we have a special election of some type or a very localized election within the city of some type those would be the only occasions that this would be the governing code so what risk do you see of going forward with this well Mr Weaver it's the risk I see is based on my experience working with the legislature during this period since the bush Vore situation and that is there exactly what you say is what often happens we will pass this law now we have to pass it you know it's the time time to pass it for whatever reason and then we'll fix it and it doesn't get fixed people move on to whatever the next Crisis is and very bad legislation happens that way and this would be in that category it would be much better to adjust to figure out the adjustments that we need to make put that in in the the language that you're going to

[264:01] consider and and then make the change if that's what you decide to do danan you me mentioned you mentioned that we would be a drift from the county is that the way Long Mont is now they have their own um city code that bolsters the mun the very primitive municipal election code by the way the election equipment that was mentioned um uh is cross reference to what's in the uniformal election code well I looked that up there is not one word in that section about what election equipment is required or prohibited yet in the in the uh Municipal Code this outdated one what is described is old-fashioned lever machine equipment not legal anywhere in this

[265:02] country three pages of description in this Municipal Code it is um Pages 73 to 75 um in the statute if you want to look it up all right any other question for Miss Eberly all right thank you thank you very much next up is Neil mcburnett MC ber hi I'm mcburnett 4025 Evans Drive Boulder and uh thank you for postponing this and thank you for actually having a public hearing I was really astonished that there wasn't one scheduled the first time around um I I certainly want to speak uh in support of everything that Mary said and she's Mary has looked at this uh a lot just in general I mean she really knows uh how this stuff works

[266:01] and I share her concerns the principal I I've been involved in elections also so since 2002 I've served as a Precinct judge I've served as uh I've helped pass laws in Colorado to require audits in the uniform code and then to improve the audits that we require in the uniform code Colorado is a leader there Boulder is a leader in audits so it's hu hugely disappointing to me to think that we might have a special election to have a council vacancy uh done and not have language that's already been worked out that requires us to do an audit I mean we're the folks that pioneered audits in this area and it would be strange not to add things to the code to deal with that so we would be a drift in the sense that we would be abandoning code that requires audits from 2005 that anticipates audits in

[267:02] 2017 uh that are really good Audits and uh and not do that I'm also facing this this discussion a big discussion about auditing and financial disclosure stuff surely we should audit the paper ballots that we should require very explicitly in the code and do that with the actual votes that cause the elections to come to come about um again Boulder is a leader we haven't had an opportunity to meet with staff to kind of go through uh the vision I I don't quite understand what the rush is here since we don't have anything uh I I don't know of any elections scheduled that this would be required for so let's put our ducks in a row first let's come up with a great code uh whether it's the uniform code because that meets our needs and it's

[268:01] easy to change or whether it's the municipal code that uh takes uh the information and experience that we have to heart we should have elections in which there is uh that are called evidence-based elections uh colleagues of mine at the University of California have put together this notion of not expecting certification of machines to help you help convince you that an election happened well but to expect the documentation from the election the ballots the chain of custody a random audit of those elections so I'd be happy to answer any questions but uh please uh take your time to do this right Thank you Mr MC berett any questions for Mr M berett all right thank you a question for staff okay thank you very much thank you all right Aaron so um I definitely get the rationale for using the simpler

[269:01] municipal code for um General Improvement districts things like that um why wouldn't we use the more throw uniform code for special council elections well the municipal election code allows Council to decide at any point that they want to use a uniform code for any particular election I think there's a lots of reasons why you wouldn't do that because it would increase the expense um the sorry I was I'm going to because it would increase expense period I'll say that I'm I'm ready to address all the other things that were raised like about the machines you can do and mail ballots and all the issues that were raised too those things are protected under municipal election code just like they are under the uniform election code so the so the uniform code would in cause increased expense for special council elections right because of the extra notices that are required the extra um steps that you have to go through the the coordination

[270:00] with the Secretary of State all that kind of stuff okay thank you Jen Miss uly uh discussed how other cities who had adopted this had to make major revisions to it is that your assumption that we would do as well no I have um looked at all of those codes that she referenced I've talked to Miss Eberly a couple times for over two hours on this issue um and those codes have are are long because they've got their campaign Finance stuff in the same place they do not have very many amendments to the municipal election code the ones that they do have are um because their Charter requires them uh that to be done differently but there's not things that I'd necessarily recommend doing or adding to our municipal election code because our

[271:00] Charter doesn't require them we don't have the same circumstances and then one more question why are we in a hurry to do this we have been trying to do this for several years now um because we have not kept up with making the amendments to the election code that are required every year because the uniform election code is amended almost every year by the legislature and then we have to amend our code to take out all the stuff that they've added that applies to partisan elections or Statewide elections or because the secretary of state is doing something different um it's one of those things that with the work plan hasn't been done in the past several years but I've been working on this for about five years now any other questions yeah I I have a question just so the substance of this is a little hard for those of us that don't gravel around in these codes to understand could you talk about the audit requirements because that sounded like that was a big concern and you know

[272:03] you may just disagree with Everly but I'd be curious about your interpretation of the voting machine types and definitions in the municipal code okay and I did add that to the um as one of the first reading questions that came to me afterwards by her and what's happened is that the and I'm looking because I want to find the name of the audit procedure voter verified paper record that's um uh program that was put into effect a couple of years ago as a pilot and is going to be started in 2017 if the city were to use voting machines we are required to do that just like the state is so because the definition of voting machines in the municipal election code is the same as it is in the uniform election code all the requirements that go with the voting machines in the uniform code would apply

[273:01] to the city including the risk limiting oops sorry the um risk limiting Audits and the voter verified paper record so it seemed like one of the risks that was being flagged was that we have a election between now and 2017 and then it not have the same requirements or the same audit requirements but we could avoid that challenge if indeed it is one by using the uniform election code for anything that comes between now and 2017 is that right we could do that we could use machine that already meet with the requirement we probably would never buy our own machines we'd be borrowing from other people we could um do uh mail ballot election rather than uh polling place election uh we could use paper ballots rather than um using machines there's lots of of different types of ways that you can do it if we did mail ballots would we have this exposure to

[274:01] the signature verification because then we would have to do that right if it was ours and not accordin ated election would we have the clerk help us do that for a fee or how would we validate signatures well the clerk may do it for us for a fee depending on and I'm sorry we're talking about the county clerk this clerk will help us no matter what we do but the county clerk will help for with for fee if there's time available and there's other organizations that help and that's how we verify signatures like on initiative petitions which we have to do soon is Lynette's already set up having a bunch of people in here to do that set up procedures and everything to be ready for that because the companies that do that are not always available and since we don't know when we're going to get petitions we don't know when we're going to do it so um we would follow those procedures the procedures for mail ballot elections is the same for mail ballot elections by the state and by the city thank

[275:01] you so um could you I guess I'm still not very clear about how we would verify the ballot we'd follow the same procedure that the state does when they do a male ballot election and I actually I did is that driver's licenses um you're getting into more detail than I know by memory I'm I've got it up here but um I'm not getting my mouse to work or I could show you I could could answer that there's there's a whole section of about how you have to do mail ballot elections that's in actually in the uniform election code but applies to everybody what page um what page it well it's section it's chapter sorry it's 1

[276:00] d7.5 d101 and all the sections of part one in the state statute and so I'm I'm trying to go through if you want me to do this like 15 pages to find this without an index what I what I want is you know and I appreciate you're looking but I want to make sure that if we go forward with this we know what we're doing that we know that the people who are sending in these ballots that we have verification of who those people are so that it can't get be corrupted we have to follow the same procedures for a male Battle election as the state does so do that ENT I mean obviously I

[277:03] can't guarantee that people are going to come apply with the law but the same law applies to us if we're going to follow the law we're going to do exactly the same thing that the state does or or the county clerks do and I guess to Sam or I guess it was Jan's um question about uh why now it it has to do with just uh cleanup and you've been working on this for x amount of time well yeah we've been trying to get it done for five years and of course with the campaign Finance more changes come up but we're trying to be ready for a special election the general improvement district elections that we have done over the past five years we've kind of had to jury Mander to be able to do them in compliance with the code and in the past when we have done like local Improvement districts and things like that um that's been coordinated election with

[278:01] the it it's been done at the same time that the county has had their elections it's been done at the same time I only know for the past 5 years that I've been working on this I don't know what's been done since 1992 but what we have done with the general improvement district since we generally have five voters like for the Boulder Junction districts we just had five voters we just run them separately so that we don't add the cost to that election of being part of the coordinated election okay thank you any more questions all right do we have a motion do you want me to go over the changes I think you asked for on that subsection F sure or do you want do no that would be good yeah okay that subsection F that we were talking about about providing the supporting documentation appears in section

[279:02] 13-28 13-29 9 and 13-2 D 11 and I understand that you want me to change that in all three sections either to require the Committees to maintain all those records and provide them upon request or to provide all of those records within a certain number of days after the election is over I was thinking the former I'm playing with that mhm okay so i' change all of those sections F because they're all worried the same that they would say copies of documents supporting the contributions and expenditures included in any statements required by this section shall be maintained by the committee and sorry and available for providing to the city manager in the event of an

[280:03] audit thank you okay thank you make a new motion Sam so uh I move that we uh adopt on second reading ordinance number 8114 amending chapter 13-2 campaign financing disclosure um and some other chapters uh to make changes to conform to recent Supreme Court cases and changes to state law change the campaign limits for matching funds from formulas to Dollars clarify issues and setting forth related details so that's the motion language for 8114 and I'll second that one thank you you want to incorporate her change that one by incorpor emergency which one's by emergency that's the one that we would ask by emergency you have a blue sheet on your desk that has the last page changed if you do it by that's why I was asking I thought that's what you

[281:03] said so it's got a emergency finding at the end of it okay B somewhere at the last piece correct which is always which is always how we do it okay here we go so and that we adopt you want this adopted as emergency that would help so that we can go ahead and publish our guidelines 14 yes so uh yeah my motion is to adopt it as an emergency measure um requiring two-thirds of the council members present to vote for it good night okay all right so move by Weber and second it by Mar any further discussion yeah I again I don't know if anybody's interested in this and it's not to die for but I I'm still not thrilled with fixing 20,0 80 people kind of permanently and never being quite right yes I I mean I understand that the registration roles are essentially

[282:01] worthless now but you know we you got Census Data you can use the latest and I don't mean 2010 there's a you know the American Community survey it's from the Census Bureau gets updated every year you can see how many people are over 18 that's clearly the max frankly I would probably pick like 90% of that but we could also just say that's the number and put back in the inflationary increment so nobody really has to deal with this again and sorry if it confuses potential candidates if they can't get through this yeah know maybe maybe it weeds out uh let let them chew on excise taxes yeah right exactly and besides I mean the clerk's office does a fabulous job of coming up with you know here's your packet here's how many you need to meet the matching funds you don't have to calculate it somebody calculates it for you it's

[283:00] again not to die for but I think then we wouldn't we'd have a better number and we wouldn't have to worry about it every year it would stay in sync both with inflation which is the cost side and with number of people which is the you know the surrogate for the registered voters so are you proposing we do that now because this is that in this motion well it could come back although this is an emergency yeah you know it just goes back to the original language because that's what the original language said except it said that used the um number of registered voters and instead of saying that you could say use the latest information available from the US Bureau of census and there you go all the rest of it used to be in the ordinance right because the ordinance had the inflation in it and it had the let's use the number of people who are registered so I'm just changing that portion of where you get the number from

[284:01] switching it from the registered voters which we know doesn't work to a different metric that's it that's the change but well it's going to have to get written on the fly right now or at least pulled from the old ordinance or yeah or uh we indicate what we want and I think as long as we're clear about it that's good enough I don't know if we need every single word if we're very clear on the concept if we're going to vote on it yeah my experience is that you that you do that um and if you're going to make any changes that you'd have another reading if you weren't doing it by emergency but I will happy to do as directed and if I need to draft on the Fly I will do my best well if you could do that we can come back to it and give you a little bit of time and go we've done this before and come back to the next go to the next issue and then frankly you could even interrupt us and so table this and then I can make the motion on any 13 yeah yeah for sure but

[285:02] that's if people are interested again it's not to die for but I think it solves a long-term problem and we don't have to the next Council and the one after that doesn't have to come back to it like that so I'm I'm fine with that um I would say that for something like this if it's possible to get that out just ahead of the meeting because that way maybe there could have been alternative language or I'm not sure I thought about it sorry okay I I just wanted to make sure that your motion captured the change that Kathy's going to make about um submitting a supporting materials it does okay yes we talked about that great as part of the motion so and we also have to think about the 80 people so yeah you know this this one doesn't have the old well no it does have the old language you just have to take out three words I looked at that or or you could just fix it at 80 I think having the dollar amount float no you should float it all you got to do is

[286:01] take out the new thing where it says a minimum of 80 you're done okay because the old language was the candidate raises at least 10% of the expenditure limit from Individual contributors that solves it the new language I had to think about this for a minute the new language is four words a minimum of 80 just take it out there's the minimum of $25 per that's the old language yeah but that's what I'm saying it's I'm I guess you're talking about editing but I'm say the concept is more than just that concept oh yeah the concept is a little more than that cuz it's no more than $25 per contribution but that's all the old language the only change to that section of the four words a minimum of 80 if you take it out it goes back to the old language which then is 10% of the max you just want to undo all the changes is that what you're saying well I want to undo those four words because then that would be consistent but we need to put back in the previous words in the previous

[287:00] section what you need the only change can I per can I propose just leaving it as it is not making the changes on the Fly cuz this is starting to make me uncomfortable and we can come back we can adopt it now and come back at a 11 change that's fine it's a really easy change so so let's do that so we can do that bring bring it back put it on consent okay okay so i' I've made a motion then that got seconded by Lisa who's now out of the room you proposed a am Amendment and I right you were talking about making a further change and so we'll just wait on that yeah that just again nobody's running for Council for another year and a half which is the only thing that's expect all right so we can wait until then and bring it back before then just bring it back on consent it's a few words and we'll pass it on consent okay so all right so wait for wait for Lisa to come back go get her if we don't pick it up I'm going to start

[288:00] binging on sugary soft drinks we're not going to let you well actually we're going to charge you we're going to charge you pay us all I want a quarter now we're missing Dan can we just take all right all right all right so moved in seconded moved and seconded all right let's is it show hands roll call roll call okay council member Shoemaker hi Weaver hi young hi Apple bom hi rocket I Burton I morzel I the motion passes unanimously okay I can make another one to keep us moving um I move that uh we adopt on second reading ordinance number 8113 amending chapter 13-1 elections adopting the municipal election code in place of

[289:01] the uniform election code to streamline the process for Municipal nonpartisan elections and setting forth related details second all right moved by Weber and second it by Apple bomb council member Weaver hi young I Apple bound I rocket I Burton morzel Shoemaker I the motion passes unanimously so I just want to make a comment that I appreciate you guys coming out and and telling us all you did I'm sorry that you didn't get the the um steps you were asking for in this case I have to trust that our our City attorney is giving us good legal advice on this so that's fundamentally the the choice I'm making here and if there are specific things that you further strengthen once we get through this we have time to do that and it would be much appreciated if you would send in some of those that you think are specific that would make a difference

[290:01] here in Boulder so thank you thank you very much and thank you for staying so late with us we'll move on thank you Kathy thank you for your five years of work on this okay we're only 10 minutes behind your next public hearing second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance number 8121 amending Title 9 land use code to adopt a form-based code for the Boulder Junction Phase 1 and notice of action on proposed amendments to the transit Village area plan connections plan and Charles phoh and Carl Gyer are here to present this matter to Council in a minute shove down C I'll get

[291:02] out Happ ready sure to wait till Mary's back sure okay so good evening members of council we're excited to be before you this evening with the final draft of the pilot form base code for the Boulder Junction area I think as many of you know this has been kind of a work in progress over the course of the past year we've been working with a consultant um I we've made a few pit stops um along the way checking in both here and at planning board so I'll turn it over to Carl guer to uh take you through the staff analysis um little bit of a unfortunately longer presentation than usual it's a lot of regulatory information um that we've tried to um present in a manner that's as concise as possible so um if you have questions

[292:02] along the way we're happy to answer them uh but I'll turn it over to Carl gerer to take you through the staff analysis thank you Charles uh like Charles said um I'm happy to go through the entire presentation and then take questions or if you want to interrupt me with any questions feel free to jump in I'm happy to to answer them at any time so the form based code excuse me before we um move forward we need to uh suspend the rules second all in favor George all right sorry to George all right Carl so the form based code uh pilot project is part of the city's design Excellence initiative uh this grew out of some Community concerns about the design of projects that have been built uh in recent years as you recall the city brought in Victor do uh to provide

[293:00] some suggestions for changes uh in in our code or process or other programs to improve upon design and form based code was one of his suggestions uh he had suggested that we look at a a relatively small geographic area to apply a form based code to test uh in this case in in an area where there is an established Vision so it seemed intuitive based on the development that's occurring uh to apply it to the Boulder Junction phase one area so that's where this would apply so the goal is basically to try a new tool that would regulate development with the goals of achieving better design outcomes uh better specifying what the community wants in a particular area simplifying the process and adding a bit more predictability uh to the process as compared to the current site review process so through the course of the last year we've been working with a design consultant called Koda metric Leslie oberholzer has come uh to present

[294:00] to to Council on a number of occasions unfortunately she couldn't attend tonight she had other obligations uh but we've been working with a form-based code working group uh We've stopped in with planning board on a number of occasions we've had some joint meetings with planning board design Advisory board transportation Advisory board and the Boulder Junction access District as well as a number of stakeholders uh throughout the city and the steel yards HOA so it's been an ongoing process so before the council tonight is is the form based code the the final draft that we've prepared uh as well as amendments to the transit Village area plan connections plan that were identified as part of the form based code project so the form based code uh is in attachment a of the memo and the um changes to tvap are in attachment B so I'm going to try to as briefly as I can just talk about the timeline of the last year the project basically started off and it's in three phases where we

[295:00] had the the form base code 101 uh that was presented by Victor do and spring of last year that was followed by joint board meetings and a community Workshop where we conducted a of image preference survey uh to tr derive from the community what was acceptable architecturally or design wise and what was unacceptable uh we met with the form based code working group on a number of occasions uh we checked in with with Council in May of last year about the direction we were going in June of last year we came back with uh guiding princi principles that were really derived from what we learned in the image preference survey kind of dictating you know where we should really be focusing our attention in the form based code and then through July we did more Community workshops we created more components of the form based code and and brought brought it back to Council in as a study session in August uh following that we moved forward with an with an open house and then the planning

[296:00] board meeting in October where we brought kind of the first um draft uh before the planning board so it was generally supported by the board at that time but they did have some concerns and there was a little bit of um disagreement on the board as far as whether it was too regulatory or whe it was too um open ended um so we've been trying to work on those those things and trying to mesh it with our complicated code over the last few months and we we finally brought it back to planning board in April where they unanimously unanimously approved uh the form based code in April so I'm going to jump into ordinance uh number 8121 uh which is the actual changes that go into our our land use code so it adds a new section to the land use code AS 926 form-based code review it's structured very similarly to uh the site review and use review sections of our code um but we've really been trying to do it in a way where you might have

[297:00] heard some suggestions from planning board and staff members to try out a new site review light um type process so we we tried to formulate uh formulate it in that with that in mind so the section in the code sets up the scope and purpose um it sets up the review process um it it enables um applicants to request minor modifications similar to site review that would apply to form-based code projects and it also uh sets up exception criteria to enable some flexibility again again trying to keep this a lot more simple than our our current site review but basically form based code reviews would apply to the area um in appendix L um as Boulder Junction it's adaptable to add more areas in the future if we decide to add more form-based codes um there's an administrative review process if there's any uh smaller scale projects that are one story less than 500 squ ft and don't require exceptions we want to enable um

[298:00] some small modifications also being clear that um the form-based code is is much more black and white than the current site review process which has as you know like seven pages of of subjective criteria that you know can create some disagreement this would be more black and white but it would um be a staff level project with no automatic planning board hearings but it is set up in a way where there can it can be called up by the public or it could be called it by planning board to basically evaluate the effectiveness of the form based code so so through this learning process we're hoping to derive if there's improvements that need to be made to the form based code if things aren't working quite right or there needs to be new additions um so again appendix L is is the areas where it would apply and appendix m is the actual regulations so one thing that's important to note is that most of what's in the ordinance is really creating references to the form based code because we're adding kind of this new

[299:00] construct to the code and there's a lot of part of the land use code that reference use review and site review we had to do the same and add form-based code review but I wanted to talk about uh what would continue to apply in these areas and what areas would be superseded so our use standards that are in the land use code would continue to apply it doesn't change that there are a couple additions in the form based code there's requirements that um large projects would have to be 50% residential to really kind of implement um the the vision of of the transit Village area plan um there's also requirements for storefront uses in certain locations where it has to be active pedestrian uses so uh dining and entertainment uses restaurants um and Retail uses most of the form based code or most of the form and bulk standards in our land use code would be superseded this is a form-based code so it's really meant to try something different and

[300:00] dictate it more specifically um so it does supersede that section of the code but it does not supersede how the city measures Building height it doesn't override the charter so I want to make that really clear um it would supersede the intensity standards so open space and and density it's really kind of dictating the the the form and bulk how it's supposed to appear but it would not uh supersede the occupancy standards um almost everything in the development standards would continue to apply our lighting standards our parking standards access um the the usable open space standards would apply in some areas but mostly um would be superseded by the outdoor space standards that are in the form based code so that's an overview of the ordinance so I'm going to jump into the actual form based code uh it's broken up into four sections so we have General Provisions site design building types and then building design

[301:01] so General provision basically just sets up the general purpose the design goals how it's organized um but really most importantly it's the regulating plan so this is the the plan that shows it's kind of a hybrid between the zoning ordinance and the and the land use map where it shows where building types are permitted um it also talks about where it shows where the tvap connections would have to be so it's consistent with tvap it also specifies type A and type B Streets so type A streets are where you you would have a higher emphasis on pedestrian ality along the streetcape whereas type B Streets would be a little bit more flexible on where access can be taken um they're kind of SEC you know secondary so the site design section really focuses more on the street Scapes around buildings as well as new poo standards that um would cross through uh blocks what those poo poos would look like what their surface treatments would have to be their widths what kind of

[302:01] landscaping would be in them it also specifies the different types of outdoor space that could apply on on the specific sites and and what the percentages of green space and Hardscape would have to be so looking at some of the maps that are in the form base code uh that are unique the one on the left is is uh the preced view corridors map that's in the general Provisions this is something that was identified through the process where it was found to be important to retain view lines of the flat irons from Depot Square to kind of create that connection to the mountains that would effectively be lost if we implemented the zoning as it is today um where people could go to four or five stories and the F so it does restrict the heights of buildings in that location to retain those views so it sets up a process for how we review projects and make sure that those those view lines are retained moving into site design it specifies where outdoor space locations have to be effectively it's uh every um

[303:02] eth of a mile there has to be some sort of publicly accessible open space and if that's not met it has to be met on the on a site that doesn't meet that eighth of a mile and it specifies how that how that would be done so I'm going to move on to the building type section there's a lot of words here this is just an example of what the building type section shows this girl can I interrupt you there this a question about the open space areas something we Tangled with occasionally is that um if if you have a private development that uh requiring their uh open space to be public seems to not be necessarily doable from a regulatory standpoint so how do you reconcile that with a form based code that requires publicly accessible open space I mean we struggled with that with the form based code as well and it doesn't require publicly accessible it basically says that it can be has to be open to to the users and tenants of the development which is the same as the site review process it doesn't require that it be dedicated um

[304:02] but there are scenarios where an open space might be provided it might be just it might be fenced off for just the residents so that would not qualify under these scenario so in that case they would have to provide some sort of they'd have to keep it open you know for people to enter the property that are using the property but it wouldn't require it to be dedicated so so you could limit it require it for users and tenants but not necessarily the public at large correct okay thank you but developers still do reserve the right if they want to make it open to the public we've had people volunteer to do that put Public Access easements over it that Still Remains an option we just can't require it thank you so just basically in in the building type section this is where like you get into what I call the bones of the building just kind of getting the the structure of the buildings the form um it focuses on the design location and uses the the additional use requirements

[305:00] um this is what's going to create the shape of buildings um to fulfill basically the vision of tvap so that's where you get really in kind of into the meat of the form based code so just really quick this is where we have build two Zone requirements Street Frontage percentages where where the setbacks are specified on sides and rear there's maximum building lengths because we've heard concerns about buildings being too long along blocks um there's a m where the maximum number of stories is specified there's floor to floor Heights which we we don't have in our in our zoning code today specified parking locations entry requirements to buildings uh this is where we talk about the cap types the required transparency basically the glazing or the number of Windows per floor so you get you know a good um face of the building and this is where it talks about the special storefront use requirements that I talked about before so that would be like no you

[306:01] can't do a whole bunch of inks right correct so basically in in the building type section that where where it's Main Street retail those entire frontages have to be active pedestrian uses um in areas that are not considered Main Street then it's specified by a blue line within the other building types thank you so this slide just basically shows you know form-based codes are a little more graphic and visual than our typical zoning code so these are some examples of showing the different cap types building locations how we measure uh the how many windows there have to be and you can't have certain blank walls over certain um percentages um that's just an example so some of the council might remember that when we came uh with the The Guiding principles last year um what we learned from the image preference survey is that there was a desire in the community to kind of get more towards simple honest and human scale type building so that's kind of the core of of what we learned from from the image preference survey and this is

[307:01] what we applied to um the building design section so this is where we get into the what I say is the skins of buildings so this is the section where we talk about major and minor materials we've heard some criticisms about the use of ephus and fiberboard siding and this is where we get at you know trying to get the bulk of facades on four-sided architecture as stone brick masonry wood um but also allowing certain a lower percentage to be ephis or are stucko in certain scenarios where the maximum of those particular materials would be 20% there's also been some concerns about how buildings have been or materials have been applied and how their their durability so there's building construction quality requirements in there for like stucko um one other thing I think is really important is the building transition requirements there's been some concern about you know having a brick veneer on a side and then all of a sudden it turns the corner and it's it's Hardy plank or

[308:00] whatever that would not be pered in the form base code it would have to turn the corner the material transition would have to occur at a concave corner so it gives it just more of a more substantial look and doesn't look like it's just cheaply applied to the building there's requirements for um window reveals the windows have to be indented at least 2 in so you get Shadow lines it makes the building wall look more substantial and less cheap there has to be vertical orientation again these are really specific but we do have exception standards so so if there are you know scenarios where it seems too restrictive the applicant can ask for an exception we would evaluate it through criteria we would um apply those criteria and we would write that to the planning board there would be the option to call it up so there is that exception process and then we've heard a lot of comments and concerns about massing and proportion so the the second part of building design talks about um you know we've heard concerns about top heavy

[309:00] looking buildings so there's a maximum indent on the lower floor of 18 in so you don't get that topheavy effect if you do have a building that's over 120 ft long um again there's a 150 ft Max but you have to have increments no longer than 90 ft where there's some sort of variation we don't want to get the real busy looking facades where there's all these indents and you know building modules pushed out but this it just ask mean I'm sorry salana yes we looked to that quite a bit through this process to to see where we could make some improvements um but in this case it would require at least two types of changes every 90 ft so you get some variation but not too much variation we've also heard uh concerns about there's not enough varied building Heights or not enough um pitched roofs so there is a incentive in there for pitch throughs where if you have a building that's over 40 ft in height uh

[310:02] % would have to have a pitched roof and if it doesn't meet that requirement alternatively 30% of the of the Upper Floor would have to drop down so that you get a variation of Building height um through that requirement lastly uh one thing that was discuss um and it was an idea that really came from Victor do and we kind of took on was the the golden rectangle or the golden ratio um in historic architecture the golden ratio is used um pretty significantly we we find that it creates pleasing proportions it's something that would be a requirement in the form based code where they at least have to just demonstrate that they've used it uh we found that you know for instance I'll talk about the Rev project when that originally came in I would say it was the classic type design that had all the too many materials too many um indents and pushouts of building modules and while we were doing the form based

[311:00] code process we met with them and they revised the design to kind of embrace the golden rectangle and I feel like it really kind of jumped their design ahead and made it much more comfortable and it was supported by planning board um they took that to to heart um so we feel like it's something that's worth trying out planning board was a little bit concerned that it might be too strict they felt also that it's worth trying again we have the exception process if it appears too restrictive um so it is in the code to today um but I'm curious to see what the what the council thinks so lastly I'll talk about the the connection plan changes that were identified through the form based code process um one change is if you look here this is basically the the property just in the north of Goose Creek that's um in almost up to Ste yards the road connection that's currently in tvap um shows a local Street connection behind the building

[312:01] while we were doing the form based code analysis with the consultant um it was identified that does it make sense to actually require the fronts of of whatever buildings go on this site in the future to what is basically functioning like an alley today if you look at the connections plan today it's shown in orange line so you'll see The Foundry place just to the the North in Steelyards and carbon place you'd have three local streets all aligned together with no alleys in between so it seems like it would make more sense just to recognize that it's already functioning as an alley just to keep it as an alley so we've we're proposing that that local Street connection from Junction place to 31st Street be eliminated as a local Street connection and alternatively what we want is a build if the buildings get developed on that site that they really address to the south on Goose Creek and the original idea was to have you know

[313:01] show here was the original idea was to have a local Street along Goose Creek there but that wasn't feasible from an engineering perspective so what the the new idea was Let's do an enhanced poo so creating a more pedestrian prominon type experience we heard some concerns from folks that you know Goose Creek is much more bicycle oriented that this would be more like a landscape prominade that buildings could front upon so that would add this new enhanced poo connection next to to Goose Creek that's part of the changes real quick the last ones are existing sidewalk connections that would go through the polard site it would just specify that the one the north one would have to be a narrow poo meeting the Poo requirements in the form based code the South one would have be have to be a wide poo so those are those standards are specified in the form based code so the planning board recom recommendation was to approve the the

[314:00] form based code um they have very minimal changes they had a friendly amendment to to change the notice Provisions to include all addresses they wanted to have one graphic updated in the form based code to show The Yards which was done um and then there was the motion to approve the tvap amendments there there is the CAC discussion about um applying public notice requirements Citywide so we've provided that analysis in the memo uh in attachment e and I'm happy to answer questions on that this slide shows the staff recommendation with the motion language if if the council wanted to refer to this and then my final slide just has topics of discussions and again happy to answer any questions all right thank you Carl do council members have any questions Matt I'll ask a couple um I think I think literally a couple we'll see um pretty general ones so so I mean

[315:03] most of the Poler Junction Transit Village is actually either built or has approved plans or whatever there's some that doesn't the Pol site's the kind of the main one um would the buildings that we've approved or that are in the I'm just curious that are in the works kind of some of the big ones that have gotten some pretty good reviews whether it's spark or rev or the commons and I can't remember what everything's called do those would those largely meet these form-based code rules and if they don't where where do they diverge from them we we did some analysis I mean we didn't do like detailed like plan elevation analysis but just kind of going through the form-based code and looking at you know what they provided we worked with those Architects through the process so we largely found that those buildings would meet the form base code uh they they part of the design

[316:01] were based on the creation of the form based code so um I don't have all the details like like the window transparency requirements but in general it looked like they did a a really good job at that okay and so what is actually left besides Pard I have this map right here practical perspective par is the big one yeah so there's five sites there's the Pard site there's the what I call the Rocky Mountain blueprint CPUs in industrial site just to north of Goose Creek there's the safe light mod uh property next to Ste yards there's also a business Main Street property just to the north of bluff which is labeled as number five on and then 32 I'm sorry is that that's where the dog yes yeah yeah biscuit and then there's the 3200 Bluff site which is labeled as as number three I actually did hear also that there might be a six site and that that would be the a property that was approved with spark just to the east of 3200 Bluff it

[317:02] they're they're having some interest in applying the form based code retroactively to that site as well so aside from the design elements which I mostly get and I'm thinking mostly of Pard because we own it and it's a big deal but the other ones too aside from all the design elements which is most of form-based code there's also this seems to me there's also this use implication here that you know whether it's 50% housing or whether it's um I don't know some other some other sense that it's we're we're overlaying the zoning with some other use implications am I right about that and what might they be I mean if I were going to go out and develop Pard tomorrow um right now it's got some zoning I yeah fine the zoning might change whatever but what what what use implications if any are being overlaid

[318:02] if we were to approve this well again the two biggest differences are are the the storefront requirements that are more specific about the ground floor uses which you know there're supposed to be ground floor generally retail type uses um in that zone anyway um but really the 50% residential requirement was added because we were concerned that it um if we took away the site review process and the concept plan process we could potentially lose the potential for residential there because the transit Village area plan is really explicit about getting predominantly residential uses in this area to get critical mass and it targets the Pard site particularly for potential for affordable housing and everything so we felt it really important to have the 50% residential uh requirement added to to meet that intent okay thanks so we had um Aaron and then Lisa

[319:03] and then Sam so uh can you just walk us through what the callup procedure is what the options are please so all the reviews would be staff level um you know like site reviews today there's certain ones that would have to automatically go to planning board or there might be use reviews that have to automatically go to planning board again we're trying to keep this relatively simple but it' be staff level but similar to site review after the review is done staff would produce a notice of disposition saying you know it meets the form based code if there's any exceptions that are asked for it would be similar to how staff uh makes Arguments for the modification so we would have to include an analysis of how they meet or could potentially not meet the exception criteria and we would forward that on to planning board the same way we do site reviews and then planning board would have to consider whether or not they want to call it up

[320:02] and it would be just one member like uh yeah and can could you also have a call up by just one Community member as correct okay so thank you Lisa just going to ask that same question but how how would um the Community member or any individual know that this was there was time for a call up same way we do with site reviews we send a public notice out and we would you know they would contact the case manager the case manager would keep them uised to the steps of the process okay and then I had a question kind of um along mat so that we have a lot of buildings already now built at Boulder Junction and so we will start kind of assuming that they have their 55t limit and then a new building would have to react to that building so that you get this height

[321:00] variation is that how it would work or if if there if the new building is on a site that's not subject to a site review yes MH um another thing that's interesting in the form-based code is it allows the existing properties that were approved through site review to continue so if they want to make changes they would have to go through an amendment process similar you know to their current process but the code does say that they have to make some sort of acknowledgement of the form based code that they're generally within the inent it doesn't have to be explicitly meeting the form based code but it has to show that they're um designing it in accordance with the form based code intent okay thank you Sam so are any of the properties that you're showing here are they going to go through the form based code process none of them are in site plan review are they well the the 3200 Bluff pro project came through concept plan and and they are intending to go through form based code review okay so all of these will so we will get

[322:01] to see kind of on the ground before too long um what the impacts of this are and then what are you know where are we on phase two of the tvap you know will you be trying to apply this to that are you going to wait and see what you get um what's the concept for this phase two I think we'd want to wait and see and continue to evaluate um you know phase two right now um there isn't any plan right now to implement the comprehensive rezoning I think we would need to kind of figure out the infrastructure costs and sort of what upfront would need to be done um with regard to infrastructure before phase two U the comprehensive rezoning that would actually um Implement phase two would occur uh but I think that would be the plan would to um get a few projects under our belt evaluate them um I think our hope would be to um revisit it with the planning board and Council after we have um a few examples to see how it's performing and

[323:00] if you were just looking into your crystal ball thinking what other places besides uh tab would be ripe for this do you have I mean the hospital site would be a place that would come to mind what are you thinking about the hospital site in this approach as you guys know we're really early in the discussions and kind of exploring what the possibilities are for the hospital but I think um kind of anecdotally um informally um we think it'd be a great candidate but again it really kind of of depends on uh the performance here and what we learn okay and then as you went through this process um and you used your visual preference surveys to inform uh you know the the various building envelopes did does it have much impact on the heights I mean maybe Minor Adjustments from one to the other I'm looking on packet page 281 and looking at that row of buildings and it looks like mostly they still

[324:01] um take as much as they can get what are your comments on the form and bulk standards in the um form based code are going to be different than the form and bulk guidelines in the site plan review I think um I think the image preference survey were were really helpful in kind of creating what you know getting a good idea of what people felt was acceptable I I think it also affirmed some things we've been hearing for years um that there's 's a desire to get a diversity of housing types but we also had to consider the fact that you know tvap does Envision that this is going to be a place where more urban intensive development is going to be so we didn't anticipate making major changes to massing particularly around like the rail Plaza area where it talks about having four to five story buildings um so we didn't want to conflict with the tvap U through this process so that played a part as well but you know

[325:01] through the site review process we often find that because one project gets 55 ft the neighboring project feels like they can automatically get their 55 ft whereas the form based code is going to on each site is going to mandate that some of those height variation requirements come into play so we feel like it's a more effective way to get that diversity of heights and and diversity of massing and I think what we've heard as part of the process is that um what we've seen in the past is kind of a disingenuous way of um deconstructing building Mass um with a lot of sort of over articulation um I think to Carl's point I think one of the main the I think part of the main emphasis of the physical manifestation of the form base code is really to focus on buildings that are honest elegant um and welld designed with high quality materials that are going to be durable so I think those were kind of some of the main tenants in in moving it Forward cool this is super

[326:00] exciting thank you so I have um a question related to 3200 Bluff so when it came to planning board for concept review were they thinking about asking for coming to a discretionary review I guess that's what when they originally um designed the project they had designed it with the underlying zoning and site review process in mind but what while we did the the review they were more cognizant of the form based code standard ards and they they did revise the design before it went to planning board so that will so that by going through the form based code they will essentially get a more streamlined process and yeah there that's really enticing um I think to a lot of developers and it's something that they're pretty excited about so I think that they're likely to um pursue the form based code model great thank you well I'm sorry ahe is that an option I mean once we adopt

[327:01] option is it yeah if the council adopts it they would have to go through form based code review but they did have the option of really quickly turning around a site review subm and getting it in um and they opted not to do that so that kind of says to me that um they're comfortable with the form based code option no they actually said that if if the form based code was not adopted you know like it if there were changes and it got adopted later like that they would still want to do the form based code and we told them that you know they technically could actually submit for a form-based code if we felt like it was ultimately going to be adopted as long as we didn't act on it you know until the form based code was in effect Lisa so um you went through in earlier part of your presentation about what the form based code would affect and what it wouldn't so such like height um and it wouldn't change like density in in um a particular unit so or in a

[328:01] particular space so let's say we just had this Co-op discussion and let's say a developer wanted to put a co-op in their Residential Building um how would they address the density issue or because or occup I mean co-ops tend to be in single family areas um it depends on what the co-op regs get how they get drafted and where they would apply and right but there's been a lot of people who have written to us and said well what about doing them in commercial areas or you know thinking outside this the Box a little bit more and previously on Junction Boulder Junction I brought up on multiple occasions trying co-ops in some of these um buildings um I mean I would just say that you know since we're not changing the use

[329:01] standards the use standards apply wholly to the form based code that whatever the outcome is that it would still go through the same process and there would be nothing precluding us from you know in the forthcoming draft on co-ops um you know to include these zoning districts if that's something that the council wanted to do okay so are we going to have a public hearing yes we are thanks is anybody signed up all right wonder why yes please Lisa well we're going to open the public hearing and then seeing no one we'll close it and then we'll go to Lisa to make a motion let's he the motion oh okay so I would like to move that we adopt ordinance number 8121 amending Title 9 land use code BRC 1981 to implement a form-based code for the Boulder Junction Phase 1 area through two Tendencies to

[330:01] Title 9 appendix L designating form based code areas and appendix M as the FBC regulations and adopting a form-based code review process second and to speak to it I would just say you know I think you guys have done a great job I'm glad that we were open to this and that um Victor do came in with um forget the other person but that they've done I think a great job and I think this will greatly simplify things and give a predictability to the building and not only the building but um the uses and um how the buildings relate to the streets so I'm all in favor of this and I am very excited to see its application so I would second that

[331:00] and thank you guys for bringing it forward and seeing it through and I'm especially excited about the um golden rectangle and this is this is where if I were making I would launch into something about Vitruvius and Le batist alberty and the 10 books of architecture but I won't um but I it's been around for a long long time and I'm pretty excited about it so um it's great thank thank you Matt and then Aaron yeah I mean this is this this is a good step I I I share one concern that a number of planning board members raised and they're obviously comfortable going ahead with it so therefore I am too and that's the is it to prescriptive do you you know do we do we swing the pendulum a little too far we got worried about lousy designs and now we made everybody build the same thing um and I I guess what I'm curious about and you'll learn it by doing it so

[332:01] you probably can't really answer this right now but do you think that the exception mechanism is really usable in other words is it something that if people think they got a case they're going to do are they going to shy away from it and just say not worth it too hard you know how are we going to make that not automatic but also somewhat inviting yeah well I mean I think one way we can the way I look at it is that there's a required preapp process where the applicant has to come in with a preliminary design and meet with us and to go over the design and I think that's where they might float some exception ideas in front of staff and it would be a way for us to say that looks like it's a good idea or maybe it's not a good idea and I think we'd have to go through that um yeah I mean based on the criteria but going through that experience and seeing if it gets us what we want as far as flexibility okay well I mean again

[333:00] planning board I know had some of the same concern they said let's give it a try you have a exception procedure uh yeah you could have one too many golden rectangles I think uh so we'll see where this goes but thanks so uh just to chime in thanks for a phenomenal job this is uh I've you know been following this along obviously from planning board before and um I think it's going to be a great great addition and I I think one of the you know the great advantages here is the predict ability on on all sides that um residents know what they'll be getting um and if they take the time to delve into the form baseed code and developers have some predictability in in the outcome with the process if they obey all the rules W with that in mind I the the callup procedures I think they're um uh it's very easy to call it up and I think that's appropriate for the pilot situation but I'll just want to go on record to say that if if this uh is successful and we apply it to other areas of the city I think we might make it a a little harder to call up than

[334:01] just one person um from the public or the planning board so just wanted to just get that on record for hopefully in a year or two we'll be applying this to other areas and uh maybe we can look at that and then the one other comment I wanted to make I was going to bring up the golden rectangle um a little bit more negatively but since Mary was so positive about it and I trust your judgment I I'll just I won't go anywhere with it but just to say that just in the concern about maybe being a little too prescriptive um you know just make sure that uh Architects have the ability to be creative in their their designs but just something to keep an eye out on and for blog um so just you know some something I trust we'll get feedback on if if we're hearing from from Architects be like oh I had this brilliant idea but it was you know 10% off from a golden rectangle and so I couldn't do it so so I'm excited to see this go forward as well um I'm not very concerned about it being too prescriptive I mean uh Leonard May did a nice drawing of

[335:00] showing what you could do if you wanted to do a bad job with some of the guidelines so I think there will be a lot of flexibility I think obviously people who think about this a lot like Victor do would try and keep it so that it's not too prescriptive and you both get what you want and give the Architects room to be creative so I'm hopeful that it will be good and the other thing is it's our first crack at it so hopefully you guys once you get your first four or five projects in the ground can go look in at the details of how you describe what you wanted and then what did we get and how can we make that match up even better so I I'm looking forward to seeing what we what we get for our next buildings there anyone else all right so is this roll call all right council member young hi Apple bom hi rocket hi Burton hi marzelle hi Shoemaker I Weaver I the

[336:01] motion passes unanimously five minutes ahead of schedule thank you we made up 15 minutes good job yeah great job guys that was a great presentation so thank you thank you okay now we go to ma Matters from mayor and members of council we have the potential call-ups any action on those anyone okay then we have the board and commission appointments for downtown management commission and the University Hill commercial area management commission all right so we'll go with the downtown management commission first and um we'll do a show hands to vote and then since this is under matters we'll wait till later to um take the final

[337:01] vote um yeah right so the floor is open Aon so uh I'll nominate Peter fali and I'll nominate Adam enough all right comments any other nominations all right no just I was impressed by some of the creative ideas that Peter Vitali had um so and about um they like about how to deal with a lot of banks and you know way creative ways to reach out to those Banks and maybe activate them a little bit if we're getting them anyway so just leave with that I thought they were both very good candidates to be honest and I don't think we could go wrong with uh either either one of them they were both very engaged um you know I was just uh impressed with Adam's enthusiasm for the positive change he wanted to see downtown and some of his ideas is about

[338:00] um about bringing more people out in more bigger events downtown I thought were interesting so that's that Jan uh I agree with um Sam I think both candidates were really incredible um Peter went to Oregon with us and is really getting involved in the community and I see him to be a bright um you know involed involved business person um Adam I thought the same thing I thought he had some very creative ideas and I think both of them would be great but I would probably give a little bit of a nod to Adam at this point anybody else want to comment all right so we will vote later and move on to the university no we we vote now we just don't make it official

[339:00] I thought we voted until always Tom Dane someone I think you do and then you confirm the vote later say change now okay well then let's vote all right so all those in favor of Adam kof so um he gets it all right all right University Hill commercial area management commission who would like to nominate

[340:00] Linate Michael Brown any other nominations Aon or J I would nominate Robin L all right so any comments no I to say after after a couple of years ago um not even having enough uh people who were actually UK camc members even show up for a meeting we're at a point now where we have two spectacular candidates uh and we can't go wrong with either one Michael Brown I've known for a while he's a neighbor uh on University Hill lives there he's he's been involved in the city in the past and uh he's interested in getting back involved again and um and uh and he's he's a super guy and and very approachable and

[341:00] I'm sure would interact very well with the board and is interested in the um uh in in seeing things progress in the hill I'll let other people speak to Robin but I can also say very positive things about her as well so so whoever yeah I mean I I didn't either one of them you're yeah I think you turned it off I didn't know either one of them before the interview again it's a embarrassment of riches I I think both of them are incredible um I was surprised that I don't think either one of them are actually business people down there they are in the neighborhood and want to see this area succeed which I think is so great and so both of them seem to be very big cheerleaders for University Hill and I think we couldn't do wrong with either one um Robin is uh has been very involved with a lot of nonprofits at leadership roles and um I think she could perhaps bring some contacts and

[342:01] influence uh in helping development develop University Hill uh but I think either would be great um Sam um again they were both fantastic um Robin Lu has lived on the hill for 22 years um and she's got deep ties in the community as far as nonprofits like Jan said I know Michael a little bit better um he's served on the bidboard with me for a while when he was downtown um and he's a filmmaker so he brings an interesting perspective as long as a former business person so both of these are are really good um candidates and they're both heill cheer leaders Ain I'll just throw in like everybody says that we've got two great candidates on hope the person who doesn't get elected comes back next year um but I was just particularly impressed

[343:00] by the depth of Robin's nonprofit Community experience so I think it's great to see somebody who's done so many things you know uh come forward for a city committee so I'll be supporting Robin right any other comments shall we vote all right all those in favor of Michael Brown so we have three and all those in favor of Robin love four four so Robin is appointed your next item is consideration of a motion to so we finish this I I'm going to move that we ratify the appointments we just made and if somebody seconds that then we can vote on that when we come back and that will make it all at least that's been our tradition okay okay consideration of a motion to support proposed response to concerns on University Hill regarding beer pong tables and front yards so this is actually our request

[344:02] for a not of five this came up from alen council member alen and um I know um right and honestly the change to the ordinance would be fairly easy for the city attorney's office to make however um our office through Amanda Nagel who's here in the audience and also the code enforcement Jennifer Riley is also here um started thinking about this and felt like the Outreach to the University Hill neighborhood association as well as other stakeholders in the area would help us in um easing the changes that might be made and possibly uh coming up with ways in which we would not need to move forward with an ordinance such as this and so they've prepared a document that you have there that I think is a very robust community and Outreach process that we're recommending that Council give us an out of five to carry out and

[345:00] we'll be back to you later in the fall with um further recommendations on this right do we have a document to yeah it's at HC 317 sorry about that 317 yeah so if I could yeah just um so I obviously I support that approach Jane and I I appreciate um you know what I I ra raised an exploratory issue which was you know just boiled down to the simple concept of cleaning up after a game of beer pong in particular the rotting tables in the front yards and I guess even on roofs now we've seen um but um but and the question was whether we should begin to treat those like we treat couches and um vehicles on blocks and appliances in yards and weeds and broken windows all sorts of things that we already deal with uh with the city and um uh we received quite a I received quite a bit of feedback

[346:01] um and uh and actually but notwithstanding the camera editorial Advisory Board which I'll just have to pick on because they pick sort of as a straw man the issue of banning beer pong and that's not what I raised uh rather than cleaning up afterwards um the um I I got a lot of feedback from people saying you know what that this is this is a good idea it's a problem but based on the feed but based on that feedback and I think and based on um the The Proposal of staff I don't think it's time yet for an ordinance um particularly in light of the constructive recommendation that's been made to work with um uh the newly created city of Boulder Neighborhood Services uh uh uh group and the involvement of key stakeholders and you know one of the other things too from a from a fairness standpoint I want the students to be back uh in session if we if we were to do anything so that they have an opportunity to participate in the discussion and and don't feel like

[347:00] that we sort of pulled something over the summer when they're not here so the problem's been highlighted and I think people are now attuned to it and the staff's going to look at the problem it sounds like it's not going to take much of any effort uh and it's actually an opportunity for the new Department to work with uh stakeholders get to know the hill neighborhood and work with the university and try to address um you know all of the underlying issues surrounding this so I think it's a I think I think it's a really constructive solution and so that's why I would ask folks to give the nod so I just say if this does come back in the form of the ordinance I think we should decide whether or not to pass it with with a game of beer po that's right all right did we have enough nods we're nodding we're nodding I see them all nodding noing off right that's right

[348:01] good point sugary beverage we have no speakers for public comment all right so all right so we'll vote on the motion to ratify the appointees to the boards all in favor passes unanimously any any debrief uh well-run meeting thanks Mary thanks thanks yay meeting's adjourned