December 6, 2016 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] [Music] Okay, if everybody could grab a seat, that would be great. We are ready to begin uh the Boulder City Council's meeting for December 6, 2016. Lynette, you want to do the role? Council member Applebound. Rocket here. Burton here. Jones here. Morzelle Shoemaker Weaver here. Yates here. Young here. We have a quorum. I think Lisa will be coming. Okay. Um but not Andrew and Matt. Okay. Um before we get started, we just wanted to remind people that we are doing a gift card donation drive. It's that a good time of year to be thinking about folks in need, our homeless, our hungry families, children, and other residents in need. And so, we are asking folks who

[1:00] can to consider donating a gift card from supermarkets, grocerers, or a variety of stores around town. Um, basically, you go, you know, any store like Safeway and buy a gift card. Um, and then we will be giving those to local nonprofits. Um well that we'll use them to help individuals and families in our community get food and basic necessities. So no I just remind people no matter how small your donations matter and they count and they are about our community taking care of each other and once you buy a gift card you can drop them off um all over the city at the North Boulder Rec Center, the East Boulder Rec Center, the West Boulder Senior Center, here at the Municipal Building or at the South Boulder Rec Center. I could just say at the rec centers here or the senior center. So, we hope people will um pony up and let's uh make sure we uh help feed the folks that need it in our city. Thank you. Um so, with that, we are going to start out with um a bittersweet

[2:04] announcement if David wants to come up. So, I think most of you know that David Driscoll is leaving us for wetter pastures and heading out to the Pacific Northwest. And I think we're really blessed here in Boulder to attract the best and brightest. You are certainly among them and uh the cream of the crop, if you will. Uh but the sad thing about that is we don't get to keep the best and brightest forever. They are often sought after by other local. And so I'll just note that uh we have a resolution that sums up the long legacy that you leave here in Boulder. Uh you have had fing fingerprints on a lot of planning and sustainability efforts that are really integral to what we do. Um I will note that we've always had a a strong planning and sustainability department. So you are a shining star among a lot of

[3:01] other stars and um we're going to miss you. But let me read this official resolution. It's going to take a little while because it turns out you've done a lot. So, you can just stand up here and squirm. So, and just for those of you who don't know, um David first joined us back in January 2009 and served six months as the deputy director and then from then on he's been the head chief, the executive director of the planning department and sustainability department. And now in its many iterations, it is now the planning, housing, and sustainability department. So David has modeled his department's mission to partner with our community and colleagues to create a truly sustainable, resilient, and inclusive city worthy of its setting, where we can all thrive together. David's climate leadership, which is it's appropriate that we are going to address our climate commitment tonight. You had a lot to do with that. Um David's climate leadership played a formative role in many of the

[4:01] city's climate initiatives as well in the as in the development of both the North American urban sustainability directors network and the international carbon neutral cities alliance. This leadership has put Boulder on the forefront of global cities in the areas of climate and sustainability. David has been resolute in honoring the community's rich planning legacy while also addressing the issue of affordable housing. Under his guidance, the city has created an additional additional 900 affordable housing units and embedded the values of diversity, equity, and sustainability in the city's housing strategy. David has fostered creativity and public engagement, including partnering with CU and the Boulder Valley School District to form Growing Up Boulder, which played a really wonderful role in the civic area plan and the visioning processes process around that, which encouraged innovative approaches, which involved the youth in um and the arts community in coming up with that vision.

[5:01] and it included an ideas competition and uh resulted in statewide planners planners recognition for excellent community engagement. And there's more. David's David's leadership in implementing the transit village area plan began with the development of the Hyatt Place Hotel, the RTD underground bus facility, and the depot square project, as well as the groundbreaking multi-way boulevard along Pearl Parkway. going to the second page. And under David's leadership, the city's design excellent initiative was design uh initiated to support and achieve highquality building design outcomes, including the s city's first form-based code in the Boulder Junction area, and played a critical role in several highly sustainable urban infill projects like the Google headquarters at 30th and Pearl, the Wensel building at 13th and Walnut, and the Pearl West building at 11th and Pearl.

[6:02] David always engaged in in this work in the spirit of collaboration and with integrity, creativity, intelligence, and good humor. And therefore, the city council of the city of Boulder, Colorado, declares Friday, December 9th, which is his last day, as David Driscoll Day. And let us all give him a huge round of applause. Yeah. and and I'm just going to add on a on a personal note and we're going to just flat out miss you in addition to your excellence um because of the spirit you bring to all this and your humor, your humility and there's not that many people with charis charisma and excellence who also don't have a huge ego to go with it and um anyhow you've been a delight and we're really going to miss you. So, thank you so much. show. I hope that there are bars in town that have free drinks for David Driscoll Day.

[7:02] That's a great idea. Um it it's humbling uh to to work in this community. um the level of dedication and leadership from our council, uh the partnership with Jane and with Tom and and the rest of the directors and the incredible team that I get to work with every day and and the partnerships that we've had with the community which I'm really excited later tonight to highlight one of those areas which is in the climate commitment. Um it's really a fantastic community, a really unique place in this country and in this world and it's been an honor to play this role and serve this community. So thank you. Thank you. Good. And if I can just I just like to throw in a word just that I served on the planning board for five years when the department was under David's leadership and I just learned so much from you and just have the highest respect for your your work. So I'm going to make a motion to deny your request for a transfer. Do I have a second?

[8:00] Second. [Laughter] Okay. All righty. And with that, we have something a little bit more uh exciting. Yeah, exciting. So, the next is a certification of the 2016 special coordinated municipal election held on November 8th, 2016. That's me. Tonight, we'll be certifying the results from the special coordinated mi municipal election on November 8th, 2016. As a city council, you sit as the general canvasing and election board and I serve as the secretary. And so to start this, can I please have a motion to convene as the general canvasing and election board for the city of Boulder special coordinated municipal election? So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you.

[9:01] So first I'm going to take role. Council member Applebomb. Rocket here. Burton here. Jones here. Morzelle. Shoemaker. Weaver here. Yates here. Young here. Okay. Now I will administer the oath. If you'd all raise your right hands. I'll read the oath and then you can say I do at the end. We, the undersigned, do solemnly swear or affirm that we will perform the duties of the general canvasing and election board for the special coordinated municipal election held in the city of Boulder, county of Boulder, state of Colorado, on the 8th day of November, 2016 according to the law and to the best of our abilities. I do. Thank you. So now I need a nomination for someone to serve as the chair of this board. And typically it's the mayor that does this. I learned I nominate Suzanne Jones to serve as the chair of this board. Okay.

[10:03] So far so good. By acclamation, the mayor will serve as the board chair. So, as secretary for the board, I would like to certify to you the following documents, and I will pass them out in a minute. We'll have the public notice of the election, the official ballot, the election returns, and the reconciliation report. Before that, I'd like to read um the results on the record. So, the city of Boulder had four ballot measures in 2016. We had 2 H, the product distribution tax on sugar sweetened beverages. 32,767 voted in favor. 28,021 were opposed. We had measure 2 I to clarify and amend the blue line. 40,149 voted in favor. 11,66 were opposed. We had measure 2J to provide insurance benefits to council members. 33,195 voted in favor, 21,636

[11:00] opposed. And we had measure 302 term limits for council members. 31,951 voted in favor. 21,961 were opposed. So, for 2016, the city of Boulder had 72,700 active voters and um the county counted 64,717 ballots. So, we had about an 89% voter turnout. Yeah. So, let's see. The official results um as well as historical information is available on the Boulder County Elections website if anyone wants to take a look at that. And then now we will have a public hearing. Um, Chair Jones, if you'd like to open the public hearing. Okay, let's open the public hearing. Has anyone signed up to speak? No one has signed up. Does anybody want to sign up? Excellent. We will we will close the public hearing then. Closed. Okay. Now, um, I will pass these things

[12:00] around for you to look at and to sign. But before we do that, can I have a motion to approve the election returns for the city of Boulder 2016 special coordinated municipal election? So move. Second. All in favor? I. So I'm going to pass these around and I will wait for your signatures. There are two tabs where you need to sign. You're going to wait until we sign them right now? Yes. Okay. Or if you promise to get them to me, I can keep going. Let's keep going. Okay. Keep going. Yeah. So then um that's all for the election and just we need a motion to adjurnn from the general canvasing and election board and to reconvene as the Boulder City Council. So moved. Second. All in favor. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we are going to move on to open comment. So, this is where you get to talk to us about anything that is not subject to a

[13:01] public hearing today. And the two issues that are subject to a public hearing tonight are we are making amendments to our marijuana regulations and also our co-ap the issue of co-ops. And I'll just note um we will have a public hearing on on the marijuana regulations later. Um, we have already had a public hearing. We've had two on co-ops. So, we're not going to having another one tonight. We may have another one later on in the process, some weeks from now, but you're not going to have um any more testimony on that tonight. But you are welcome to talk to us about any other topics. And with that, given the number signed up, um, everyone will be limited to two minutes a piece. And if you could start out with your name and address, that would be great. and we'll have folks queue up. Um, I should mention that the fire code doesn't allow people to stand in the aisles unless you're just waiting to speak. So, if everybody

[14:01] could find a spot, that would be great. And with that, we're going to start with Kim Strong, followed by David, and then Molly. And I understand if people are waiting downstairs, there may be a little bit of a time delay. So, um, if you come up from downstairs and we've moved on, we'll just fit you in when we can when you get up here. So, Kim, is Kim here? Okay. Okay. So, we'll go to David. David, are you here? Okay. Molly May, is Molly here? Wow, that's going to go pretty fast. No. Um, Gerilyn is Gerlyn. Oh, am I? It looks like you are. Okay. Well, I had this to three minutes, so do my best to make it two. I'm Gerlyn Dakota, and my address is Post Office Box 3103, Elorado Springs. I appreciate

[15:02] the opportunity to address the council in support of resolution 1200 which is the resolution in support of the standing rock sue tribes opposion opposition to the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. I'm a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chipoa Indians in North Dakota and a 32-year resident of Boulder and Elorado Springs. In my tribe, the women are the water carriers. And it is serendipity that as a lawyer, I worked many years on water rights for tribes. The Standing Rock Sue tribe is a sovereign nation with rights under treaties and the laws of the United States applicable to this pipeline. Many of many laws, the I'll just give acronyms, EPA, NHPA, Antiquities Act, ERA, NAGPRA, and um the proposed pipeline crosses land reserved to the Sue by treaty. The treaty has been violated, but it's still the law of the land. As the US Constitution provides that all treaties are the applicable laws have not been

[16:01] followed, resulting in disregard of tribal authority over its resources and disregard of serious environmental impacts, including potential irreversible damage to water. The Water Protectors have raised critical issues for all Americans. Indeed, people from around the world have joined the Water Protectors. people from indigenous groups, environmental groups, US veterans, people from Boulder, and many other groups concerned about the potential effects of oil pipelines on the water that human beings depend on for survival. Two days ago, the Army Corps issued its decision to deny the easement needed to construct the pipeline under the Missouri River and to seek alternative routes. That is a limited victory because it is unclear whether after consideration of alternatives they might still approve this one and it is unclear what the Trump administration can do to change the decision of the Army Corps. That's

[17:01] why this resolution is very relevant. Thank you. Thank you. Um is Kimstrong David or Molly here? Kim is here. Kim, you want to come on up? May I present also my my co-presenter? Absolutely. I'm concerned post election the Oh, my name is Kim Strong. I'm a Boulder County resident and I'm a a student at CU in the PhD program in the school of education. I'm concerned post election the climate of fear, hostility, and discrimination against some of our most vulnerable members of the community, specifically undocumented immigrants. I believe human rights don't exist on the mountain that they're protected. They only exist so much as we enforce them and respect them and we protect them for our community's most vulnerable members. They're not something that you earn, you're born into, or that you you get

[18:02] because the color of your skin or the language that you speak or the country that you come from. You get them because we all protect them for one another. And I urge you to adopt a symbolic measure of protecting and honoring our neighbors, our friends, our family. I'm concerned about bringing her up in a world where we say some people are less important and some people are less deserving of dignity and respect, love, protection, and compassion because of the len the the country that they come from. I'm concerned about having to explain to her someday why we let human beings be targeted for hate speech that we said it wasn't that important because it was happening to them and not happening to us. I recognize that if we don't take a stand and say you can't do it to my neighbor, you can't do it to me, you can't do it to anyone, we're sending a strong message to the the government that we don't take human rights, we don't take our neighbors, we don't take our freedoms and protections very seriously. I don't think this is a political issue. I don't think it's a left versus right issue or a Democrats versus Republican issue. I think it's an

[19:01] issue of defending our freedoms that our our forebears fought and died for to protect for us. I believe we're only as strong as we are willing to take care of one another. Our freedoms are only so intact as we're willing to fight for them and defend them. And I'm I'm worried in the future that targeting immigrants is the first step of watching these freedoms slowly fade away. Please take a stand for everyone in our community that we are united. Thank you. Thank you, Kim. Okay. Is Katya here? Yeah. Hi. Uh my name is Katya Hayitch. Uh I live at 4783 Tantra Drive in Boulder, Colorado. Um and I'm here today to speak in favor of the climate commitment which we'll be discussing later tonight. Um, as a native of Colorado, I moved down to New Mexico where I grew up in a very dry and aid climate. Um, and I moved back to

[20:02] Boulder, uh, to study alpine hydrarology at CU Boulder and join one of the many 3,000 climate scientists that, uh, live here, uh, in the city of Boulder. Um, we've all heard the facts many times. Uh sometimes um it's good to hear them again that we have the highest levels of greenhouse gases currently in the last 800,000 years on our planet. Uh Colorado has experienced a warming of two degrees Fahrenheit over the past 30 years and we can expect at least that in the next 20 uh 20 years. And as part of um one of the la first generations to feel the effects of climate change, uh we're also one of the last to do about it. And so I urge you all to pass um the climate commitment tonight. Um as a young person, as a renter in Boulder, as a university employee, as a scientist, um and as a resident of Colorado and this planet, uh the time is now. And um I

[21:00] encourage you to listen to the years of community engagement work that has gone into the climate commitment and the excellent work that's been done um by the uh climate and sustainability department here. Thank you. Thank you, Katcha. Hey, thank you for your enthusiasm. We're going to ask everybody to not either um clap or boo or any of that just so that everyone feels comfortable saying what uh they need to say. If you want to agree with somebody, you can do this. Um and with that, let's go on to Robin. Robin Rei, is that Robin? Okay. And after Robin, go ahead and line up. We have Dena Gumina and Manuela. Hello. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me here tonight. My name is Robin and I live at 44417th Street in Denver, but I'm a PhD student in the education program at the University of Colorado Boulder. And I'm here tonight um to ask that the city council passes a resolution reaffirming the city's

[22:00] commitment to undocumented residents and visitors. Um my undergraduate degree was in international studies and so the idea of global interconnectedness and a global village is something that I'm really committed to. Um my argument tonight is an economic one. Um let's so um it's about international students. Um according to the Institute of International Education, international students represent about 5% of the 20 million students enrolled in US colleges and universities. Um over the past decade, the number of international students has increased by 73%. And many of these students are from predominantly Muslim countries. Um with the election of Donald Trump and the corresponding increase in hateful rhetoric, universities are already seeing a drop in applicants from international students. Um these students feel that it's safer that they uh pursue their education in the UK or in Canada. Um this isn't just a loss in

[23:01] fin a financial loss. It's a lost opportunity in innovation and ideas. Um with divevestment in public universities, international students bring necessary dollars and community development and research. Um international students and faculty not only bring cultural diversity and tuition dollars, they they raise families in the United States and they invest time in our local schools, our local communities, and our local economies. Um, in order to remain a leader in research and development and innovation, the city must continue to attract the world's best and brightest. So, by declaring Boulder a sanctuary city, um, this symbolic step is necessary and needed to reassure promising students and their families that this is a good investment. Thank you, Rob. Dina, is Dena here? Okay. And if folks want to line up uh close, that would be great. So, Manuela and then Norma, if you all want to queue up, that'd be great.

[24:00] Hi, my name is Dina Guma. Um I live at 1636 South Walcott. And I am also a PhD student. I'm here in solidarity with Kim and Robin and some of our other colleagues. Um and I'm also speaking about the symbolic sanctuary status of the city of Boulder. Um we have reviewed kind of the agenda of the symbolic sanctuary status for Boulder and we understand that one of the reservations about making this step is financial and as Robin was talking about there is also a financial impact of not making this step. So in the state of Colorado undocumented immigrants specifically contribute over $50 million in a net profit to the state of Colorado. Um, immigrant workers as a whole added over 20 21.6 billion to Colorado's gross state product. Um, and the undocumented workforce itself accounted for over 7.4 billion of this GP uh GSP. um

[25:00] legalization rather than mass deportation would lead to over um almost $300 million in tax revenue, which theoretically this money could fund about 6,600 teachers or about 4,300 registered nurse salaries a year. Um if we considered sanctuary status, we could motivate immigrants and undocumented immigrants to stay in the city of Boulder and stay in the state of Colorado and continue to contribute to our economy. Thank you, Dina Manuela. Excellent. Thank you. And then Norma. Good evening, um, council. I My name is Manuela Cuentes. I am a resident of Boulder. And, um, I want to quickly say that I, uh, do support, um, your vote in favor of sanctuary uh, status for the city of Boulder and in support of Standing Rock. But I'm here to talk to you about something that's um probably at the 1000 p.m. part of your meeting, which is the city of Boulder's climate

[26:00] action plan. And um I have been working with an organiz with an initiative on campus called the just transition collaborative. and we have worked closely with um some of your staff to provide we reached out to some of the some of your constituents that don't always participate on um civic matters and uh we're able to gather input from I'm here to speak on behalf of the uh input that we got from the Latino community uh in favor of of the climate action plan. And um I wanted to I don't know if all of you saw the article that it was an op-ed article um a couple of weeks ago in the Daily Camera that my friend Delen uh submitted about inequities uh when it comes to healthcare and Latinos in Boulder and just the way we don't have to think about far away places like Flint, Michigan when it comes to water um in Boulder. I also wanted you to to

[27:01] consider the climate action plan really looks at equity and it looks at the as we are developing leadership in the city on transitioning and moving away from fossil fuels to um a green economy that we don't leave vulnerable members of our community behind. So that's what I'm here to say. Thank you. Thank you Manuela Norma. and then Emma and Deborah Yin. Good evening. Uh my name is Norma Johnson and I'm a long time longtime resident of Boulder and Boulder County. I'm here to speak to the resolution for Standing Rock. Um I want to commend um this town for bringing this forward. uh as a person of color, in particular black in this country,

[28:01] there's been so many wrongs that have been done to people and the the way that it hurts hearts and families and generations of people is immense. It's immense. And it takes a long, long time for the harm to write itself. And what's happening at Standing Rock is atrocious. And it's not new. People have been standing for 400, 500 years. Anything we can do to acknowledge that, to acknowledge the fullness of the history of this country, of this town,

[29:01] of this community. I can't even tell you how much that means. how much it means to have a town like this to say, "We see you and we support you and we're going to do everything we can to make sure that it's right because all our future is tied together. Every single one of us. There's no way out of it. So, thank you. Thank you, Norma. Emma, is Emma here? And after Deborah, if we can have Drew

[30:00] Romano line up. So, here's the thing with the fire codes is the rest of you got to sit down. But the people that are supposed to speak should queue up. And who are we saving those chairs for in the front? What does that say? Reserve seating. Okay. Well, they can um Yeah, why don't we have Why don't Folks can sit up here if they need to. Thanks, Deborah. Hi. Uh, I'm Deborah Yin. I'm on the Landmarks board, but I'm not speaking to you as a Landmarks board member, just as a resident. Um, I live at 316 9th Street. And, um, my notes didn't upload to my Dropbox, so I'm going to wing this. Sorry. Um, so, uh, Jack RD and I submitted to council a letter with a a matrix or a table, and the table was intended to address the different types of neighborhoods that exist in in Boulder. I'm speaking about the co-op ordinance, by the way. I know. I was going to say we're not taking testimony on the co-op ordinance

[31:00] tonight. Okay. Okay. Uh we had asked everybody not to um so but we did get your email and it has spurred a lot of conversation. So Okay, good. Know that it it was received. Thank you, Deborah. Drew. Hi, my name is Drew Romano. Um, I live at 1013 Portland Place. Um, and I want to thank you, um, for having me here today. Um, I just want to ask you guys to, uh, please support the resolution, um, to stand with Standing Rock. Um, I've been there personally and pictures and stories and accounts and news articles really can't do it justice. Um, what is up there is just so surreal. And when you're there, the energies that you feel and the people that you meet, you just know that you're on the right side of history. And here in Boulder, we're

[32:00] kind of like a lighthouse um for the rest of the country. Um people look up to us and they model things after us. And if we can't stand with Standing Rock, then who's to say that someone in Alabama can't stand with Standing Rock? Um, so I would just ask you guys to not think of what is right for right now, but what is right for the future. And standing with Standing Rock will set a precedent that we're going to stand with people. We're going to stand with people of color, people of minorities, and we're going to say that we stand with them and that we are an ally in every shape, form, and fashion that we can. Um, so I just ask you guys to please consider that. Um, and please support Sandy Rock. Thank you. Thank you, Drew. Ann Brexa, are you here? Ann. Okay. Fedra and Fedra, it looks like you're pooling are the the two people you're pulling with. Uh Ti Nuti will also be speaking. Well, you can't pull somebody who's

[33:01] speaking. We each have two minutes. Yes. Yes. Okay. We each have two minutes. All right. As long as you're going with two minutes, you're good. Great. Hi. Um I'm Fedra Pzulo. I live at 640 Yale Road uh here in Boulder. I'm an associate professor at CU Boulder. I'm also the director of Boulder Talks, which is a center dedicated to fostering community and knowledge through democratic engagement. I want to thank you tonight for your climate leadership um on your vote later tonight, as Manuela said, much later tonight probably. It's easy in Boulder to take for granted climate science and that climate communication matters and can change culture, but it's important to remember that this vote is very significant tonight. I also want to thank all the people working and volunteering for the city over the past year who solicited public feedback and listened to a wide range of voices. Uh we kind of have a joke on campus that we're all working with your planning department um because we all see them so much. Brett and David are around and

[34:01] open to listening to us, whether we're scientists or artists or humanities scholars or uh social scientists and Boulder Talks attempted to help the city listen to a range of voices as well, working with your neighborhood liaison and the Latino Chamber of Commerce event. So, I also want to affirm that we're not alone, that you're not alone. We're ready on the ground. Uh organizations like C3, many CU campus organizations are ready to help build your capacity. We know we ask a lot of you all the time to be leaders on climate and we want to affirm that we're there to build your capacity to talk to not just traditional environmentalists but also science and technology and business and people who care about social equity. Um, we want to help foster meaningful topics and meaningful conversations with the community on questions such as how are we going to create electric car infrastructure and how are we going to foster training for solar panel job installation. So, these

[35:00] are some of the difficult questions that I think maybe haven't gotten as much attention so far in Boulder. Finally, before I turn the floor over, um, your vote matters beyond the city limits. When I was at COPE 21 in Paris and I would tell people I was here from Boulder, universally anyone I met from any country, the Philippines or wherever it was said, "You're so lucky." And I just want to affirm that we are really lucky because we have amazing leaders like you. And Mayor Jones knows how important cities are right now in the international arena on climate action. So, I just want to affirm and thank you for knowing that the city level really matters at this time of ecological and political uncertainty. Okay. Half a day. Hi, my name is Tiara Napati and I begin by paying my respects as a genuine

[36:01] attempt to understand where we are meeting and opening an obligation to start with honoring the peoples of this land and part of my Pacific tradition of respecting our ancestors, skies, waters, and lands as well as all of those working to protect them. I want to thank you for making a climate commitment in Boulder. I've only been a resident of Boulder County since August 2016 when I began my work in the Department of Communication and with Executive Committee of Boulder Talks. First, thank you for committing to rename and rededicate October 10th as indigenous people's days this year. I truly believe that climate commitment in Boulder is a profound way to honor the Earth and all of those of us who are dependent on this planet for our survival. Now more than ever, it's an time to adopt clear goals and targets for a just transition. Tonight is another opportunity for you all to commit and rededicate and put Boulder at the forefront of of cities addressing climate change. And I also want to thank you for listening today. I know it's going to be a long night from what I hear. In my relatively short time here, I too have been listening.

[37:00] Listening to folks working tirelessly to bring climate commitment and comprehensive reports before you today. Listening and working together with people in a range of venues and throughout different communities in Boulder County. Listening to elders and community members and thinking about the community input through the process of addressing climate change. We are and I am listening hard because listening to people must be a priority before decisions are made that impact all of us and have consequences on our shared environment. For Standing Rock Sue and other water protectors in North Dakota, for Flint, the case is teaching us that the people and the pitfalls that we can see of people of not listening to the people of bypassing Native American tribes and not agreeing. I'm sorry. I think your time is up. Oh, I had it at two. Thank you. appreciate. We appreciate you being here. We really do. Thank you so much. We have 50 folks signed up tonight. So, okay. Thanks. Okay. Um Michaela, are you here? Okay. And um you're

[38:00] pulling with two people. Raise your hands. And those are two people that aren't speaking. What? Oh, they are speaking. So, you're not really pulling if if both Oh, you're not speaking. Okay. Okay. So, you Sorry. That means you have Yes, I'm the only one. Four. Sorry. Great. Um, good evening, council. My name is Mika and I'm a resident of Boulder. I'm here today because I'd like city council to support a resolution in support of Standing Rock. Um, for context, the county commissioners have already voted yes on a resolution um in support of Standing Rock and we know that the city council can step up and be issues on this leader as well. Um the decision of the Army Corps of Engineers was a major win. Um and we don't want to diminish that. But the project was not defeated. Um it only was put on hold. Um with so much money still in it and a Trump presidency looming, we uh have certainly not reached the end of this

[39:00] fight. In summation, the resolution specifically asks that city council lend their support by proclaiming the city of Boulder's support for the Standing Rock Sue tribes opposition to the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Boulder has previously taken excellent steps in terms of supporting indigenous rights such as passing resolution 1190 in 2016 to recognize um the second Monday in October um as indigenous people's day in Boulder um as well as um you know Boulder also being home of several prominent Native organizations including the Native American Rights Fund um founded in 1970 which is the largest nonprofit law firm dedicated to defending the rights of Indian tribes organizations and individuals nationwide. Um, so I'd love to see the city of Boulder continue um continue progress in this area. In summation, the four demands uh within the resolution include section one, the city of Boulder standing in full support of the Standing Rock Sue tribe. Section two, the city of Boulder condemning the militarized and disproportionate

[40:00] response to the water protectors. Um, section three, the city of Boulder calling upon the United States and the Army Corp of Engineers to obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of the Standing Rock Sue tribe. Um, and section four, the city of Boulder respectfully um calling on President uh Barack Obama take swift and meaningful action to address the concerns of the Standing Rock Sue tribe. Um, again, I want to emphasize that this fight is not over and it's merely the beginning. We know that Donald Trump will take office soon and that he has a conflict of interest because he he is invested in the completion of the Dakota Axis pipeline and um he has speculated to uh very possibly overturn President Obama's um decision. Uh the two ways that he would go about doing this are acting through the Army Corps of Engineers and uh the other approach would be to act with the assistance of Congress and I would like to remind you that uh the House and Senate are now majority Republican. Um, we also know that Enbridge Energy Transfer Partners is confident and determined to complete the pipeline,

[41:00] saying that they would either complete it without a permit, uh, paying a fine and completing it in the same location or rerouting it. And I want to highlight the beautiful opportunity that the city council has during this historic moment to stand with the Standing Rock Sue tribe and water protectors by passing this resolution uh, in support of Standing Rock. Um, with all the political challenges of the current moment, it's more crucial than ever that city council passes this resolution um, while you all still have the chance. Um, while this resolution won't stop the pipeline in its tracks, uh, which could only happen from the permanent removal of funding through pressuring the banks, uh, through divestment, um, and ending business with them, um, particularly ending business with Chase Bank, um, which I have a letter that was signed by over 500 uh, civil society organizations around the divestment um, and and particularly around ending banking uh, with banks that are supporting this pipeline. Um, this resolution still represents a monumental and historic opportunity to show up for this fight on

[42:01] the part of the city council and it is one tangible step in the right direction that the city council can take to stand in solidarity with Standing Rock. Um, so I hope you'll join us city council and be champions in this fight. Um, and that you will pass this resolution tonight. I'm also happy to give out this information. You can just hand them to the clerk. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you very much. Mayor, we have David Kiplet right here. Okay, David, come on up. Great. Thank you very much. Uh, so my name is David Cipllet. I'm interim executive director of the CU Boulder Just Transition Collaborative. Um, the Just Trans Transition Collaborative was, uh, created in July of this year to support leadership of underrepresented groups, um, to foster more equitable energy, climate, and employment practices and policies. Um, based on input gathered from several uh, community workshops that we helped to facilitate, we recently authored a report called a just transition for Boulder's climate, energy, and

[43:00] employment future. The report was intended to inform the city on the ways that the climate plan specifically can benefit low-income uh, Boulder residents and other socially and economically marginalized groups. And we want to commend the city for including just transition as a central frame in the climate plan. Uh this includes objectives to make policy processes inclusive to generate socially just economic and employment opportunities and to promote equity and energy costs and ownership of green technologies. Um with this roadmap, Boulder has an opportunity to be to really be a trailblazer among US cities. Um the first that we know of to really incorporate just transition as a central frame in climate planning. Um and by building um inclusive policy processes, the city can show the world that it's possible to respond to our clim our demands of climate change in change in ways that improve the lives of all members of our community, especially those that have most at stake in this process. Um we want to highlight that climate and energy planning is

[44:01] intricately tied to issues that matter most to socially and economically marginalized communities. Um this includes low-income housing, living wage jobs, and economic opportunities. um healthy communities where children don't have to breathe dirty air, affordable electricity which can account for upwards of 20% of of income costs for low-income households. Um accessible transportation systems and governance processes that are inclusive being at the front of the transition to renewable energy offers huge possibilities for improving equity particularly in terms of job opportunities in the green economy. Um and we think this is a huge opportunity for for really uh bringing social justice to the front of climate efforts nationally and internationally. Thank you very much. Thank you, David. Okay. Amy Zuckerman. Amy, are you here? Oh, there you are. Okay. And then Evan Rabbitz. Good evening. My name is Amy Zuckerman. For five years, I was a member of the Human Relations Commission, and my term

[45:01] ended in March. I've been sick for a few weeks, and my voice is fuzzy, but my conscience is clear. I urge you to approve the resolution in support of Native Americans at Standing Rock. I would like to address just three points. Consistency with council decisions regarding Native Americans, ethics in the face of human rights abuses in this country and Boulder's own values. I would also like to make the point that oil issues are always connected to Native American issues. I grew up in a state Oh, I'm sorry. Uh Shirley White is pulling with me and she's there. Is there another person? You have to have two. Have to have two. Okay. Well, never mind. First, the resolution is consistent with three recent council decisions. First, your permanent establishment of Indigenous People's Day recognizing Boulder's specific and often horrific history with Native Americans. Second, your declaration of Boulder as a place that values inclusivity and the minority

[46:00] experience. And third, your respectful agreements made with several tribes when Valmont But was purchased 11 years ago. Second, our sense of ethics should drive us to support Native Americans even though they are a few states away. Remember, our state boundaries were made by white people. We have been watching perhaps the greatest human rights struggle of our time and our action should demonstrate our ethics. Third, I want to share something personal with you tonight. When I initiated bringing Indigenous People's Day to Boulder, researching it, etc. Meeting with many people in the community, it wasn't out of pride. It was out of shame. Shame that no one else in the community had stepped up to make it happen. A religious person told me that I had heard the call. I hadn't heard anything. I had read what was happening in other cities and I was disappointed that we had not led in this area. We used to lead on human rights and we now follow. How do we just finish my sentence? How do we get Boulder back to leading with these

[47:00] values? Thank you. Amy, can you send us those comments? I will. Thank Thank you. Hey, thank you, Amy. Evan, is Evan here? Okay. Alexander and then Ben Walsh. And then Laurel H. Hearnden. Is Alexander here? Okay. Ben, are you here? Okay. Okay. Uh, hi, I'm Ben Walsh. I'm a PhD student uh at CU and I currently live in Lewisville. I came here tonight to speak a little bit about my own experiences connected to uh whether or not Boulder should be a sanctuary city. I was a high school teacher for 13 years. I taught over a thousand immigrant students. Hundreds of these students were refugees. Hundreds of them were undocumented.

[48:00] Almost every one of these students was part of a project in my class that involved interviewing family members about surviving a difficult time and retelling these stories in a variety of ways. Most of these students told stories connected to why their families moved to the United States. What I discovered was that regardless of whether they were refugees or asileles, documented or undocumented, most of these people had not moved to the US for opportunity. They weren't after a big house, a yard, and a Cadillac. They had moved to escape oppression and gross human rights violations. In many cases, they moved because they didn't want to die. People don't abandon their homeland and leave behind the people they love because they see a good opportunity. They do it because it's their only choice for survival. This is no different than when my Irish ancestors uh who moved here to avoid starvation and persecution were branded as an inferior race. Politicians propose building a wall around the country to keep out the Catholic alien invader. Today, there are more Irishameans than

[49:01] Irish. Turns out we didn't ruin the country after all. This is no different than my wife's Jewish ancest ancestors from the Ukraine who came here to escape death squads after the Russian Revolution. Her people were alien invaders, too. Thankfully, unlike much of Europe, America has been a comparative haven for Jewish people. This should be the least we aspire to. We can afford to protect people who need protecting. I implore you to choose a policy that doesn't inflict further violence upon a group of people whose heroism and sacrifice would probably look very familiar to our ancestors. Thank you. Thank you, Ben. Laurel. Hi, my name is Laurel H. Hearnden, 520 Sky Trail, and I run the Immigrant Legal Center of Boulder County. Immigration is unlike any other area of law, carrying enormous penalties, but none of the constitutional protections of our criminal justice system. Let me give you one example. A man from Mexico earned

[50:02] his green card back in 1991 by working in the fields. The green card was only for him. It didn't include his wife and two children ages 12 and 14. He petitioned for them to come to the United States, but due to a six-year waiting line and bureaucratic delays, they arrived at the interview on the oldest child's 21st birthday. Officials wished him a happy birthday, then told him that he could not join his family in the United States because he was now 21 years old. There was no due process right to argue that he should not be penalized for government delays because basic notions of fundamental fairness don't apply to immigration. Congress finally passed a fix to this harsh age out law in 2002, but they didn't make it retroactive. In hindsight, we know the son would have been separated from his family for another 11 years. But like many, he didn't wait. Forced to choose between

[51:00] his family and an arbitrary immigration law, he chose his family. He has lived here in Boulder for almost 20 years and his children in our schools. His employer supports him and understands just how unfair the system can be. The possibility of banishment from one's family without due process is not the American way. Our immigrant community members deserve sanctuary while the federal government puts its own house in order. Immigrants are also facing problems obtaining driver's licenses due to DMV office limitations. Boulder could help by issuing municipal ID cards. And I urge the city council to refer this idea to the human relations commission. Thank you. Thank you, Laurel. Christine. And after Christine, we have Marin. Okay. Hi. Hi there. Um, my name is Christine Zabala and I live in Broomfield, Colorado, but I am a PhD student at the University of Colorado Boulder. Um, and I'm here today to speak up um, in favor

[52:00] of declaring Boulder a sanctuary city for undocumented people. Um, and more importantly passing ordinances to that effect. Um, so I just like to thank you in advance for your time and your attention. Um, I would like to call on the inclusivity resolution that the city of Boulder recently passed in support of diversity. Um, on December 15th of last year, the city of Boulder passed resolution 1178. the inclusivity resolution which stated in part that quote some members of our community continue to experience discrimin discrimination, harassment and intimidation based on their culture, religious or personal beliefs end quote and that recent events had quote triggered a spate of hateful and harmful rhetoric and actions in America against refugees and people of certain religious faiths and ethnic groups end quote. This assessment of the national climate was true in 2015 and is even more so today. Um, as an example, CU Boulders's Office of um, institutional equity and compliance reported receiving nine reports of bias related harassment between November 1st and 16th of this year as compared with zero reports in the same time frame last year. And this

[53:02] is only on the campus. In the inclusivity resolution, the city council also restated its commitment to be quote an inclusive community and explicitly welcome all residents regardless of their age, race, ethnicity, and country of origin. End quote. I would like to reiterate that the national climate puts in jeopardy real human beings with lives and families. And if we as a city are to continue to be a welcoming community for all people, we must take a stand against bigotry and xenophobia. I urge the council to make good on the promises that the city made just one year ago. Um, in closing, I'm strongly in favor of the potential ordinances prohibiting employees employers from asking about immigration status and prohibiting the city from expending any funds to enforcing immigration laws and human beings are not illegal. Thank you. Thank you, Maron. And then Peter. Uh, good evening. My my name is Marin Hall Wickert and I live at uh 2900 Aurora Avenue and I just have a short

[54:02] statement prepared about uh the possibility of Boulder becoming a sanctuary city. Um across the United States, a number of our largest cities have either newly affirmed or reaffirmed their commitment to undocumented residents. The list of cities that have made public statements regarding non-compliance with federal immigration officials currently includes Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, among others. Denver has yet to publicly affirm this stance in a statement, but Mayor Hancock has indicated in interviews that local law enforcement will not do the job of cooperating with federal immigration officers. It is imperative that as residents of Boulder, a place which prides itself on being progressive, we take measures to ensure that all inhabitants of our city are protected regardless of the ill intentions of our federal government. As a state and by extension as a city, we have been out of compliance with federal law for at least the past 16 years since the passage of Amendment 20, which

[55:01] allowed the use of medical marijuana. If we are willing to risk non-compliance with federal law to allow the sale of marijuana, I see no reason why we cannot fight federal immigration policy and take local efforts to ensure the safety of the undocumented undocumented residents of our city. I find the idea that we would disobey federal law to allow the sale of marijuana while allowing our friends and neighbors to be deported on the basis of federal policies vulgar to my sensibilities as a citizen of this country and a resident of this city. Many of those that stand to lose to lose the most from aggressive federal deportation policies are our friends and family. We cannot sit idly by and allow our government to fail them. Therefore, I believe that the city council, as an extension of the goodwill of the people of Boulder, should take steps to make Boulder a sanctuary city in the immediate future. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. After Peter, we have Joseph Stein and

[56:00] Tim Hillman. Hi, my name is Pete Dignon. I live at 2000 Dartmouth Avenue in Boulder. Um, and I'm here to comment on the climate commitment that you're taking up. Um, and specifically, um, well, first of all, my background. I'm the CEO of Renewable Choice Energy here in Boulder. We help companies to adopt renewable energy at the utility scale. And so, I wanted to comment specifically on the staff's assertion that the um, proposed greenhouse gas reductions and renewable energy targets are achievable. And I just want to strongly agree with those those statements. Um we help companies like Amazon, Phillips, Johnson and Johnson get into 100 megawatts, 150 megawatts, 200 megawws in 6 to9 months. So 2030 uh should be very doable. And I just wanted to um uh make that comment in support of the plan. I think it's uh highly achievable. Thank you. Thank you, Joseph.

[57:05] Good evening. My name is Joseph Stein and my address is 540 South 45th Street here in Boulder. I am a senior at Fairview High School and I'm here representing Fairview High School's NetZero Environmental Club. As you are aware, Mount Calvary Lutheran Church in South Boulder has recently been slated for reconstruction as highdensity affordable housing. Now, while I and Netzero applaud the city's expansion of affordable housing and applaud this effort in particular, I'm worried by the city's increasingly vigorous promotion of highdensity housing at the potential expense of the environment. Given that it is impossible to expand the city beyond its current limits, any increase in density necessarily means an increase in population. The population that commutes in and out of Boulder every day will in this plan be located to Boulder and thus commute within the city, which is clearly a huge a huge boon to the environment. That being said, in the past, Boulder has proven surprisingly reluctant to change its infrastructure to accommodate drivers. Should density continue to increase, which given the

[58:00] benefits to the environment and the economy, it should, we will need infrastructure reform. An increasing number of drivers on our current roads would worsen the already dire traffic situation that exists at rush hour and likely lead to frequent gridlock. Now, in a gridlock scenario, we're looking at an increasing number of cars polluting more than is currently the case. And we're also looking at each one of those cars on the streets for longer periods of time, thus leading to an overall increase in carbon diox carbon dioxide emissions as described in a 2001 MIT study. Indeed, it appears already to be the case on Hanover Avenue where major developments were made this summer. I know the city understands that one of its duties is to its citizens is to do its part to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emiss emissions. And for this reason, I urge the city to consider the potential impacts of new highdensity housing projects on traffic flow and plan for those impacts. We will likely need infrastructure reform that combats gridlock in the near future. And if these projects are to be undertaken in an environmentally responsible manner, which is beneficial for everyone, we

[59:01] must begin planning now. So, I urge you to consider this in future expansions of highdensity housing. Thank you. Thank you, Tim Hillman. Ah, after Tim we have Ula Mertz and Patrick Murphy. Good evening. Thank you. Tim Hillman, 1429 North Street, currently the chair and the environmental advisory board. And uh you've been hearing a lot tonight. I wanted to stop by quickly. You guys have read our endorsement uh resolution of the climate commitment. I believe we're going to move forward and I want to say a couple things related to my observations that the board in its discussions working really closely with city staff um on the climate commitment for a while now. Um we are preparing our written letter to council, our annual letter. So keep an eye out for that. Um

[60:01] there are a number of key things that we see at least in the resolution that we recently passed. Clearly we've got a strong endorsement of the climate commitment. I believe the city's going to move forward with that and I commend again the city's efforts related to climate commitment and the dialogue that we've been having is a fascinating one among the board in that I think we see upcoming a number of tremendous challenges which I think are going to be really fun exciting challenges as a community moves to press achieving the goals that are lofty goals hopefully we'll achieve them before 2050 and so as we move forward in our efforts to achieve those The board would like to just extend our offering. It's going to be an opportunity for us to further engage the community with the city government and city council's efforts to help us extend reduction emiss in our emissions which are lofty and are going to be very challenging. So, as you'll see in our letter, we're going to extend an

[61:00] opportunity that we'd like to see take us up on it. I'm going to be stepping down from the board. It's my terms up. But we have some tremendously talented and very dedicated uh citizens sitting on the board right now and I've really appreciated their dialogue and input as they come from diverse backgrounds. Um and so we're basically extending an opportunity if city council would like to take advantage of it. You guys have plenty to do. We really applaud and appreciate your efforts that if we can do anything more to support your efforts, we would really like to extend some working sessions so that we can continue to make sure we achieve those goals in the future. Hey, would you like to serve up here? And we're you're doing way too good a job for me to do that. Okay. Thank you, Tim. Oola. Good evening. Uh, my name is Ula Mets. I am a co-owner of Bookliff Vineyards, a Boulder, Colorado winery making wine from 100% Colorado grown grapes. I want

[62:01] to thank city council and especially staff for a quick response and decisive action on the liquor occupational tax. When I first heard about it, I was very disheartened and uh almost had the impression that uh city council wants to get rid of small breweries, wineries, and uh distilleries, especially given the high rate of the occupational tax of $2,957.50. This high rate uh would mean or means a very large financial burden for booklet vineyards and many others in the industry. I want to thank you for opening the path to a future solution and I look forward to working with you and staff on a alternative solution for the occupational attacks in 2017.

[63:00] And I'm glad you want to keep us around and are supportive and uh so do all the other wineries, brewers, and distilleries on the Boulder Beer Trail wineries and distilleries, too. Thank you so much. I think we're going to need you in about six hours. Yeah, Patrick. My name is Patrick Murphy. I live in Boulder. As the camera survey revealed, the MUN effort is losing support. And it was thin support to begin with. MUN supporters failed to critically review the MUN. They find it easy to criticize Excel but miss the ongoing failures of the MUN itself. Everyone would like to reduce our carbon footprint. The only thing standing in the way of that goal is the MUN itself. We have spent five years and over $12 million with not one ounce of carbon reduction. Perhaps four

[64:02] or more years and $500 million would have to pass before that would change. There is over one year of additional litigation and expense ahead and we will have to vote to continue this waste next year. Here is a list of MUN failures that supporters and perhaps you just continue to ignore. Hiding the true cost by charging other city departments for MUN employee time. Failing to include the loss of over $6 million in undergrounding in the true cost. Trying to force gun barrel into the MUN when they didn't want it. Trying to take XL's infrastructure outside the city limits when we should have known we shouldn't. wasting time and money going to the FK for no good reason. Annexing new areas into the city when those being annexed would rather they weren't. The most frightening fact is that besides the supposed maximum 214 million for the infrastructure, we could be stuck with an additional 200 million that Excel

[65:01] could claim for going concern damages and an additional 300 million in stranded cost. Boulder Energy Future claims that if we would have to pay damages, we could vote on whether to continue. But they also say that we would not get to vote on the stranded costs, including bond costs. We could be looking at a billion dollar MUN monopoly. Boulderbased solar incentives, wind incentives, and a Rex broker are all we really need. We don't need a MUN boondoggle. Thanks. Thank you, Patrick. Next up, we have Richard Nune. Thank you. Ray Roer is Ray here. Okay. Katie Msbender. And after Katie, we have Audrey Tobin and Carla Frederick's. Hello there. My name is Katie Molsbender and I live at 20 South Boulder Circle in

[66:01] Boulder. I am the US campaigns organizer for the Climate Reality Project as well. and I'm here to support the city of Boulder committing to 100% renewable electricity by 2030. And I urge you all to vote in favor of the proposal. Here in Colorado, we're feeling the impact of a changing climate. From wildfires to drought to reduce snowpack every year, it's impacting our way of life, our economy, and the beautiful places that a lot of us here grew up in and that we all hold so dear. In order to avoid the worst impacts of a changing climate, we need to quickly shift away from fossil fuels which are causing the problem and repower our society with clean renewable energy. And Boulder, with its international reputation that we've already touched on here today, needs to lead the way in doing that. The Climate Reality Project's IM Pro Snow program is working with mountain communities, ski resorts, and other outdoor recreation based businesses to transition to 100% renewable electricity. In the last few months alone, we've helped 28 cities and businesses commit to 100% renewable electricity. And adding Boulder's

[67:01] commitment will signal to other communities across the state and around the world that transitioning to 100% renewable electricity is not only critical for our environment and public health, but that it's technologically possible. Thank you all so much for all of your work on this critical issue, and I urge you to vote yes. Thank you, Katie. Audrey and then Carla Frederick's and Magnolia. Hi, I'm Audrey Tobin. I live at 3437 Creek Square in Boulder. I was born and raised in Colorado and I work at a local business in South Boulder called Weaver's Dive and Travel Center. You guys have all the facts and figures on how carbon emissions are affecting our climate. Um, and all the facts and figures on Uni versus going with Excel. I'm here to urge you to vote yes on the climate action um plan. I just have a little anecdotal story that can maybe show how it affects normal people besides wildfires and droughts and floods. I worked at a ski resort this

[68:00] past summer in Rancagua, Chile, and over the past 5 years they have had little to no ski season. I was there for six weeks and in that six weeks we saw snow one time um and it was during their peak winter season. Due to the lack of snow, they're looking at a really costly change of moving the whole base of the mountain up to the mid mountain as well as all the housing that is located at the base. They're either going to do that or have to close their ski resort forever. A lot of people have already left their jobs there and begun working in the mining industry. And I fear that Colorado may face the same um consequences at our local ski resorts. So to protect our snowpack, our economy, and eventually our water, I would vote you to uh pass the renewable electricity by 2030. And thank you for all your hard work and consideration with this. Thank you, Audrey. Carla. Um, good evening members of city

[69:01] council, staff, uh, and staff. My name is Carla Frederick's. I live at 1585 Kendall Drive. I'm an enrolled member of the Mandan Hata and Ricaran Nation in North Dakota and I am director of the American Indian law program at CU Law. Since August, we've been providing legal support to the Standing Rock Sue tribe and its historic fight over the Dakota Access Pipeline. I want to thank the Boulder City Council and the Human Rights Commission for bringing this resolution 1200 forward. To consider issues the people of Standing Rock are facing as serious human rights issues is important and timely. Dakota Access threatens Standing Rock's human rights, its right to culture, right to clean water, and right to participation in government. The American Indian Law Program recently asked the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights to ask the United States government to remedy the Dakota Access situation by complying with its duties and obligations outlined in the Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, as well as other prevailing international human rights instruments, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. For generations, Standing Rock and every tribe across the country has been burdened by infrastructure projects

[70:00] that have been approved to benefit others without regard to the costs and harms these projects impose on the tribes and their people. When federal decisions are made, the interests of private companies and non-Indians are deemed to be vitally important, while the interest of tribes and Indian people are given lip service are totally ignored. The thousands of people gied at the Oetti Suki Sukiwan encampment on the Cannonball River have said enough is enough. They have risked grave injury to protect not only their rights as peoples, but also to protect the drinking water of millions of downstream citizens in the Missouri River Basin. Sunday's action by the Army Corps of Engineers is by no means the end of this fight. I also understand that the city holds funds with JP Morgan Chase Bank, an investor in the Dakota Access Pipeline, and I ask that the city council consider an amendment to resolution 1200 to also end the bank its banking relationship with Chase Bank. This is also an important connection to the city's work on climate. Um because JP Morgan Chase Bank is a signer to the equator principles and in agreeing to fund this infrastructure project, they're actually in violation of their obligations under the equator principles. Um so again, thank you for

[71:01] your time. My time's up. C can we ask you a question? Yes. Can you just say that the equator principles can you Yes. So JP Morgan Chase Bank along with many other um international financial institutions has signed on to the equator principles which is a series of principles not only on climate but also on human rights and um in approving an infrastructure project like this one that is um so perilous to the climate and then also has serious human rights implications um those international financial institutions are in violation of the equator principles and that's been the grounds for divestment by several um of the large institutional investors um AC throughout the world including most recently um the State Bank of Norway. Great. Thanks. Thank you so much for being here. U Magnolia after Magnolia we have Miriam and then Christopher. Oh, so my name is Magnolia Landanda Posas and I'm a resident here at Boulder, but I'm also a student and I'm

[72:00] here representing FLOs, which is the foundation for leaders organizing for water and sustainability and it's under the energy and climate justice program at the University of Boulder. And first of all, I want to recognize that I'm very grateful to stand on Cheyenne and Arapjo land today. Floss works together on energy and water upgrades with low-income housing while providing the members with leadership training and great job skills. More importantly, it is a space that recognizes that we all have cultural knowledge that can bring positive impact to the environment. As is often the case, the communities that face the most amount of environmental burdens are those that are left out of the conversations and solutions that are spoken in spaces like these. For that reason, FLO has been working to ensure that the voices of our communities are heard and included in the climate action plan. We work to help inform the climate action plan and create opportunities for low-income community members and are so very happy that the city incorporated community feedback and issues of social equity by not pitting social issues against

[73:00] climate action and the the city is showing wisdom that so many others have not yet done. We hope that the city will adopt the climate action plan tonight and then continue to incorporate these important elements as it moves forward in climate action mitigation and we hope to stay involved. More importantly, um I want to bring attention that we cannot achieve real sustainability without social equity. Thank you. Thank you, Magnolia. Miriam. Hello, city council. My name is Miriam Pacner. I live at 3250 O'Neal Circle, Boulder. My issue has nothing to do with climate change or Standing Rock, although I agree with all of that. My issue is with the Dairy Center of the Arts. My human rights have been hurt by the Dair Center and subsequently by Boulder Ballet Company. I have been teaching Hawaiian hoola and paying 10 years of rent to Boulder Ballet who rents from the dairy. On Sunday, October

[74:00] 23rd, our old CD player did not work. So, we asked uh the house manager to help. We thought he was a young man, but I saw his name tag was Cassie and knew that she was a female. Being an active supporter of gay rights most of my adult life, I tried to identify myself as such. After class, Cassie was in the hallway, so I attempted to speak more about gay issues and asked about the new B binary terms. All she had to do was to stop me from being so nosy or inquisitive and cut me off. But she didn't. Instead, she went and followed um talking to the managers of the dairy executive man who then spoke to the executive director of the Boulder Ballet Company, whose name is Ren Combmes, who called and asked me about what happened, and I told her my story. Following Sunday, October 30th, I tried to apologize to Cassie in the lobby. She would have none of it. She again spoke to the director of the dairy and who in turn spoke to Ren, who called me and said we had to leave Boulder Ballet immediately and didn't have to pay in

[75:01] November rent instead of the earlier promise to let us stay until December 18th. Uh, I feel I have been discriminated against and am a victim of heterophobia. my word. I tried to meet with the directors Aaron, Mr. Obermmyer, and Ren, but none of the courtesy or to see me or even to write to me and let me explain my nosiness in person. No answers whatsoever, email or phone. I have contacted the Human Rights Commission several times and sent my emails several times, but to no avail. I even asked Carmen to call me, but she has not. This is not settled until the Dair and Boulder Ballet apologizes to me. Thank you, Mary Christopher Malerie. Good evening, members of the city council. Christopher Mi, Representative Marana. Um, I'm only going to speak just

[76:02] really quickly. We just wanted some updates on the ordinance that went through back on the 1st. Um, we spoke on November 15th about Are you talking about marijuana that we're going to not the map? This is the ordinance that went through with the annexation. Sorry. Um, we still haven't heard anything back about the fees yet. We have heard from Boulder County that they're not going to be refunding anything, but if we can get some updates on the fees we're going to be paying. We're under 60 days now, so it's kind of coming to crunch time. Um, so if we can get an update, that'd be great. And a couple other clarifications in the actual ordinance. Uh 6C mentions limitations being waved for the labs and the product manufacturers. Until it's amended, it is going to be amended in the MAP. So, we just want to make sure that we're still in that 2-year period of having those be waved. Um section 6H, transfer of licenses, it says transfer, but it we just want to make sure that that that means in your definition of transfer as in 100% of the business being transferred, sale of the business.

[77:00] Just clarification on that. And then one other thing with limitations would be plant counts. Um you guys assess fees over a thousand plants, a dollar per plant. We just want to get a little bit more information on that because the fees are definitely higher in the city. If it would be possible to maybe wave that on the first renewal and maybe we pay on the second renewal, just something to kind of mitigate the high fee factor. So if you guys can just give us updates when you can, that'd be really great. Thank you. Okay, we'll try to do that. Hey Lauren. And after Lauren, we have Wendy and then Joe Morgan. Hi, I'm Lauren Gford. I live at 3725 Birwood Drive and I'm a member of the Human Relations Commission and I'm also a PhD candidate um at CU and I have an expertise in environmental policy and social justice and I'm here to encourage your signing of the resolution in support of Standing Rock. I understand that some of you might not feel that it's a local issue. So, I'm here to tell you two reasons why it absolutely is. First, the protests at Standing Rock have come to represent a broad movement

[78:00] to empower poor, marginalized, disenfranchised, and marginalized communities. Given today's political climate, many folks have come to speak at the HRC to say that they're scared and they feel vulnerable. In supporting the resolution, you send a message to the folks who voted for you that you support them and you see them as valuable members of the Boulder community. The second reason I urge you to support the resolution um on Standing Rock is because the situation there is much like the experience of native people who lived right here at the mouth of Boulder Canyon. There's a statue on the Boulder Creek path to Chief Niwat who was a member of the Arapjo tribe uh which and one of the first natives to negotiate with the white settlers who came to Boulder Canyon uh looking for gold. Those settlers were lied to, forcibly resettled, ultimately uh and ultimately murdered, uh including Chief Naiwat. Um right now at Standing Rock, peaceful, unarmed native folks are under siege, being pushed aside by those seeking

[79:00] access to and control of natural resources. In many ways, what's going on at Standing Rock is a modern-day version of what happened uh to the Arapjo, whose sacred land is precisely where we are congregating tonight. The oil in North Dakota is a 21st century version of the gold in Boulder County or Boulder Canyon. Uh so I encourage you all when you vote on the resolution to think of the people who lived here before us and to think of the people who live here now. Uh your support sends a signal to Boulder residents that you indeed care about diverse interests and representations and that you are truly working to make Boulder safe and welcoming. Thanks. Thank you, Lauren. Wendy. Good evening all. My name is Wendy Baringold. I'm a resident of 536 Maxwell Avenue. And as others have said, this is an opportunity for Boulder as a community to make the beginning efforts to make amends for the genocide that

[80:02] occurred here not so many generations ago. If you as our elected representatives can stand beside and behind the Native American communities at Standing Rock, it will make a statement of atonement for what our forebears did to Native Americans here. It is still a local issue because we still live with that history. As Norma said, these histories don't die. They carry forward. And so I urge you as my elected representatives to speak for for my heart and to support them. I think this is an opportunity for local communities to speak and I think the next thing we're going to have to speak on is being a sanctuary city to support and protect people who are apt to, you know, not have that protection from the federal government. So, thank you very much. Thank you for your work. Thank you for being here. And I wish you a good and very long evening. You'll get that. Yes, I was going to say Joe Morgan and

[81:02] after Joe Paul Keaton and Athena London. My name is Joe Morgan. I'm a resident in Mapleton Mobile Home Park, a 501c3 residential nonprofit, 137 units on 15 acres in the very heart of Boulder. How much is this property worth? 20 mil. the the residents, that's me, of this 501c3 residential nonprofit have no rights in spite of the fact that the rights of the residents are supposedly protected by the city, that's you, and state and federal laws. We have become a a police state. Hitler, Vladimir Putin. I'm sure not even Donald Trump can hold a candle to Race Cowgill, our consultant. Race will lie, cheat,

[82:03] and kill to protect his $1,800 a month that the MHA has been paying him for the last three years. It is a proven fact that he is a liar and he makes up the laws as he goes along. This communities loves him. The more he the more lies the better as far as this is concerned. In the city managers and Jeff Yagen's memo of 122315, they state the city has two primary responsibilities with the MA MMHP enforcing afford affordability and ensuring in infrastructure replacement is completed. In addition, the city supports resident control and potential ownership of the park. When is the city going to exercise these options? infrastructure should have been

[83:00] completed eight years ago. But this will ask you not to exercise these options. My next question is more of a statement. Whatever Thistle wants, Thistle gets. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Paul, thank you. I'm Paul Keaton and I live in the Mapleton Mobile Home Park. It was a dozen years ago, nearly to the day, that our resident controlled mobile home park was established with no plan for how it would be managed and no standards to protect the rights and privacy of our residents. When I first informed the council that there was no management plan, I was sure that it would be obvious how such a situation would deteriorate because everyone has read Animal Farm, haven't they? Yet, staff and council have made it clear they have no intention of correcting the discrepancy and every intention of supporting those who are abusing the situation. The city funded mediation produced ample documentation that the Mapleton Home

[84:01] Association and Thistle communities know they are defying the law. For instance, they insist that the board may arbitrarily ban a resident member from board meetings without due process despite the imperative in Colorado law which states that board meetings must be open to all members. In fact, the board even got Boulder Police to help them violate this particular civil right. Apparently, compliance with state law is not a condition for getting funding from the city of Boulder. Staff has informed me that they would only be concerned with violations of municipal ordinances, and the council council's efforts to avoid considering the legal issues have echoed that stance. I'm hoping we can move beyond personal issues of whom to blame and whom to protect and acknowledge that the city of Boulder did not function well a dozen years ago when our resident controlled community was established and loose ends are still dangling. If you get nothing else from my efforts here, I hope you will at least somehow

[85:00] internalize the connection that when the city of Boulder does not function well, the inevitable result is that the quality of life for the residents is diminished. Thank you. Thank you, Paul Athena. And then Adam Candle and Neil Deuio. Good evening, Council Council. My name is Athena Lund. I've been a resident of Boulder, Colorado for 20 years. I'm at 142 Granite Drive, Boulder and I'm an immigrant from Norway. That's where my accent is from. Um I'm happy that city city of Boulder is considering a resolution of supporting Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline. I've been to Standing Rock with Jill Stein as a witness and a photographer and so much of what was truly happening there. Here are some of the reasons I believe it's important for us to support Standing Rock. According to Robert Kennedy Jr.,

[86:00] when Dappel I'm going to shorten it for Dappel do their EIS, the environment the environmental impact statement, it will show that the most it will mostly benefit the owners of the company and not the workers. Mr. Kennedy Jr. and Amnesty International and other important groups has stated that there are trans transgressions in human rights by the militarized police who has been deployed by the dappel which also has been proven by thousands of video footages. City of Boulder is known to be a health conscious and leading city in many in many ways. The dapple is too tr too too problematic in many ways. it will affect one of America's biggest aquifer. There are always leaks, especially this company has significant records of that.

[87:00] Sorry about that. Um, I'd also like to see a change of your bank connections. So, Chase that has investor uh in investing in Dappel, my Norwegian bank. um DNB has pulled their investment um which has significant invested 10% of Dappel. So that's pretty pretty big. Thank you. Thank you Athena Adam then Neil and then Donna George. All right. I'm Adam Kendall. Um, I've lived in Boulder for 11 years and I do business um with Boulder Fermentation Supply. I'm one of two co co-owners there. Uh, it's the local home brew shop supply. And uh, recently, as of 2015, we've added on an auxiliary business, which is a small uh, brewery, which is even smaller than a micro brewy, smaller than a nano brewy. It could even be called a pico brewery. Um, I will pretty

[88:03] much echo everything Ula said. Um, I'm really happy with the prompt response by uh Mayor Suzanne Jones and uh council and uh city manager uh Jane Brat Gam um for uh responding quickly to our concerns about the uh new occupation tax that was about to be assessed as of uh January 1st um at its current implementation or what was on track for that would have um severely affected our business. And I know that uh some of our larger peers in the industry have also voiced their concerns which was encouraging to hear. Um I really appreciate the responsiveness from staff uh city manager and attention by you all on this matter. Um so really we're really happy uh that we might be able to talk further and really look forward to working together and um having sufficient time to consider the best

[89:01] approach. Um, our local craft beer, wine, and distillering industries appreciate your ability to address this important issue. Um, I think I'm kind of reluctant to come up and talk and try to stand up for myself and the other 13 businesses that signed on, uh, of which there are more who didn't even get the memo because it was really quick. And I really want to just say thank you for hearing us and, uh, responding so quickly to that. Great. Good evening, city council. Uh my name is Neil Deuio and um let's see. I rent at the Timber Ridge Apartments. Um I work uh live and um am an activist here in Boulder uh for uh the Boulder chapter of Showing Up for Racial Justice. And um I'm here tonight to encourage you to uh to do the ordinance uh in support of uh

[90:00] Standing Rock. Um I think that uh in the context of uh historical oppression um legalized white supremacy um you know we have to sort of realize that we've never done uh right by the natives. we've never done right by the native people and uh this isn't uh an ordinance wouldn't be doing right by them but it would be a it would be a step. Um so I uh I I uh thank you for your efforts and I ask you to hear the people and um to show your support. Thank you Neil Donna George. After Donna we have Rebecca Dixon and Shirley White. Hello, my name is Donna George. I live at 4661 Taliho Court. A crystal ball on linkage fees. The guest opinion written by John Tier of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce and Betsy Martins of Boulder Housing Partners recommended a $12 per square foot commercial affordable

[91:01] housing linkage fee. I thought it odd that the city's housing authority would be advocating for such a low amount when the consultant firm hired by the city determined the actual cost to be over $100 per square foot. I attended a Boulder Housing Partners board meeting where I asked why they would advocate for such a low affordable housing linkage fee. I was told that they had already deliberated on the linkage fee amount and that the decision was political. At the Boulder Valley Real Estate Conference's affordable housing linkage fee session, a cons a consultant for both Boulder Housing Partners and the Boulder Chamber of Commerce spoke about how she can count to five and that they had the numbers for a $12 per square foot linkage fee. I and fellow citizens took time out of our evening to speak at the city council meeting on November 15th concerning affordable housing linkage fees. After the public comments, I listened to council deliberate on the matter and in the end voting six to3 for guess what? A $12 per

[92:00] square foot linkage fee. The three descending votes came from Weaver Morzel and Young who asked for a higher amount. The mayor, Suzanne Jones, also advocated for a higher amount, but in the end voted for the $12 per square foot fee. I highly recommend that all citizens view this November 15th meeting on the city 46 on the tape 53 and watch how it all plays out. Are public meetings just for show when decisions on the issue have already been made? Make your own conclusions and really think about whom you want representing you in the future. I also want to note that in the newspaper today, it says on Tuesday night, the council is expected to approve the ordinance on second reading of the co-op. How does the they know this when there's all kinds of new information that's coming up? So, our special group Donna, you're done. Where where's the the timing? It just went off. I know, but aren't we supposed to get a warning?

[93:00] I just want two more sentences. Okay. Are special groups getting access to this is really important. Are special groups getting access to council with decisions being made in advance of thorough public education and input on the issue? Public process and decisions affecting citizens need to be truly open, thorough, and fair. Predetermined agendas should not be passed through after four show public hearings. Thank you. Thank you. Rebecca Dixon. Hi there. Council um Rebecca Dixon 1055 weight drive here in Boulder. I'm chair of the local CR club and thank you for your work council. I know it's an awful lot of work. So I want to say just three uh quick things in regard to the climate change or the climate commitment. Um let's make Boulders's goal make let's make our goal 100% clean electricity by 2030. We can do it. We have the technology. Let's just do it. Excel will not make that their goal. Excel is not going to make it a goal to have 100%

[94:00] clean electricity in Boulder or really anywhere else by 2030 because uh they're coal driven. So let's boot Excel to the back seat. Let's not let them be in control of our our climate decisions. Um let's please continue the process toward Boulders MUN. Thank you. Thanks Rebecca Shirley. Oh, she took off. Okay. Um 46 Amy Matier. And after Amy, we have Tamil and then Nquille. If folks want to get ready. Oh, I thought that was Amy. Is a person. Okay, so Heidi, I'm confused. Is somebody giving this presentation? Amy was supposed to. So, I'll turn it back. Oh, is Amy here? Okay, Tamil, it is.

[95:09] Good evening, city council. My name is Tamil Maldonado, director of Bario A, an organization founded since 2012 in the city of Boulder to foster Latino arts and culture in the state of Colorado. We produced the first Colorado Latino festival and established the first community and multicultural center in the state of fostering uh civic engagement, support for artists and the promotion promotion of education of all cultures through year-round program. From our experience there, we believe that multicultural community centers are the transformative tool to inclusion and equity to all. It is vital to continue being a catalyst nurturing an accessible thriving venue for expression and fair distribution of opportunities with year-round programs. Cultural equity is critical to the long-term viability of society including the underrepresented sectors to produce an inclusive and

[96:01] vibrant city and everyone deserves equal access to a full exciting creative life essential to a healthy and democratic society. There are many inequities and safety issues in our society to address and we believe that multicultural community center can be a key and starting point to make a difference. You, the city council and the city of Boulder has made significant statements and strides to make sure that we are becoming a welcoming and inclusive city, including tonight making a stand and maybe discussing how to become a sanctuary city to protect all residents of the city of Boulder. We applaud you for these efforts and we are requesting to even go further in the accountability and responsibility of making our city safe and welcoming by developing and supporting a multicultural community center in the civic area and should be part of the civic area plan. Uh a center place for connectivity that should have a physical space where everyone feels represented,

[97:02] welcome and safe. For years there have been conversations about uh community centers or cultural centers in different cities of Boulder and including the city of Boulder and we believe that this could be a really good uh time especially now after the political air and politicians that happen. Thank you, Nquille. And then it'll be Kyle and then Jose. Nikil Mano, Boulder, Colorado. Um, I'm a member of the city of Boulder Human Relations Commission. Um, I just want to begin tonight and just say, uh, rest in peace to Dashan Salam and his family. Thoughts and prayers with them, and thank you for bringing so much joy to us and our community. Um, one, I'm speaking on two issues tonight, so hopefully I have enough time. One is uh the standing lock resolution uh that the human relations commission sent to you. Um this the declaration we sent to you. Um this began um last October at the uh

[98:01] indigenous people's day uh celebrations and discussions between uh members of the indigenous community um myself Carl Fredericks of the SU law school and some members of council um who had asked that uh this would be something suggested this would be something good for the human relations commission to take up and send to you. So that's exactly what we did and we voted unanimously last week to send it up to you and we at that meeting we also had uh about over 80 people in the audience um which is kind of unusual for us but all of them applauded uh strongly in support of it and uh um beyond that I think uh between the Native American Rights Fund the CU Indian Law Clinic and the many many people I've met uh activists who have uh gone to Standing Rock uh from the city. I believe we have sufficient and special local ties to that movement and um uh beyond that uh just when you see what's happening up there in the violent oppression of uh it's peaceful

[99:01] protesters practicing civil disobedience. I think we have to come back to that and think about it when we look at those videos and we and people come back and tell us what's actually happening. Um, you know, that's that's unacceptable and the least Boulder can do is live up to its values and pass a declaration in support of Standing Rock. Um, the second thing I want to talk about is uh sanctuary cities. Again, the 80 people who came to our meeting, many of them spoke um in favor of it and asked that we uh the city do something about it. So, um, last sentence on that is, um, uh, the presidential election became a campaign of hate and it affected a lot of us disproportionately. So, I ask it's not that complicated. Please do the right thing and protect all of us, especially the most vulnerable among us. Thank you. Thanks, Nikil Kyle. And then, Jose, then my list ends. Hey, everyone. Uh my name is Kyle

[100:01] Hulesman. I am the policy manager at the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. Um wanted to come here today and thank you all for putting together the sanctuary city memo. Super appreciate uh you all putting some uh deep thought and really coming out with a sophisticated analysis of what's um what's possible from the city level. Um I am here on behalf of CIRC to support strongly the second proposal in that memo uh which essentially states uh prohibition for city funds being used uh to uh support uh im federal immigration enforcement. Um I think that there's a big advantage right now in terms of city of Boulder moving away uh moving towards subsidant policy change rather than making a symbolic statement um around sanctuary city and really getting into these pieces of how can we move how can we create a safer space and protect undocumented families in the city of Boulder through subsidance policy change and we really see that second point as

[101:02] being an avenue to do so. Uh on a on a broader context, all 64 counties in Colorado have uh stated policy at the sheriff level that they don't honor detention requests coming in from ICE without an without a judicially approved warrant. Uh so the entire state of Colorado at the county level is already named as a quote unquote sanctuary city. Um and so we're really uh city council tonight has an ability to move a proposal that fits in with that that broader context and really uh is able to move some substantive change. Uh so we'd love to continue those conversation, bring in some other proposals from uh cities around the country who've been able to move forward on some important legislation here and want to thank you all again for taking steps in uh moving some of the sanctuary city policy forward. Thanks. Thanks, Carl. Jose.

[102:02] Hello, Z council. My name is Jose Veta. I serve uh the Latino Chamber, Bario, and the Human Relations Commission. I'm here to talk uh about two issues. Uh the first one is uh I wanted to thank you for a lot of the things that the city has been doing. uh Martin Luther King Day, uh the resolution on immigrant heritage week, um standing with Standing Rock, living wage, uh all of these issues are very important. Um we need to house them. We need to uh have a physical space to be able to um house and welcome everyone on a daily basis. And this is where the city uh needs to really get down invested on creating a physical space to be able to bring um everyone together from all kinds of backgrounds. So I'm here to tell you to please support uh community and multicultural center. The second thing I

[103:02] wanted to talk about was uh my support for for Sanctuary City. A few years ago, um most of you some of you have uh moved on already, some of you are new, but you chose me unanimously as the first undocumented person in the whole country to serve in a board or commission. You did that because you saw value in being able to include everyone in this city, no matter what their background was. Um, as as someone who could contribute, uh, who could bring a voice to other people who may be um, staying in the shadows and who might need representation. So, I'm here to ask you to please support the sanctuary city status, protect me, protect other people like myself who are uh you know are could really benefit from this and and we can continue

[104:01] helping each other. Thank you so much. Thank you, Jose. That's the end of my list. Are there more people that signed up? Oh, here we go. Okay. Audrey Fishman and then Mark and Stephen. Hello and thank you for allowing all this to happen. I uh stand in solidarity with the most inqual eloquent um speeches of Kim and Dena Nuel um Ben, Laurel, Amy, Tamille, and Jose about uh the ordinance for a sanctuary city and and I so appreciate the city's um uh and the HRC has been very busy, unfortunately, to try to protect rights and and you all to to uh protect rights to make Boulder a safe uh equitable,

[105:01] respectful uh and inclusive place and I hope that still remains a a priority for you all. Um, and I was so happy to hear from CIRC that uh along with um the work of a a resolution or an ordinance. Um I would love to see cities across the country and um states across the country to join in and and in a quick manner so that before the new administration in DC um knows that the majority of American people believe in uh uh a a a fair just that America should be a fair just place and and if there's a way we could do it if sir could help. I don't know. But I think um hopefully with your action, I know a lot of uh cities across the country and states are stepping up and standing out and speaking out. But if we

[106:01] could um make that into a um uh a a good a great number of of municipalities and states. I would if anybody has any ideas, I'd love to work with you on that. And thank you very much. Thank you, Audrey. Mark Mark Elban, 505 College. Thank you. Um, I'd like to start by saying that I agree with Dappel, with Sanctuary City, with our clim our city's climate goals, but I think it's kind of interesting that we have Dappel up here just because um, as a uh, government that we have a history of speaking with fork tongue, so to speak, and that human rights certainly start with our um, our city. And that's um there are a bunch of homeless people tonight on the coldest night of the year

[107:01] that still can't sleep with a blanket in this town. And so to talk about safe and welcoming places and not allow a human being to sleep with a blanket or a sleeping bag is just absurd. Um, second, if we're going to talk about safe and welcoming cities, then we should talk about the fact that there's a huge discrepancy between people living in a home who are quote unquote related in our occupancy rules and those who are quote unquote unrelated. Um, the three undocumented um, citizens sleeping in my home for the last few weeks feel safe and welcome in some ways in this city. They definitely feel safe and welcome in my house. Hopefully, one of my neighbors won't turn me in um for violating our zoning rules and they'll have to move out. Um I also want to say that um occupancy as a sense of um what we've

[108:00] heard here with regards to creating a self and a safe and welcoming city is um it's it's very clear that the relationship uh criteria and our occupancy rules uh are directly addressed as students uh they happen to be an unprotected class under federal law, but we're talking about protected classes tonight. And I just want you to imagine if that rule um applied to one of those groups. Um thanks Mark. Um Steve Keenan. Steve here. Okay. Anna Casus Cas, I just butchered your name. Please tell me how to say that right. Um, hello. My name is Anna Karina Casara. Um, I live in 4500 19th Street, number 46A, Boulder, Colorado. I am here today to speak to

[109:02] you about my family and me. I am a DACA recipient. I came here to United States when my mom brought me in 1999 um undocumented, me and my two brothers. Um, under Obama's administration, my brother, Luis Alberto, was deported in 20 early 2010. In 2012, my bro, my other brother was parked in an alley and then was approached by police. Um, asking him his name and then telling him he looked like somebody they were looking for. Um, and then he got arrested and put in a a police car. when I arrived and um to see what was happening that the the police had they pushed me away. They said that I was going to get arrested if I didn't leave after I told them that they didn't have the right to search his car cuz he had consented and told my brother that

[110:01] he had the right to remain silent. They pushed me um away and into the ground. So these um and then just last year my my dad in Denver also got um arrested for traffic and then put into deportation proceedings. So this is all happening this all happened under Obama's administration and I'm just super scared about what will happen under Trump's administration. So, I am here to ask you to please support um sanctuary cities and um I will talk to you soon in next council meeting because my time is up. Thank you. Thank you, Anna. Erica, am I Oh, Stephen, come on up. Yep. I'll make it quick. Mayor, thank you, Mayor Jones. Stephen Keenan, I'm on my way to Washington DC for the third time this year. um meetings with Ukraine.

[111:01] But uh the reason why I'm here and it's nice to see you all is u obviously we have a nonsocialist nonpsmoking attorney general soon and u what I would suggest is that we send Tom Carr to meet him in Washington DC and I'm being very serious about this. Um, let's use the publicity this will do for us. Let's know that we're right about this. And he's wrong. You know, this is a guy from Alabama that if he thinks he's going to be sending the feds to Colorado and be welcomed, he's wrong. And um I think that we should invite either invite him to Boulder or we go to Washington, which would probably better. Suzanne, you like going to Washington DC and I'm going to roll him a big sleeve. I promise you every

[112:00] day this year come this year coming up, I'm going to roll a big sleeve. I'm not a pot grower, but I like to I do in hell. I I am going to roll a big spleaf and I'm going to mail it to our new attorney general every day. Every day. I promise you this because we have to Tom knows the medical benefits and you know let's ignore the financial. Let's focus on getting this guy who most likely is going to be our new attorney general. Let's let's get him educated on the health aspects of this. Rather than waiting for the feds to show up in downtown Boulder, we should go to Washington. And I think Tom would be an excellent representative. I'll even mail some spliffs to Tom. Thank you very much. Thank you for lightning our evening. Okay, Erica. That is a tough act to follow. I'm

[113:01] really sad but after that. Yeah. Um my name is Erica Blum. I live at 2233 Marosa Avenue in Boulder and I've come to talk about sanctuary cities. Um, I want to thank the city attorney and city manager and chief of police for putting together this incredible document. Um, as my co-worker said, I also work for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. So, um, mostly what I just want to say is that I know you're still studying the, um, different aspects of sanctuary city that we might be able to propose here in Boulder, but to piggy back on Kyle and Jose and Tamil and Anna, um, we we already um have the ice detainers throughout the state of Colorado. So, that's already done. And, um, so what we really need to do is like have something with teeth to actually protect people. Um, the proclamation is great. The city of Montrose in the western slope made a proclamation last night to declare itself a sanctuary city. So, if the city

[114:00] of Montrose can make that proclamation, let's do something that has actual teeth. And I look forward to talking to you in the coming weeks about what that could be. And um, and then just to like to amplify what Anna said, what her family has been completely violently torn apart by immigration enforcement in Boulder under President Obama. So, we need to take this um incoming administration with utmost seriousness and act now. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Erica. Um I'm just curious how many more after we have a total 60. Okay, so this is it. Okay, home stretch. Rook. Hello everybody. Uh my name is Rook Stavish and I am a freshman at CU Boulder. I'm here tonight to voice my opinion on the Boulder climate commitment, which I am strongly for. Um, as an aspiring environmental engineer, I think that this is not only good for the environment, but also good for the future of me and many of my peers. As well as that, um, I believe that could

[115:00] set a precedent for other communities in Colorado and other states to follow up. And, uh, Boulder loves to pride itself in how environmentally sustainable of a city it is, and I believe that this plan seems like a very logical step in the right direction to keep up that. um plan that we like to see. And other than that, it is also obviously vital for the well-being of the planet. A study done by um Sergio Munes and Joey Taylor from NASA shows that 11 of the past 12 months have been the hottest ever recorded since data started being collected 136 years ago. So, climate change is no longer something that just might be happening. It is definitely going on. And this has obviously been seen with this year a lot just with how late winter has started and how a lot of the ski resorts have had to push their moving dates back which has also affected the economy because they're losing money there. And um I don't mean to start any sort of political debate, but as we all know, President-elect Donald Trump has voiced his opinion um against environmental programs and how he is trying to back out of the Paris

[116:02] agreement, which is a plan to limit uh greenhouse gas emissions, which are have been proven to be a large factor in uh climate change. And I'm sure we've all heard someone say in regards to environmental issues that, "Oh, it I don't care. It doesn't affect me. I'll let my grandkids deal with it. Well, that's a poor way of thinking and also it's no longer applicable because climate change is a real issue that we're already seeing the effects of today. And I believe that passing the climate commitment plan is the absolute least that we can do. And voting against it would be detrimental to not only the environment, but also to the image that the city of Boulder has spent so long to build up and works very hard to maintain. Thank you. Thank you. We're gonna just pause for a second here. Uh, you okay? Okay.

[117:00] Um, Mercedes and then Andrea. My name is Mercedes Garcia. [Music] Obama. [Music]

[118:04] Hello, my name is Mercia. So, under Obama administration 2011, my husband was deported and I was left a single mother. Yay. Um so uh I am looking for you guys to honestly make this a sanctu a sanctuary um so that I will not also get deported and my um my children will not be left by themselves or to fend for themselves. So I am pleading you to do this so other families like ours will who are in our situation or will become in the situation are not left to fend for themselves or children born in the US have to go back to Mexico and you know lose the opportunity of the American dream. Thank you. Thank you for coming, Andrea. And then Eric Anderson and Bryce Carter.

[119:06] Hello, Andrea Managel. Uh speaking on behalf of the Boulder Chamber, 2440 Pearl Street. And um I just wanted to come here tonight and speak on uh the letter that we had submitted yesterday on behalf of 14 different breweries, wineries, and distilleries, small businesses in our community. I wanted um to come here and say it was very important for us to to thank city manager and staff for their responsiveness to this issue. Uh thank the mayor and council members that took this uh issue with with a fair amount of urgency to try to resolve it. um and express a a desire for action. Um we look forward to being a partner and looking for options to move forward and just wanted to come here tonight and and let you all know that as as you look at solutions uh in the next year. Thank you. And um got to give a little credit to

[120:00] Bob Yates on that one as well. Thank you, Andrea. Um Eric, thank you. There are so many there are so many things you're addressing this evening I'd love to comment on if you wanted to stay here till midnight but I won't anyway if you want to stay here till next midnight. Yeah. Um but I especially would like to speak out on the uh Standing Rock uh Dakota Access Pipeline Resolution. Um I am coordinating the response from the Unitarian Universalist Church of Boulders's racial justice ministry to the Standing Rock issue. And first of all, I'd like to say thank you so much for taking up this resolution. Uh I would ask that you consider going further and strengthening it. The statements of support are wonderful, but there are concrete actions we could take too. We could look into businesses that are funding or involved in the construction that we could try to stop doing business with. We could look into relationships we might have with

[121:01] government entities either in the state of North Dakota or supporting it that we might be able to uh back off from. Energy Transfer Partners has indicated they have every intention of disregarding the Army Corps of Engineers decision against them and drilling any way. Um statements of support are great, but I don't think they're going to stop them. You know, anything we can do to put actual meaningful pressure that will be felt would be really good. Um, that's it. Thank you so much. Thank you, Eric. Okay, Bryce. Last up, wrapping it up. Uh, good evening. My name is uh, Bryce Carter and I'm the conservation programs manager for the Rocky Mountain chapter of the Sierra Club. I'm here tonight to thank Boulder on behalf of our 60,000 members and activists in Colorado for his leadership on taking climate action for Colorado and our country. We're no strangers to the impacts of a changing climate. Having been on the front lines of historic fires and floods

[122:00] in recent years, we proudly organized dozens of our partners and well over 100 volunteers to support cleanups in the days and weeks after the 2013 flood here in Boulder County. There's a revolution happening in this country and we know it's not happening on the federal level. It's happening here at the city and state level where cities like Boulder are taking on commitments for achieving a renewable energy future. A 100% renewable energy grid means cleaner air and water, a stabilizing climate, the creation of many jobs, and what we like to call a local neighborhood stimulus, keeping energy dollars in the pockets of our local communities. We ask Boulder to continue your leadership in ensuring a just and equitable transition uh in the months and years ahead so all can reap the benefits of a clean energy economy. Tonight's vote not only carries on a commitment made for the city to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030, but also as a signal for other cities looking for their own pathway to achieve such a goal. Our Ready 400 campaign is advocating for 100% renewable energy commitments across the

[123:01] country, supporting countless cities for the transitions ahead. We're excited to highlight Boulder as a leading example of what can be done and hope to offer you all as a resource for others. I'll note we have an active campaign, actually multiple active campaigns in Colorado, including in Pueblo with a growing grassroots movement. Your city council wants to learn more and we are here uh and they are looking here to support for support. So uh we're going to be providing invitation to hold a learning community town hall in PBLO uh in the months to come and we're working with groups like ENL to host this. So we hope you all will be able to join. So again, uh we support the climate action plan and we look forward to being a partner here uh in implementing it and uh sharing with the world. Thank you. Thank you, Bryce. Okay, we're going to close open comment. Um yeah, so I do have one response to some of the items that came up tonight. Several speakers talked about the idea

[124:01] of taking a look at our investment practices and what the council already knows hopefully is that on January 31st we do have a study session scheduled in which we will be reviewing our investment policies. So I'll make sure that our finance department staff is also looking at the devestature issue and providing information on the viability of that for city council for that meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Um, way to anticipate. Do you have anything else? Okay. Um, Jay Mary Jane, one of our speakers also brought up the um, editorial that was published a couple weeks ago by Miss Aranda and I know that there is an update on that and I was wondering if you could share that. Um, if not I could. remind us what that is. You need to tell me what this

[125:00] So, the topic was um water quality issues. I'm not sure why this isn't working. Oh, it is working. Okay. Um, our staff has been looking at that editorial and has been investigating the situation and talked with Miss Aronda. And what we found out is that she was referring to a mobile home park that is actually not in the city of Boulder and does not actually receive city water because our city water that goes to all city residents is completely clean and there's no difference between one molecule of water that goes to one part of our city or another. It's all clean and it's all meets and far far exceeds federal standards. We do know that the public health department may be looking at water quality issues in that particular location that she was speaking about in the editorial. And in the event that there needs to be a

[126:02] change, we will work with the owners of that area to try to provide water. That's what I know. Do you know more than that? No, that's what I need. Okay. Thank you, Jane. Sam. So, Jane, I just wanted to make sure that when you um have staff prepare for that study session that we look particularly at the equator principles and um how that applies in this situation because I was interested to read here that it looks like it's more than just one bank, it's four banks. So, it's not just Chase, it's others as well. Right. I don't know a lot about I know I learned tonight. So, thank you. Um but we there are more. Great. Thank you. Great. And I I think everybody in the audience knows we're going to be dealing with the three topics that everybody spoke the most on as the night progresses. So, um unless we have more

[127:02] comment, we're going to move on. Um y'all are welcome to stay, but if you don't, thank you all for being here and providing your input. Next is your consent agenda. You have items A through N. Okay, this is kind of a pretty straightforward albeit long list. Any discussion? Mary. So, I will be voting against um item 3J for um and that is the um the resolution 281 amending 26 downtown commercial district fund formerly KED um budget. Um and the two reason my two reasons are that um it is expending funds that are um likely subsidizing folks who do not

[128:00] need subsidizing and it also undermines our transportation master plan. You're talking about the D2D? Yes. Any other comments? How about a motion? I move the consent agenda. Second. Second. Oh, good. Sam got it. Any more any anything else to be said? Okay. Hey, this is a roll call vote. This is nut. Should we wait? She'll call in before we know it. Okay, Lisa. Oh, there she is. We're voting. We'll begin with council member Brockett. I Burton Jones. I Morzelle. Weaver I Yates I Young I except for 3J. Okay. The motion passes unanimously.

[129:01] Okay. Your first public reading for tonight public hearing. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt emergency ordinance 8157 implementing the recommendations of the marijuana advisory panel. Sandra Yiannis, senior assistant city attorney who staffed the marijuana advisory panel, will be making the presentation this evening. This is Sandra right here. Sandra, you said Sandra, didn't I? You did. You got to get you. Yeah. I don't know how to do this technologically challenged.

[130:12] How do I go? What are you ready? Yeah, it's it's there. There it is. We're doing it off of Heidi's. You got it over there. Okay, you're just gonna say next slide. You want me to You want her to push that? She can. should just say next. I'll just say next slide. That's fine.

[131:01] Sounds great. Great. Good evening everyone. Sandra Jiannis with the city attorney's office. Um tonight we are going to be talking about the work that the marijuana advisory panel has done and I'm looking very much forward to to that and um discussing all of the changes that we are proposing tonight. So with that, I'll just dive right in. Please as a as a road map. Um this slide just describes what what I'm going to be discussing in the presentation. First and foremost, a brief history of the Boulder uh marijuana code. Uh the marijuana advisory panel was a collaborative process. high points on recommended changes to the code, resolution of items from first reading, and brief comments and feedback from two panel members who are here tonight. Um,

[132:02] we have Kate Thompson with Skinny Pineapple and Heath Harmon with the Boulder County Health Department. We also have city staff here available for uh council questions. Um, Michon Cook with licensing, Kathy Haddock with the city attorney's office, and Officer Bev Bookout. With respect to the history of um the marijuana code, in November of 2000, Colorado voters passed amendment 20 to the state's constitution. This effectively legalized limited amounts of medical marijuana for patients and their primary caregivers. Even before the state acted, the city adopted an interim code for medical marijuana in November of 2009. The state adopted the law in May of 2010 and their first set of medical marijuana

[133:00] regulations in the fall of 2010. Hey Sandra, I I don't want to interrupt your flow, but I think we wouldn't mind if you skipped forward. Okay. Yeah. I mean, your me the memo for this was really really helpful and I think pretty clear. Okay. Just in the interest of time. Sure. Absolutely. Um the next slide just goes over the amendments. Essentially, there were six amendments done to the marijuana code and two to the recreational code. Formation of the panel at the direction of Boulder City Council. 12 me a 12 member panel was formed in January of this year to take a comprehensive review of the existing city code related to marijuana regulation and to make recommendations related to any potential changes to topics related to advertising, public health impacts, licensing, zoning, and more. representation included three marijuana

[134:01] businesses, the chamber on behalf of the broader business community, a medical marijuana patient advocate, public health education CU and Boulder uh Valley School District, a private practice marijuana attorney, the state of Colorado, and the broader Boulder community. A meeting facilitator, and several members of city staff from multiple departments supported the panel. The panel met for 12 three-hour meetings with additional subcommittee meetings occurring offline to explore issues and bring back proposals to the full group. All meetings were publicly publicly noticed and all agenda materials and minutes were posted to the city website. The panel invited public comment at the end of each meeting to ensure additional perspectives could be heard in the process. Focal po points that guided discussion.

[135:01] The following points guided the development of the city code to date and were considered in panel recommendations. Minimizing negative impacts on neighbors. Eliminating presence in residential areas. Preserving diversity of business types by preventing concentration of businesses. Enforcing regulations for responsible businesses. Protecting public and first responder safety. and ensuring fees cover costs. The first meeting of the panel took place in February and was dedicated to identifying and prioritizing topics for consideration. Each discussion on regulations started with a presentation from staff regarding the current code language and the reasoning behind it. Panel members then asked questions to ensure a shared understanding about the issue from the city perspective, including any additional legal implementation or other concerns. They asked one another questions to

[136:01] learn what the interested what the interests and perspectives of the various parties were, offered draft recommendations for change to the city code, and then discuss them as well as additional considerations along the way. ask subcommittees to explore uh options offline and bring back recommendations at a later meeting if needed. At the end of the day, they reach compromise on all recommendations by consensus. Sharing perspectives. The collaborative nature of sharing perspectives led to an understanding of how local regulations work in relation to state law and how they impact the community and local businesses. The focus was to better align the local code with state regulations while considering the points outlined by the charter as our purpose. The marijuana enforcement division representative emphasized to the panel the state's recognition for dual law and

[137:00] licensing at the state and local level. The panel learned about the inter relationship between the state and city marijuana codes, recognized the coexistence was intentional as the state and city regulate different parts of the industry, and eliminated areas of potential conflict between the state and city laws resulting from new rules that went into effect on October 1st, 2016. recommendation. Okay, you want to just keep so there was a study session in August and then um the panel met again to discuss the details of the code changes um recommendations table. So then that's attachment E and F um and then the high points hit it again. So the high points

[138:01] advertising, business operations, licensing, merchants, merchandise and uh zoning which was included in the study session um but was is not going to be proposed here today. Um and I will explain that in a moment. Um and then um if you want to go to the next one, city manager rules. The panel asked for guidance on how code items would be interpreted. Creating city manager rules is the optimal optimal way to deal with these issues. If council approves approves the proposed ordinance, staff will prepare rules consistent with council's decision and previously approved panel recommendations. The panel will have an opportunity to provide comments on those draft rules prior to initiating the rule adoption procedure. The rules are intended to provide examples and clarification of code provisions that give guidance to businesses without undermining the ability to enforce the code. These issues are particularly related to

[139:00] giving examples of the different types of modification of premises and by example describing what type of advertising is allowed and what is not allowed. As you can see, there's the list uh of items that would be included in the city manager rules. There were a couple of items from first reading um three to be specific and city staff worked closely with the panel in drafting the code changes and ensuring that they align with the panel's recommendations by memorializing the meeting notes and communicating in person and by email. After first reading, there were issues that arose. All have since been resolved. The first issue dealt with the definition of appealing to minors uh and was resolved to remain the same as in the first reading ordinance. The second issue uh was rel related to a staff error regarding grandfathering provisions um that has

[140:01] since been uh corrected. The intent was to allow licenses to be transferable even in a grandfathered location. and if the grandfathering was because the business was too close to a school or more than three businesses within 500 feet of each other. Previously, any marijuana business location that was grandfathered for those reasons or because they were in a residential area could not be transferred or sold. In order to accomplish this intent and only prohibit transfer of licenses for marijuana businesses located in residential areas, there was a subsequent change to the uh ordinance that's being proposed tonight. I'm sorry, I forgot. There was a third item. You could go back. Um was related to uh company materials being distri distributed at an adult event. Um after consultation with um panel members um the panel's intent was to allow company

[141:00] materials as well as educational materials at adult events. Therefore, that change was also made to the proposed ordinance um that's being presented tonight. Um, this slide just describes that uh the panel will meet one final time in the fall of 2017 to analyze whether the code changes that are abdop adopted tonight are working uh to address any emerging issues and revisit other topics related to marijuana and um also to engage directly in response to state legislative updates prior to the annual code update and as well as addressing any community issues and to take public input in order to reduce city council time in dealing with marijuana issues and potential code changes. And lastly, a draft address draft policies that are under discussion at the state legislature.

[142:03] panel discussed and reached agreement on a number of refinements that have already improved the working relationship between industry, city staff, and other stakeholders moving forward. Examples include daylighting and revising the criteria that are used to evaluate prospective business managers to ensure equal access to advancement while maintaining highquality management. Secondly, reorganizing and revising the sk the schedule of penalty guidelines to increase clarity for industry and to ensure that health and safety violations are penalized at an appropriate level. Lastly, creating tiers of modifications that can be made to businesses and clarifying and revising the fees associated with those changes. Looking ahead, the improved understanding and collaboration among stakeholders was both helpful for the work of the panel and should help create a stronger foundation for future efforts.

[143:00] Like to give a special thanks to all the panel members and city staff and law enforcement for their incredible work on this panel. It's important to note that many panel members made concessions in order to reach consensus during this process. With that in mind, adoption of the panel recommendations as a total package is the preferred approach. Staff recommends adoption of the proposed emergency order or excuse me, ordinance 8157. And lastly, I'd like to take a moment to recognize all the me members of the panel for their great work. And in particular, there are a few that went above and beyond. Kate Thompson with Skinny Pineapple, Heath Harmon with Boulder County Health, Travis Howard with Green Dream, Alan Alana Malone with Green Dot Labs, Andrea Maningo with the Boulder Chamber of Commerce.

[144:02] And uh that's the conclusion of my presentation. City staff are available for questions. Did you want to hear from the panel members first or Yeah, I think that was the Okay. the plan if they're here. Hello. Uh my name is Kate Thompson. I work with the farm. I'm the director of compliance there. Um thank you Sandra and city council for the opportunity to speak tonight. Um this experience as part of the panel, this team um has really been incredible both personally and professionally. The variety of its members was obviously well planned as there was a good range of knowledge um in regards to industry regulation and community values. I think that I can speak for most of the panel members and say that we were pleasantly surprised by everyone's ability to respectfully listen to one another and discuss options for compromise as we had quite a bit of content um to to look through. Um as you can imagine, some of the issues were easier to explain and tackle than others. Although we didn't always understand how we could get through the process or the unanimous consent approach, it obviously paid off with any

[145:01] kind of compromise. As Sandra said, not all parties are all full fully satisfied, but we find common ground to move forward and that this is the most important step in this collaboration. Although the city staff was not on the panel, they offered insight and opinions in regards to the history of regulation in Boulder and potential roadblocks. We, as a panel, really strive for their support with these decisions as we knew their perspective was essential for the city as well as to council. I want to take a moment to acknowledge and thank Heather and Katie from Peak Facilitation. uh they did a really great job um to ensure that each topic and each discussion all voices were heard and documented. Many times we had to lean on them for direction and recollection. I also want to send my sincere appreciation to city staff especially Sandra Michon Kathy and Bev who devoted so much time at the meetings prior to meetings and after meetings especially responding to my emails and inquiries about code language. Their hard work and collaboration efforts should not go unnoticed. Um and of course I want to thank the fellow p panel members. We did incredible things here coming up with agreements on over 30 issues. Um the city was not only able

[146:00] to recognize the need for this panel, but make the decision to spend city resources to make it happen. And we were able to make it worth that time hopefully and time will tell. Um as someone who cares very much about these recommendations and the time and effort it took to get to the language that's in front of you, I thank you all for your role within that and we encourage you to support this ordinance as we do. And as we move into the future, we as the panel look forward to reviewing the current and future city manager rules relating to marijuana since they are what helps to interpret and enforce the code in the city. This will be the first time for many businesses to see these rules and since we have made many changes to these recommendations, it's a great great time to re-evaluate and disseminate them. We believe it is important that these rules are readily available for the industry since it's where the rubber meets the road. Finally, as I'm sure the other panelists are interested to know, we are curious of the decision regarding the future of the map. Um, as this industry, our state regulation, federal environment, and community values evolve, so must we. We view this as an iterative process and that this is the first step towards balanced regulation in a developing industry in this new era. Thank you again for the time to

[147:01] speak, for setting up the panel, your support, and your attention. Good evening, council. Um, Heath Harmon with, excuse me, Boulder County Public Health. Um I joked around with Kate a little bit earlier that um I would uh prefer that she spoke first and then honestly I could come up be very brief and just say ditto. Um honestly I don't know that that's much of a joke. I would really echo everything that she said. Um there's no doubt there was um tremendous um uh compromise by this group dealing with a lot of difficult issues. A lot of them had to be untangled. They're relatively complex. We had a diverse group. We had stakeholders from the industry, from um the community, from schools, from health. Um, and I think um the the time that we all put in um paid off. There's no doubt as Sandra and Kate had both already um uh revealed that uh that basically consensus was reached. And um and I know actually going into this um that may not have been the impression either of of us as panel members or certainly as of um you know

[148:01] council members and city manager when the panel was being selected, but I think it was the right group of people. So we appreciate that opportunity to do good work. Um there's no doubt um I think uh the time spent one of the most important things um that um that we all gained was that common understanding. So more times than not um over the previous two years you know all of us as stakeholders would have an opportunity to basically speak in sort of two or three minute increments in front of council. Um so we did not necessarily um take advantage of opportunities to create the relationships. The panel created those relationships. Um, I think what we ended up doing in addition to the common understanding and their perspectives, um, is really then finding that common ground, being supportive, respectful of one another, and I can't speak, um, enough about the integrity of every single panel member. Um, I would also share um, my thanks and appreciation um, to Heather and Katie at Peak Facilitation. City staff was phenomenal in terms of the knowledge that they brought in, not only in terms

[149:00] of licensing and um and sort of the legal perspectives, but each time that we had a question that um maybe focused a little bit more on a different departmental expertise, those staff were brought in to provide perspective. Extremely helpful and really building that common foundation for all of us. There's no doubt as we walk away um from from at least this round of work and these recommendations um we know that there's um better relationships that exist between industry, between health, between the community and between I think the licensing office. Sander did a really good job providing a couple of key examples. They're examples that I would echo as well. Um lastly, I would just say this. Um you know, it was nine months of of work um in terms of a calendar coming to consensus on those recommendations. um countless hours um above and beyond in terms of sub subcommittee work. Um but ultimately, you know, we did reach that consensus um and support for these recommendations and we hope that um you actually reach the the same outcome as we did. Thank you very much.

[150:01] Thank you, Keith. Okay, so questions and um let's jump right in. Jen, I've got three questions. And first of all, I I want to thank um the map. Unbelievable amounts of time you put in and the recommendations we got back from you were so amazing and so actionable. And I'd also like to thank the staff for all the time and effort they put in. I know their commitment is amazing in trying to get a balanced approach and then execute on this. So, thank you very much. I've got three questions. One is in the redlinined version attachment D, there were a few highlighted lines and I remember seeing somewhere that I thought that that had to do with the um the county regulations and the businesses

[151:00] that are coming in from the annexation, but I can't really remember. And along with that, um, I was wondering who is going to work through the discrepancies between the city and the county in terms of these businesses that are going to, uh, come in through annexation. And then my final question is, uh, the pen the the penalty schedule, um, when does that go into effect and will it be backdated or do we begin from tonight? if we pass the emergency uh ordinance if you understand my question. Yes. So with respect to your first two questions, I'll defer to Kathy Haddock since she's been very involved in that. With respect to your last question on the penalty schedule, um that will go in as a rule, a city manager rule. And so once we go through the rulem process and actually even before that um we'll have

[152:00] the panel provide input on the those rules but essentially we've already come to an agreement as a group on what that should look like. So there really shouldn't be anything changed. Um and so it should happen f rather quickly um as soon as those are implemented you know published and then it will go into effect. So basically as of tomorrow they'll the new penalties will be into in in in effect. No. So it would take it will take some time because we'll have to publish we have to do the go through the rule making process and we'll have to publish them for 15 days. Um wait to see if there's any comment from the um public and if there aren't any comments then then they do become effective immediately. Um but there is a process that has to happen. Um in addition to that that they are guidelines. So it's it's not like something that would change um

[153:00] a penalty that we have in the code. So they are guidelines. I mean there's a very clear schedule, right? You do this that's the penalty. Is that a guideline or is that the penalty? Well, no, that is the penalty, but um we also have a section that talks about guidelines as well related to that. Okay. Do you want me to answer the first two questions and I can add a little bit sorry about the um penalty schedule too? I'm Kathy Haddock with the city attorney's office. the highlighted portions, you're right in your memory that they were part changes that the 55th and Arapjo businesses had asked for and they are highlighted because MAP had not seen them and they seemed innocuous to me, but I wanted to make the MAP

[154:01] aware that we want to put them in this ordinance, too. So, that's why they're highlighted. They weren't actually recommendations from MAP, but they're ones that MAP were was okay with. So they will become part of the ordinance then. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yep. The um and with respect to aligning the county regs and and the 55th and Arapo turnovers that staff is doing that and we've done several things. We've had meeting a couple meetings with them already. Are having another meeting with them next week and having monthly meetings hereafter. So they can answer questions. We can answer questions as a group. In addition, they can call at any time. So, we are trying to work that out and phase in the um fees for license applications rather than have them all do at once. So, we are working on that. And with respect to the penalty schedule, the reason why there's guidelines is because sometimes there's very aggravating circumstances or very um mitigating circumstances. And so, you're right, in most circumstances, and I think everything that we've done um

[155:00] this schedule has been followed. It's Michon is the designated marijuana licensing authority that makes the decision. Um she's always used a schedule and we've always had it for the court um to try to get more broad understanding to the court of what we're doing. We're asking for more official adoption of it. Okay. Thank you. Hey, I'm going jump in with a couple questions, Kathy. Um one is were you here when Christopher Mallerie testified earlier? I Yes. I heard it. Can you one thing is that anyhow you raised a few issues. Um one has to do with their fees but anyhow that can be separate. They he had some clarifying questions. It was also in that email about um how the interpretation of these new ordinance uh provisions. Yes. And I didn't get the email. Um so his comments were the first time that I've heard anything because he has not brought them to staff before. We'll

[156:01] definitely be addressing them at the meeting next week. Okay. Um then I have just two other questions. I'm not sure for who. One is so we talked about MAP meeting a year from now, but we also have talked about MAP is going to weigh in on the manager rules and I'm just curious is MAP going to meet together to give input or how's that going to work? The the idea was that we would just do it by email. There wasn't going to be a formal meeting. Um, like I said earlier, a lot of the um the rules um that we're going to be proposing have already been discussed by the panel and we already have final documents. So, it's really just a matter of a couple of definitions that we are going to be um looking to the panel to provide some input. But again, it's just going to be through email. Okay. And I should I keep going. Okay. I the one issue that um really seemed to be real important to wrestle to the ground was sponsorships and what exactly was allowed and I think I kind

[157:02] of understand but one of the um one of the manager role is going to provide examples and I guess um is everybody clear in the marijuana industry now of what sponsorship allows um in terms of nonprofit sponsors and and all of that? I'm sorry. Marijuana business sponsorship of of nonprofit events and all that because that was a big thorn. That was definitely something that required a lot of discussion. Um, and I do believe that we do have a clear understanding now. Um, you know, I I don't know if Kathy if you want to jump in and talk about the details related to what the code changes are, but Well, just real briefly, if you have an event out there, can just tell us if the one incident that came up which was I think uh a marijuana's uh businesses sponsorship of an out boulder pride event and can you have an event? I mean, can

[158:01] you have a booth etc. Can you go ahead and tell us what paint that picture just so that we're all clear about what is allowed now if you sponsor an event out on the I want I want to make sure that I'm really right is why I'm fumbling for the materials but basically the way that it works is any type of doing anything with an event is advertising. Advertising is one of the biggest issues for youth and all that stuff. So what ended up happening kind of a big picture thing is that there's different rules if an event is not open to children versus if it is and if access can be controlled. So that's one of the differentiations generally through the correct and so if it isn't an adult an let's say it is an adult event with controlled access there can be booths. Yes. and they can have educational and company materials and that's it. Do I have that right? Um I hate to say that's it because I

[159:00] believe that because they can have the booths with banners on them but as far as for things that can be distributed that's it because they're considered part of advertising. Okay, one last question. an adult event is controlled access, but there's also something about uh so I'm about whether or not the public can see in, i.e. kids can see in, right? So, I'm just curious as applies to the civic park area along Boulder Creek path it even if you like if you had a beer garden but still it's visible to the public. I'm just curious, is that an adult event or there's I just will there ever be booths out in the civic park under these rules? I just want to understand because people ask this stuff and I'm like I don't know. Right. And and and I can go back to the sponsorship to answer that. But the general question to your the general answer to your question is no because a booth is is an additional level than sponsorship. So for sponsorship, if if a

[160:00] business is sponsoring a nonprofit event, they can have their name, you know how on a nonprofit event they list, here are our sponsors, and they list them all. So whether it's a booth, it's the pro, I'm sorry, whether it's the banners or the programs or the t-shirts or whatever, the marijuana businesses can be listed there. As far as different kind of advertising, they can't do that. Okay? Even if it's in a beer guard, even if the act access is controlled, but you can see it from the Boulder Creek path. Now, see, this is why we have to have examples in the rules. Exactly. That's the one. That's the one thing that comes up and I'm just curious. Did you guys wrestle that example to the ground? Yes, we did. And I'm just terrified I'm going to say it wrong is why I'm looking. Well, you could let us know. I just think that's the most common example and we should all have clear understanding of what those are. And just to follow up, you know, with the civic center question, um

[161:01] those are public parks and so um it would be we we can't have them closed off to the public. And so then you have an issue of control. And so, but when we have beer gardens there for events, yeah, that's my question. Yeah, I'm not going to take up any more time, but that is I would love to understand those nuances with regards to the specific area. Okay. And we have tried to make it very clear in the code, but the reason for the additional things in the rules is because there are real specific examples that come up and rather than writing a law that tries to do that thing, we're trying to give examples and all work together. Okay. And so the uh the manager's rule that will include examples, what's the timing on that? Um they've all been written. So if council gives that passes this tonight, then we'll go ahead and and process them. Okay. The normal process is the 30-day comment period after they're made public. And this one we're adding map at the front end. So they have an

[162:00] opportunity to get comment before they're published and the public has the 30 days to comment. Okay. I think Lisa was trying to piggy and then Sam. Yeah, it had to do with the retention of the map and the group because it sounds like it was a pretty good process and a good group of people. Um, and specifically in here, one of the issues of transfers that came up was transfer of a license to a new location. And we're not addressing that tonight. And it was stated that that would be addressed at a later date when other land use regulations were going to be discussed by MAP. How is that going to happen and when is that going to happen? I can answer that question. So, um, we had Susan Richstone, deputy director, come to one of our meetings, well, the the last meeting actually that we had, and she explained the process and, um,

[163:02] from her perspective, it was going to be a work plan item that needed to be addressed, right, at uh, the retreat. And so I I guess that remains to be seen how council um determines what the priority is uh in relation to the other work that um that department has to do. Right. But there it seems like it's almost a catch 22 because there's businesses at least my understanding there are businesses that want to transfer their license to another location and if they can't do that then they're kind of stopped until well they could always apply for a new license. That's what happens in liquor licensing. We don't do transfers to new locations. It's just a new license. Okay. And then um I had a question about just the recommendations that came out and it seemed like everybody was kind of bumbaya and pretty much in consensus. But then in the memo it says there's a

[164:01] couple things that staff doesn't agree with and they're recommending not to include that and it's against what the map kind of and so I'm a little confused about that because this did seem like a very diverse group and I did have questions as to whether you guys would come up with something. So I'm just curious. Um so yeah um you know I think that one we're we're not saying you shouldn't do it. I think that um if you look at exhibit or excuse me, attachment E under staff considerations, those were just issues that um staff had identified um as perhaps um some policy issues that might be in conflict with what um council had proposed in the very beginning as to how to deal with some of these things. So, um, as an example, under hours of operation, um, the

[165:01] recommendation is to extend the closing 00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. And um the uh the way that the panel addressed this um the concern with respect to how it might impact neighborhoods and and residences nearby um was to address it by um requiring the business to provide some sort of mitigation planning to to try to um prevent any sort of negative impacts. And so kind of a plan. So making sure that businesses are being thoughtful about how they're doing their business and whether you know it's lighting or noise or whatever the issue is that they're thinking ahead and trying to mitigate that. Um the staff consideration um under that item was that there was a concern about the ability to enforce a neighborhood

[166:00] responsibility plan and to mitigate uh impacts to the residential area. Um so not to say that we are opposing it but just sort of raising the issue that yeah this is uh one way to deal with it um but it may not be the best. So, and then there was something on um merchandise and whether um a marijuana store could um a business could sell more than 20% um non marijuana uh merchandise. And if I read it right, the map said, "Yeah, that was okay." and staff said, "No, under state law that we treat, we're trying to treat marijuana the same as alcohol." And that in alcohol, tell me if I'm not

[167:00] right, um, you can only have 20% of non-alcohol related merchandise in the liquor store. So I guess I'm again trying to figure out this discrepancy between MAP and so I'm happy to answer that. Um that there actually isn't a isn't a discrepancy there and and I apologize if it came across that way. Um we what we have um what the panel has recommended is actually aligning with the state and um the issue of the 20% rule actually came up in the study session um from a council member's question and um to be honest with you there just wasn't enough time to address that. Um so the staff hasn't taken a position one way or the other about it. Um, so it's kind of an open question. If that's something that council would like to include, we could include it in the ordinance, but it was never fully fleshed out um with the

[168:02] panel because like I said, we only had one meeting after the study session. So, it's it's just I don't understand what all of the issues are around it and um yeah, that's it. And just to if I can just follow up from that, but just to clarify, the staff expressed reservations about a couple of the items, but still your overall recommendation is that we adopt the package without modifications. Correct. Exactly. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are you are you done, Lisa? I am. Thanks, Sam. So, thank you for this. Um, I also want to follow up by asking a question about the recently annexed um, businesses and their concerns. So, I want to say thank you again for getting them in here so quickly um because that was very responsive and very rapid and it's my understanding that the map saw these and and thought that they were okay. That's correct. Yes. Okay. Yes. And then we received an email on

[169:03] Sunday afternoon from Chris Mallerie uh representing a few outstanding items. I don't know if that went to everyone staff because it was addressed individually to each council member and then some others. So, um I would just point out that there are still some outstanding issues. They are they're what they are. Um, it's a little I won't ask you to respond to them now. I just wanted if you could forward the email to us. We'll I just forwarded it to a couple people uh to Kathy and Sandra. There's a meeting scheduled with those folks on the 14th and hopefully they'll address them then. Okay. I just wanted to raise So, so what's in that which was just received doesn't have anything to do with the ones that you've already included. So, so I think I understand I I got the answer to my question with your response. And the meeting that's happening next week is which one? It's with the annex annex businesses.

[170:01] Yes. Okay. Yes. And um you better u and I'm the licensing administrator in and um for the for the annex folks, I apologize. I just didn't get the invitation out today. So I'll send it to you tomorrow. So, it will be um in this same uh room in the morning of next Wednesday on the 14th because we wanted to schedule a follow-up meeting to answer any other questions about the applications. So, and I'll go ahead and forward what I've received to you as well, uh Tom and Michon, and so the four of you should have it to look at ahead of time. Right. And can I just follow up on that? So, have the have the fees been resolved for the annexed properties? That's still in process. We're trying to figure out how to do that right now. Okay. And you think you'll have that figured out by the 14th? That's the plan.

[171:00] Okay. Okay. Shall we move to the public hearing? Okay. We have people signed up. We do. Yes, we have 10. Okay. Oh, we better jump on that. So, that means you guys can speak for three minutes. You don't have to. Um, especially if you just want to say it's awesome. Um, and why don't you just at least give us the first name? Oh, there we are. Jeff Guard. Greetings. Nice to see you all again. Um, I came here primarily to speak to address issues that had not been included from MAP's recommendations in the draft ordinance and I sent you all a letter on uh November 8th uh addressing primarily the transfer of of licenses and the grandfathering issue. That issue now being sort of resolved after after that. I'm not going to waste time with it, but what I would tell you, a lot of you weren't here in 2008 and 9 and 10

[172:02] and 11 and 12 and some of the things that Sandra had referenced and uh this map and this spirit of cooperation has come through uh a lot of conflict, a lot of uh through through war comes peace, I would say, is probably the best way to put uh this recent spirit of uh Kumbaya that we talked about. Uh if we recall back uh this time last year with the outgoing council, uh we didn't have a process other than three minutes at person to try to make changes to try to uh try to harmonize things between uh the state law and uh the local uh governments that surround us. And we had a lot of tension, a lot of different uh views of this. and we got a lot of things done right away at the very last minute thanks to many of the council members here. Uh but there were a lot of things hanging out there and that's when the map kicked in. Um and I think that

[173:02] is a really good process. I think of it more like NATO now. Okay. It's not something that ought to be disbanded now that we have one good first step of cooperation between city staff and the industry and the industry and it's and the and the players within the industry. I think it's important because we're not done yet. I mean, hearing uh Mayor Jones uh talk about the advertising issue, it's very clear that some of the things that we talked about doing uh back last October uh have not been done. Uh and people would still be in trouble in the same way that we were concerned they'd be in trouble uh for sponsoring uh the Pridefest uh that were there. So, there's more work to be done. There's marijuana social clubs to deal with. There's the annexation of the 55th people. Uh there's all kinds of things to be done. What I would encourage uh council to do is keep the map intact and continue to work on marijuana issues through that process. Don't make it so that Jeff Guard has to come up here uh

[174:00] every few months and and tell you what all my clients are concerned and worried about and have these, you know, 10-hour meetings. Uh let's do it in the process that worked and let's keep uh going uh what we've what we've achieved so far. I think it's working and I appreciate everybody's work on that. Thank you. and question Sam then Lisa. Yes. Yeah. Uh so if you were to to look at this process going forward where we've ironed out a whole bunch of issues and now it's just new things that might come up or issues that went unresolved, would quarterly meetings be enough? What kind of what kind of uh schedule would you look forward to? I think quarterly meetings would be great. Um I think some people were frustrated with the amount of time all of this took. we sort of thought we'd be getting some traction in the early spring of 2016 and here we are kind of in December getting that. So I think it's been cumbersome in that it hasn't been responsive but I think getting it that way would be good but I also think that we should have a process in place

[175:00] that let's say uh sessions does create this big uh wave that we need to deal with things a little more uh rapidly than quarterly. But I'd say quarterly but let's have a provision for something that's a little more stop. I will just point out you're dealing with a government body and so it's probably not going to be as responsive as a small business. So I've been dealing with you lovely folks for years and years. I appreciate that. And so my my question had to do with um I personally like the idea of keeping the map group together, especially Katie and Armen's um comments gives me encouragement. Oh, right. I agree too. And so I guess I'm wondering, you know, the 55th um annexed properties, they felt a little bit outside, right? And they are um coming with a little bit different perspective because they've functioned under different rules. So, I'm wondering if what your thoughts are on keeping the map group exactly the same or would you keep it pretty much

[176:02] the same and would you add one or two people from the 55th? Well, I'm not sure everybody wants to stay on the group forever. Um, and I think vacancies ought to be filled and I don't think necessarily the number of people on the board needed to be static. I think one thing that we've learned uh is that the annexation folks are kind of back where we were a few years ago standing up here at the podium trying to say you don't understand I got this business it's ter we definitely need them at the table if we're going to do this right and I think uh that their voice ought to be heard but they also need to be hearing from the Boulder businesses that were concerned about maybe right this this moratorum on an enforcement for them was unfair to them and if we're going to have collaboration between all of the businesses certainly they need to be heard because they didn't have they weren't able to be picked for the group. So I think maybe expanding the group a little bit or seeing if you know really who wants to be on it and see and and try to be make an emphasis to fill those spots with some of those people that are affected by this annexation.

[177:00] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Chris Mallerie. Oh boy. Here we go. Good evening again. Uh Christopher Mallerie, Representative Americana. Uh so just first off, right off the bat, um we support in general what's been done with the map. There's been a lot of work by city staff, licences, stakeholders, community members. So it's important that it moves forward. Is it perfect? No. But it's important that it moves forward. Um it's also important that processes like this continue. the transparency of it, the communication between all these different stakeholders in this that that keeps going. Um, being part of the annex businesses, we saw this in the county and we met every two months and we discussed things. Commissioner set it up that way for a reason. Um, it's good to get that information going through your licensing folks, someone like Michonne who's been extremely helpful so far, and then telling you guys and going back and

[178:00] forth and keeping those communication channels open. Um, I would also like to make clear the highlighting portions in the agenda. Basically, it's four things. It added marijuana testing. It it changed around the definition for finance a year, and there was one other thing, but those weren't our suggestions for MAP. That was just adding it to uh the MAP recommendations. So, basically, um we're going to have a bunch of people coming up from the annex business in general, but there's five main things that I sent to you on Sunday. Um and we feel like these five things would make everything perfect. No, but it would make things better for all the businesses, but especially from where we're coming from coming into the city. Um, simple things like the keyholder definition for us is is troublesome. We would like you guys to fall in more with what was written at the state level. We're your definition of a keyholder would basically be only high level management. Our supervisors have keys to get in the building. We're not open to the public, but that person shouldn't be responsible to get into our safe where all the money is. It should

[179:00] be the owner and maybe a designate or two of the owner and that's it. Um, licenses should be fully transferable. It's allowed at the state for both liquor and marijuana. And most local jurisdictions also do this. Um, it should just be fully transferable. You should be able to to do that. If you have a bad landlord, you should be able to transfer the license over. It will take the city staff a little bit more work to complete the stuff, but everybody has these fees in place and forms in place, state level and local, so consider that. Um, 43 seconds. Okay. Um, good thing other people are coming up. Um, one other major point here is the on 6148 64 6168R separation of marijuana businesses. One point in particular, number one, the separate security systems thing is really frustrating. We have eight licenses, four per building. They're all under one security system. This is how most businesses would work. One security system. The way it's

[180:00] written currently, we would have eight security systems with map with virtual separation. If I'm reading it, right, it'd be four security systems. Everything is covered. Matt eaten walked through our entire both of our buildings and approved our thing. Just consider that in the future. You don't need separate security systems for each license. Thanks. Thank you, Christopher. Mhm. Ally. Hello, council members and mayor. Um, I'm Allison Filer, one of the owners of the annex businesses at 5565 Arapjo. Uh, I had a lot of things written down, but I decided just to talk to you guys today about a few things. I think it would be impossible for me to get up here and to hit on all the minutia specifically about the five issues that we sent to you and why they're problematic. Um, I can give you an example. one being for the business manager term which has now evolved into a keyholder. The keyholder still doesn't really make sense to us because what it's saying is that this is

[181:01] if you can access a safe, if you can arm or disarm my alarm, if you even have a key to the building, I have to qualify you as a keyholder business manager and I have to put you through a separate background check. In my facility, I have, you know, 30 people that work in that facility and I've got six different licenses in that facility. So, I have to have a separate business manager for each of those licenses. This also means that in my store, for example, where I have a recreational and a medical store, I technically should have to have two separate business managers because they're separate licenses. This trickles down to all the regulations because the city code is not written for multilicensed facilities. The city code was written for one, you know, one type of license in each facility. Grow here, store here. But you guys have annexed us and now we're here and we're trying to figure out how we're supposed to conform. And for example, what Chris uh referred to with our security systems. Again, I have to have six separate security systems to comply with this regulation requiring separation of licenses. Um I have to have separate

[182:00] banks of accounts. So I have to keep my pencils and pens separate. I have to decide if my store says, "Hey, I need more pens." I have to decide if those were for the recreational side of my store or for the medical side of my store. literally down to the last cost. You know, we keep our uh what we our revenue or all that stuff separate. But what the city code is doing is generally saying that this is easy and it is easy if you're not a multilicensed facility. Um there's major issues with the the organization of cultation facility licenses. Um I'm really glad to hear that we're going to be having a meeting on the 14th. I'm still very concerned about the fee schedule. We've been told to apply by January for these licenses. We know we have till February, but we've been told by city staff to apply by January, and here we are beginning December, and time goes quickly. So, I hope that we're definitely going to get those answers. Um, and also, as far as the the map recommendations, I really appreciate Jeff saying that it's important for us to be involved in this

[183:01] process. It should be an iterative process. So we we in the county had a bimonthly system where every month they would come together. They would send out an email. They'd say, "Hey, these are the agenda items. Come in with questions and we would come in with questions and we would talk about those issues and if any other issues arose, we'd bring them up and within 60 days we would be back for another meeting and we'd be able to address those issues. The city, the county quickly realized that their regulations were all over the place and that they were developing them in a way that didn't align with the states. So what they did was they made a complete change and revision to their regulation and made it align with the states completely. Definitions like this keyholder definition which I understand the use for it. I understand that they want somebody who's on site at the property that can a answer questions. But when you put something in a definition that says any person that can open a safe, any person that can arm or disarm a building, any person, that lends itself to a lot more people and it restricts me. It restricts me from being able to operate my business effectively. It restricts me from being able to hire

[184:00] people to work in different authority classes and I'm not giving this person managerial authority. So again, I think that the background checks I have to pay another $190 for each of these employees and I have to have one on-site at all times. So that means it if I don't have a business manager there, then I'm breaking code. And so that means if I do the math on my store, I have to have six business managers for my store. I have to have three business managers for my grow. And I have to have three business managers for my uh M.Y.I.P. I have to have uh so I have to have a total of 12 business managers that I have to go through this process of getting licensed for. And if one of them quits, I'm out of compliance. I don't have somebody that is physically working in that space because I haven't gone through the background check that the city requires. There's no grace period for this. So what am I supposed to do if one of these people who isn't actually an authority position quits with no notice and then I have to try to figure out what to do? I've also been told at the most recent meeting that a owner does not qualify for this and that they actually were requiring an individual as a business

[185:01] manager for each license. So in my facility I actually have to have somebody even if I'm on site I have to have somebody in each license working in this capacity. We already have key badged employees. They are already licensed by the state. They go through a background check. There is no reason that these employees need to have an authority position and additional background checks for good moral character when all they are are opening a safe or doing regular business day-to-day activities. Please reconvene Matt. Please include these annex businesses. Thank you. Thanks Ally Lorie. Thank you. And your two people I guess I should be asking are there. Thank you. Good evening once again. and I'm Lorie Schwarz, otherwise known as Alli's mom. Um, also one of the owners of Organic Wellness, known as Green Tree. Um, since you're hearing from several people tonight, I'm not going to talk about everything. Ally and I kind of talked about it and I got assigned the issues

[186:02] of the separation of the marijuana businesses and the issue of maintaining of business records. As you know, being forcibly annexed to the city as an ongoing thriving business that's fully compliant with the state and the county mandates, it's difficult now to change a business that consists of living things that are not just simply something tangible that you can move from one shelf to another. um separation of the business licenses and of the businesses in most of the annex businesses is almost virtually impossible without rebuilding and gutting the entirety of the building. The rule would require us to have separate HVAC systems, alarm systems, rebuild walls for to have firewalls. Our businesses have multiple licenses within one building within one square building. We have two stores, we have two grows,

[187:00] we have two MIPS with everything built as in as is as fixtures. Okay, we are to code been inspected on multiple occasions. So without closing and gutting that building, we are not going to be able for any amount of money whatsoever to ever achieve compliance with this rule. We might as well demolish the building and start all over. Um it's not realistic for us where you have virtual separation of the licenses and multiple licenses in one building. Logically, rules are made where there's a goal, where there's a need to achieve something. For what goal? I I have yet to try to figure out and come up with to figure out why I have to get a separate HVAC system for the portion that feeds my store versus my MI. My or my grow um or you know separate security systems. I I'm not understanding that where we are compliant and have separate entrances

[188:01] and everything is clean and compliant and sufficient legally. Um, regarding the second topic, the separation of records, um, while clearly there is an improvement in the rule that is being proposed by MAP, it does not provide for the virtual separation that exists in our businesses. You know, as I said, we have two stores, we have two grows, we have the double MYIPS under one roof. Um, we maintain very good records and while revenue is clearly easy to separate with sales and all of us already do that for sales tax purposes, expenses are not so easy to do. The rule requires us to have separate records, separate checking accounts and cash accounts for a medical store, for the retail store, for the retail grow, for the medical grow. um even though they're virtually separated under the one roof and within the same building, how do I divide the salaries of the same

[189:00] employees that work in both stores during that same shift? How do I divide the pens and the pencils, the toilet paper and the paper towel? I don't know how to divide that between, you know, two stores and two grows in the same building using the same bathroom or the same desk or the same copy machine. How do you do that? Do I just guess? Do I just divide it in half? I mean, is that really compliance? Is that really what we're looking for here? I don't think so. I know it sounds silly, but it's really hard to grapple with this because it really doesn't exist, I guess, within the city that you have this, you know, formation of businesses under one roof. And while I appreciate the need to separate gross revenues and expenses from the stores and the MYIPS and and the grows and keeping, you know, each type of license separate is clearly easy to do. I don't understand why if the city collapses MIP into one and there's no separation between a medical or a

[190:02] retail M.Y.I.P., why the same can't be done for the stores or for the grows? It it doesn't I I'm having a very hard time with that. And as the person who handles the books on a day-to-day basis and being a primarily cash business, I keep everything to the penny and every receipt has to tie out and every, you know, everything must tie out. How do you, how do I resolve this and divide this stuff up? It's a big issue for us and one that I'm having a hard time grappling with. And maybe you guys will have answers. You know, shipping and handling of marijuana, all of that is well doumented. welltracked and easily trackable per license, but when you come to the day-to-day expenses, that's somewhat difficult. Sam has a question for you. I actually have a question for the the city attorney real quick. Um, but it's it's to the points that we're here. Um, so is it the case that for even virtual

[191:01] separation that you need to have um separate HVAC systems and separate Sam, I'm not prepared to respond. Okay. You you got the email on Sunday. But we just got it. I was just asking the question. We We'll prepare a response, but Okay, that's fine. Thank you. It would be helpful if they copied us on those. I understand, but but in I'm just I thought you might know. I I think the answer is that most of those things that she's concerned about are gone, but I'm not sure and I haven't really had a chance and it's not really a good position for us to be trying to figure that out right now. That's fine. That's fine. Later is fine. I just if you knew now I wanted to hear it. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Andrea. Hello. Um, still Andrea Managel from the Boulder Chamber, uh, 2440 Pearl Street. Um, we're here to, uh, strongly support the the map recommendations. I really can't articulate it any better than Heath and Kate did earlier about the uh the successful outcome that that panel

[192:00] came to and our experience participating on it. Um, a big thanks goes out to the city manager for the dedicated time that that staff gave to this, especially the city attorney's office, um, and their responsiveness to all the questions, all the issues that arose throughout this whole time. I've been in front of you, uh, several times speaking about this. And so, I think you know that that we felt it was very positive experience that led to constructive outcomes that are good for this industry, for our businesses here. But as you've seen from your questions tonight and some of the comments you just heard, there's all kinds of nuances. There's all kinds of complexities to this issue. Um so we're always here to offer our partnership to the city and participating on um any group that comes together to look at these issues to address what comes before you that sometimes hadn't been anticipated before. Um but you know is inclusive of the voices and those that are impacted by the new ways that these regulations hit our businesses. Thank you. Thank you for that, Andrea. Dan,

[193:08] good evening. Dan England, uh, owner of Americana, 5575595 Arapjo Avenue, part of the annexed businesses. I think what you're hearing is that this is a complex industry. The many rules that we have at the state level and the local level really require a lot of attention and a lot of concern by the business owners and why you're hearing from those of us who've been annexed. The real concern about ver the the separation of our camera systems, the separation of our books. This is unique and foreign. um we were not allowed to participate in the MAP because we weren't even informed we were being annexed into the city from the county after the map had already closed for the year. So, I really

[194:01] appreciate all the work that the folks in the city has done and I support uh moving forward with what they asked, but I really would ask you as folks who've either run businesses or are making decisions for people who do run businesses, what sense does it make that I have to identify up to 18 people who can be listed as a key personnel that does not have access to my safe, but under this key personnel identif identification may now be forced to have access to my safe, which has also been publicly announced, which now creates uh for me a concern about the public safety of the area where my business is located and the employees that I have because people who are part of the cultivation department have no access to my safe. People who are part of the kitchen have no access to my safe. People who are part of the extraction team have no access to my safe. The only people that have access to my safe is my bookkeeper,

[195:02] my operations manager, and the members of the executive team that have anything to do with money. Our safe only contains money. Our safe doesn't contain any product. Those of you that have been to our facility have noticed that what our space for for product is much larger than any safe except for maybe Fort Knox. We have 5,000 lbs every day of finished product. There's no safe they make that would store that much. It's very concerning. Separate books. What other business that's operating within the city of Boulder has to have separate books? I don't understand what the purpose of the se separate books are. I just put in a brand new security system. It cost me $42,000 for one of my two buildings. Right? So $42,000 could end up being whatever the cost would be to now create a second server for that building as well as two more servers across the parking lot. This is all one

[196:00] business. Out of my eight licenses, I only have two that actually do business with other marijuana companies. So there are no real books for the other licenses. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any questions about how arduous that is, but again, we support the map for all the city businesses that work so hard on it. Thank you, Dan. Sean, good evening, Mayor Jones, members of council. Sean Coleman, director of government affairs for Terrap and Care Station, 5370 Manhattan Circle. Um, I just wanted to uh say thank you to the first of all, obviously the MAP panel staff. they worked for almost the better part of a year. Um, thank you to the C members of council over the past few weeks who've taken a lot of interest in a lot of these nuances and getting um, further educated on that. We appreciate the opportunity to speak with you and our director elected officials. And I particularly want to thank the city staff. Um, I think that the ordinance you have before you tonight really is a

[197:02] perfect memorialization of the map panel recommendations. Is the work complete? No. But I do believe that with the ordinance you have present in front of you tonight, um this is the big bite at the apple that you asked for last year. And because of that big bite, hopefully the remaining outstanding issues will be well within the appetite of the NEP map panel. So with that, um thank you again for um setting us on this process that has led us to now, I think, a much better working relationship with the marijuana industry and the city staff. and we're looking forward to continuing this working relationship and hopefully seeing less of each other in the coming years. Thank you. Thank you, Sean. Tim, mayor, council. My name is Tim Guzi. I'm here on behalf of Green Dream Health Services, a dispensary out on Lookout Road. My law partner Kevin Cheney is usually comes to these things. He asked me to tell you all thank you and to relay his thanks to to the MAP panel as well. um because that has been a

[198:02] tremendous success from his perspective. Uh we did have some issues with the first reading of the ordinance. Those have been cleared up thanks largely to the expediency of the map panel. So again, thank you. Um given that the license transfer issue has been cleared up, we have no uh issue with the ordinance as drafted and would urge you to adopt it. Thank you. Excellent. Chris Woods. Yeah. Hi, Mary Jones, members of council. Um, Mary Jones, I would say that it's awesome. Um, it's not it's not perfect, but um I would say that I've been doing business in this town for the better part of seven years and this is the best process that we've experienced. So, I would um recommend that you continue this process. Um it is quite difficult coming up here and speaking for three

[199:00] minutes at a time trying to organize individual meetings. Um obviously everyone here has seen that this has been a complicated issue. Um I think there's been a lot of members of the community that have spent good time. Uh like to uh thank the city staff uh for reaching out. Um this is definitely something that that we'd want to continue. Um with respect to liquor know I've been up here talking about this before. Um you know liquor laws are constantly evolving. Obviously, this uh topic area is going to continue to evolve with the next administration with iterations of different um social issues such as, you know, smoking lounges and social consumption issues of public safety that come up. So, um yeah, I just really want to take some time to thank uh Boulder Chamber um you know, members of industry, Heath Harmon, um just really reflecting the community values and you know, just a great process. Um, you know, I've been up here in, you know, much more tenuous times, probably

[200:00] um, representing the issues of the 55th and Arapjo Corridor. So, I would recommend that you they have a voice in this matter because it it is a precarious situation like Sam said, it's um, something that's happened very rapidly that they're having to address. And I mean, you know, like Tom Carr was saying, they don't have time to respond to something that's gone so very quickly. So just I would say extending the map panel um maybe not at such a frequency that it was. I know it's been a pretty daunting effort but like Jeff said maybe quarterly um or as needed um and yeah just want to thank everyone here and have a good night. Thank you Chris. Is that it? Okay, we are going to close the public hearing and with that um comments from council discussion. Uh Bob, maybe a motion. Well, um I can make a motion, too. I was just going to make a I guess a request. Um you know, we're hearing kind of a lot

[201:00] of love love about the map and how great the process was, which is fantastic. I I would just hope that those of you who are working at the 55th and Rapjo would be able to um achieve over the next few weeks and months some of the same progress that was achieved this year on the map. Um we got it sounds like we've got a lot of issues that need to get resolved and they have some of them have to be resolved pretty quickly. So, I would hope that with whatever process you use, we can um that you know come February or March, the folks from 55th and Rapo will be standing up here thanking um the staff for all the wonderful work they've done to resolve the issues um just as we've heard from the rest of the industry. Thanks. Sure. I'd like to make the motion to adopt emergency ordinance ordinance 8157 implementing the recommendation of the marijuana advisory panel by amendments to section 42064 and 42067 BRC1 1981 regarding medical

[202:00] and recreational marijuana fees and chapter 614 regarding medical marijuana and 616 regarding recreational marijuana BRC1981 and setting forth related details. I see. Okay. Any you want to speak to it? Uh I mean I think the MAP team did a wonderful job. Kudos all around. Uh great job choosing the team, Jane. And I I would add to what Lisa and a couple others have said. think we should continue this and trying to uh evolve to the next um phase of of trying to get the 55th and Rapho businesses wrapped into this. And so I know in the study session we kind of said we would disband it, but I really think having the quarterly meetings would be a good idea. Yeah. and and I uh seconded it um for this point specifically to make sure that this group does continue. And I

[203:00] know it's taken a lot of time, maybe not continue on a monthly basis, but it seems to me that this industry is still evolving and that we need to be responsive to their needs and that we're all learning as we go and um certainly we've learned a lot. Um I would like to see the group convened on some kind of regular basis that is good for everybody you know so that issues as they come up as they arise can be addressed. And I would also ask that we include you know a couple people from the 55th Street um annexation so that they can get their issues brought up to speed. So, um, go ahead. You want to Well, I was just going to say, um, well, I I want to echo the kudos. I know this has been a lot of work for staff over the last teen years. And, um, I also think we did some public process,

[204:01] right, recently. Okay. So, this map process worked and that's great. And we know we're not quite done. So, I guess I I thank us for getting to this point. I feel like this notion of meeting quarterly over the next year is a is a good one. Um because I think there is going to be more stuff that arises and we do need to uh get the annex businesses figured out. So I know that's probably not what I know staff was hoping to be done, but I don't think we're quite done yet. So I guess I I would like to get a sense of whether people feel how people feel about that. Maybe Jane wants to speak to this. So I I do want to speak and of course we will do what council wants. One of the issues though is that when MAP was created, the council created a charter and made a list of the kinds of people that were to be selected for the advisory panel which was done. We're now

[205:00] at a new time in which we've got new marijuana businesses that we never contemplated would be part of the city. And there's a wish that they would be part of the panel as well. they we'd either have to kick some people off of the panel, which perhaps maybe they don't want to be on it anymore, but I I guess I feel that the if you want to have a panel continue, that you should allow us to come back to you with a recommendation for again the kinds of people that you want on the panel. And certainly those that are on it now that want to continue could continue. But I I I guess I wonder if all of them really want to. They signed up for a specific job and that job is completed tonight and do they want to sign up for the next unknown period of time to wrestle with annexation issues and then quarterly meetings. So I I feel like it's appropriate for us to make contact with

[206:00] everybody and find out do they want to continue. Like an example would be the University of Colorado. there's a special spot on the panel for University of Colorado. I I wonder if their concerns have been addressed and that they don't need to be on it anymore. So I I feel uncomfortable just saying, "Oh, the panel can continue without being careful about who's on the panel and its charge, which right now seems to be to work on some lingering issues and in particular the annexation issues. So that's one issue. Another issue is that one of the major successes of the panel is that they had um professional facilitation that cost a lot of money and we do not have it budgeted for the for it to continue. Um you know as well as I do that we have reserves that could easily afford us to keep that professional facilitation but I need to enter into a new contract with the facilitator in order to do that. So there's a little bit of process and if

[207:01] you want us to do that then we will find the money to do it and come back to you later to get your blessing that we did that. So so there's just some issues to to work out. And then finally the issue that the mayor raised I think is an important one is that our staff is really burned out. They've spent a lot of time on this and I I feel like there needs to be an end to this sometime. So ju just for me I I'm worried about their capacity to keep doing this on and on and on. There's got to be an end to it. So those are my comments about it and I will take your direction. Okay. V Sam and then Mary. So I view whatever format this let me first start off a step back. So I think the 55th and Arapjo issues many of them may be able

[208:02] to be handled outside of the map. You know that's something that I think the city attorney's office and enforcement can work out and if there needs to be statutory changes we could think about those. Um if they're simple we can think about them outside of some kind of process like the map. But on the other hand, we have like the BLA for instance, right? And that is an ongoing group that meets to consider liquor issues in town, whether it's specific enforcement or whether it's it's general kind of uh issues that need to be addressed, ongoing education of the the bars and taverns in town, things of that nature. So, we might start thinking going ahead with the marijuana industry of having something like that. And so maybe it's not called the map and maybe it's staffed differently and maybe it uses fewer resources because it's meeting less frequently because this was a heavy lift to really get things aligned with the issues the industry were having. So go away and think about it would be my advice to and and come back with a

[209:02] proposal that looks like something that has a longer lifetime. So, it's not the intense heavy lift that the map was, but it's something where we're checking in like say the county does where there's meetings every two or three months that really say, are we having issues? Is there something that we need to look at here? You know, what are the the status? So, I I guess my thought would be, sure, it's the holidays, but these folks at 55th and ARPO have a pressing problem, which is they have to apply for a license um to get them started inside the city. And so, we have to give them a little, I think, special attention just to make sure that we're going to get them licensed properly and that the fees that they're paying are somewhat commensurate with what they paid in the past and budgeted for and can budget going forward. So, I would hope that we can come up with something that isn't so hard on staff, but which allows the city and the industry to continue to keep the

[210:00] lines of communication open. Mary. So, I would concur with what Sam um has just said, and I like the idea of something like the BLA or even the BLA itself to sort of evolving into um a different kind of um board perhaps. Um and that might take some time to you know the education piece because this industry is going to continue to evolve and um and you know and we saw again tonight where we had three or four speakers coming in three minutes kind of repeating what used to happen the last couple of years. So that's the last thing we want to do is is do it that way. And um and and that was cumbersome and and painful and um and the the the map was so successful. So, you know, I I would have staff go back and even just think more broadly. Maybe not the Matt panel, maybe some other

[211:01] way to do this that addresses things because it is going to be ongoing and this is this it's going to continue. So, we might as well prepare for it and think of it off into the future. Good. Well, first I want to also thank the map for an extraordinary um a job extraordinarily well done. Um our this is I think the best public process we've run recently. Um I really appreciate all your hard work and that you could get to consensus on so so many items, such a long list is is truly impressive. So I really appreciate that. It was extremely well done. Now we have sort of a curveball with these annexed businesses coming in at the last minute who didn't have a chance to weigh in and that presents complexities. I'll agree with Sam and Mary that you maybe we can resolve a number of those issues by just sitting down with city staff and hopefully can work through some of the confusions or the difficulties um fairly easily. Um you know, I'm

[212:00] certainly open to having the the MAP meet again or periodically. um maybe less of a fan of a new licensing board, although I'd consider it, but I certainly am sensitive to Jane's issues about um staffing and work and burnout and all of those things. So, I'd love to see how far we can get with staff working with the new businesses um and making a couple tweaks like that because I feel like aside from the annexation issues, um you know, the the panel has done a complete body of work that we could rest on uh for a long time. So, if we could take care of those um annexation issues, hopefully we don't have to deal um dive as deeply into this in upcoming months. Okay. So, maybe I'll sum up what I think I hear, which is um that the annex business, we have a a suite of issues specific to the annex businesses and staffs and enforcement and y'all figure that out. let us know if you need our

[213:00] help, but basically, yeah, that's that's a priority to help those guys. Um, and that, uh, Jane, maybe you can think about this and get back to us on this. I will say this notion of having a venue for dialogue between the city and the businesses that isn't here feels good, right? Um, not that we're always welcome to hear from you, but you know, the threeminut piece, it's true. It's it's hard to deal with complexities here. So what that looks like, I think there's a openness to what that is. So maybe you can tell us how that could happen because I think if we don't do that, then we're going to end up with a a backlog and then we have to deal with it. And so anyhow, it seems like there's a way to do this that's smoother and less ownorous on staff. Does that sum up where we're at? Okay. So with that, why don't we vote? Okay, it's a roll call vote. We'll start with council member Burton. Hi Jones. I

[214:00] Morzelle. I Weaver. I Yates. I Young. Yes. Brockett. I. The motion passes unanimously. All right. Thank all of you for your work on this. Thank you. Great job. Your second public hearing is a continued second reading and consideration of a motion to amend ordinance 8119 regarding cooperative housing units. I'm tired. No, then we have to stay longer. Now we're going.

[215:00] Well, we're only Heidi, could you switch it over here? Heidi, switch. It's over there. Well, given that we had 60 people. Oh, there we go. That is excellent. Suzanne, I'm ready to start when Oh, let's start with co-ops. Hey, if you all don't mind, um, we have a lovely lobby downstairs. Okay. Is there pizza down there? I wish. Pizza. Okay. All right. So, the co-op ordinance, uh, the council held the last meeting about this on October 11th. council directed me to um do another draft and bring back some changes. There were 25 recommended changes that council suggested from the last version. U those are I I did a draft and I posted it on the hotline in November 17th. Uh I then uh went through

[216:01] my calendar and and my emails and as and found everybody who'd asked for a meeting with me and some people who hadn't and scheduled meetings. I met with uh some repres I c called Lincoln Miller and representatives of the Boulder Housing Coalition, Zay Selvin and those folks. I met with Mike Marsh and some representatives of the Boulder Neighborhood Alliance. Uh I rep I met with the student and a faculty member from the CU Law School Sustainable Community Development Clinic. And then I met with an attorney named Jason Winer who's a specializes in cooperative organizations, not housing um um other types, but he had some interesting perspectives. And then on November 30th, I scheduled a public meeting. Actually, I scheduled a couple of times. And as you know, this is not what I do, so it wasn't really done as as professionally as some of these other folks would have done. But we had a really uh robust meeting on uh November 30th at the Presbyterian Church. We had about between 80 and 90 folks showed up. Um that's me slouching in the front. Um they uh they raised a lot of issues. Uh

[217:04] uh so the I responded to 68 questions uh and comments during the meeting. We led for about an hour and 20 minutes. So I walked around with a mic and people gave me their comments. I assured them that I would relay their comments to you. So I'm going to do that for a minute or two here, maybe a little bit longer in a second. Also, seven people filled out comment cards. uh the the meeting was mostly I would say 70% of the folks who attended were against cooperatives. It had been uh and it doesn't really reflect what I've seen otherwise but it there were some very strongly held feelings. Uh it was mostly respectful uh good comments, good thoughts. Uh it was a pretty typical Boulder meeting with people uh attending and and and interested in talking. So I'm going to go through these. Um so there are a lot of folks who thought it should they should only be in high or medium density zones. Um there there are

[218:00] folks who thought that the notice should come before and not after. And a lot of these issues I I was able to respond that council had spent some substantial time discussing them and had reached uh decision but I promised I would relay their views. Um they wanted to make sure that you we hire sufficient enforcement staff. There was a lot of comments about enforcement of occupancy and that we don't do it well enough and that we if we're going to do this that we should really focus on enforcement. One of my responses was with so few we will be able to keep a close eye on these licenses closer than the 20,000 rental licenses we have uh with only 10 or a year or so uh we should be able to focus better. Um the there was a comment that we should qualify all residents as lower moderate income. Um there there was some question about whether or not uh people would actually be willing to invest in equity co-ops and the market will determine that but there was some concern. Um there a lot of folks several folks um suggested that they were that the occupancy limit should be lowered and again that was that's an issue that

[219:00] council has spent some time grappling with. Uh there was one gentleman who said very clearly he wanted a yes or no answer. Asked whether I had a conflict of interest because we represent the Boulder housing uh Boulder Housing Partners and he seemed he seemed to think we we also represented Boa. I answered no u because we don't uh but we we and our represent we don't represent BOA and our representation of Boulder Housing Partners is very limited. State law requires us to represent them. We represent them on government organizational matters. uh we we we attend their board meetings but they have separate council for any kind of financing that they do or or participation in projects particularly city projects. Um I spelled organizational wrong. Uh there was a question about uh whether or not we were requiring a specific organizational form. I mentioned that council had said that a group of individuals uh unaffiliated otherwise would be fine and that the the ordinance provides for organization under anything that's lawful in Colorado law. Um there

[220:00] were some questions about grandfathering and I saw some email exchange with a with Andrew on this subject. There is no grandfathering in the ordinance. I have proposed a change that was brought up by the students at CU and that's that the the way I had drafted the ordinance, you had to get the the co-op license before you occupied. And they said, "Well, what about co-ops that are currently in existence? You're going to make them move out to get their license." And that didn't seem council's intent. So, I drafted some language that's in this current draft that says that for for co-ops that can prove they're in existence today so that we don't have a bunch of people forming, then they they will be able to apply while still occupying their place. they're not getting any preference other than that. It's just that we're not making them my recommendation is that we don't make them move out in order to apply for a license. Um there was some real questions about the parking in NPP zones, the the proposal, which I'll go through in a minute, uh to limit the amount of permits and whether that was too many. Uh there were several people who um suggested it be a pilot or trial period. Uh at one point I may have lost

[221:00] control of the meeting and someone stood up and said everybody who thinks we should have a pilot raised their hand and 60 or 70 people raised their hands and said it should be a pilot. Um the there was a lot of concern about impact on the neighborhood life and on property values and on the expectations that people had when they bought their houses. Um there was a lot of discussion about homeowners associations and their ability to uh pro prohibit cooperatives and this whether the city should be involved in enforcing restrictive covenants. That's something that I've always kind of recommended against with the city getting involved in a private property relationship or private contractual relationship. Nevertheless, an HOA could prohibit occupancy above a certain level. Uh it would be their issue to enforce it. Um, there was a concern about Sorry, can I just interrupt you on that? Just to drill into that a little bit because an HOA, unless we specifically prohibit them otherwise, they can always make rules that are more strict than city rules, right? In any number of fields. That's true. It's a it's a voluntary association of folks and they can do what they want. I I I gather that some

[222:01] folks are thinking about forming HOAs in their neighborhoods to limit co-ops. I mean, that's the sense I got from this discussion and that that may happen. Uh, and that's their right to do that. Um there was there was some real suggestions that the the number of bathrooms might not be adequate. Um that we we don't have anything in the ordinance that requires a certain number of bathrooms. The I the I I don't remember whether the international property maintenance code has a requirement. I think it's just one. So there was that um there were those who suggested this was in fact zoning change that should have been done in a zoning change. As you know, I've always taken the position that occupancy is not a property right. It's not a zoning right. occupancy is a is a kind of use that you can regulate. Uh we do that in part because we've always takition that the grandfathered occupancy is something that council could extinguish at will. Uh you don't, but you could. And so we don't want to get this into being an an zoning change because in fact it's it's just a change in occupancy. Um should be required to comply with smartregs. Um I want to walk

[223:02] you through that just a little bit. Uh so I I had said at the meeting that smart works wasn't required by the ordinance and uh that's sort of true and not true and let me explain that. So the I took out in the ordinance the proposed ordinance before you tonight the requirement that every co-op get a rental license and I did that because we've pretty much copied the rules for rental licenses into the co-op ordinance and it would be duplicative. What I didn't say and should have said that night is that if you're going to rent, you're still required to get a rental license. So, one of the things that the confusions I was trying to avoid is so we've created this this right for a group of of individuals to get a co-op license and walk it around and rent from somebody. The person they're renting from will also have to get a rental license. And that person will have to comply with smartregs. For the equity co-ops, they're allowed to rent. if they're renting, they're still going to have to comply with the rental licensing code and comply with smart racks. So,

[224:01] and and I I talked to Suzanne a little bit this she raises concern at CAC on Monday and I've in in response to her concerns, I've drafted some language which is before you tonight that will allow will add a sentence that says that nothing in this chapter exempts anybody from the requirements of the rental licensing chapter to make sure that's absolutely clear. So, will it will smart legs require? I've tried to treat them like everybody else. So, when you own your home, you don't have to require get you don't have to uh comply with smart rags and you don't have to get a rental license. If you choose to rent your home to someone, you have to get a rental license and comply with smart rags by 2018. These folks will be treated exactly the same under the way it's drafted. Tom, I'm I'm a little unclear there. In the case, you know, where we're talking about a rental co-op where, you know, a group of people have a license and they shop it around and they find a landlord who wants to rent to them, would that landlord need a rental license? Yes, sir. Okay. So, then anytime renting is going on, you need a rental license. Smart

[225:00] rags are required. That's right. Great. Okay. Um, there was a suggestion that we consider reserving some license for senior citizens. Um, there were people who complained about the process, that it was the wrong pro process. um people who suggested we have fewer per year initially. Um there was someone who suggested that we consider cooperatives on city properties at Alpine and Balsam and 30th and Pearl. And I I reminded them that at the council's concept review of the East Point uh development, several council members raised the question of whether or not they could perhaps develop with cooperatives in mind for th that project. So I know I I said it was something that council has thought about and I pointed out that the Alpine and Balsam and 30th and Pearl projects are in the early sort of high level review. They're not even at concept plan stage yet. So to so that is something that council may consider, but that's some way down the road before you get to actually designing the buildings. Um there were people who suggested it should be put to a public vote. um cons the this the city should consider not licensing the restrictive HOAs and again

[226:00] that's a question of the city getting involved in enforcement of private contracts. It's not something I would recommend. Uh someone suggested we could should consider not allowing them in historic districts. There was a question are they allowed in historic districts? Yes, because we haven't restricted it. You could of course restrict it. Um someone asked whether I consider this a regulatory taking. I do not but you know taking in violation of the fifth amendment. Um there were people who who suggested that it should be limited to 1500 square feet in low density and 2,000 ft in others and uh someone suggested as you saw a letter in the paper um that there should be economic analysis of the impact which of course we have not done. So that's my summary of that meeting. Um so um I have as I said there were 25 recommended changes in the memo. I have identified these issues as one I thought you might want a little bit further discussion on tonight. And uh again, following Suzanne's suggestion, I put the harder ones last and the easier ones first. But I'm not sure there really are any easy

[227:00] ones in this discussion. And then this list is a list of ones that are there are changes where I didn't think that there that you needed any further discussion, but because I I didn't want to ask you to discuss 25 issues. And I'm not sure you even want to discuss the 10 or so that I've got up there. But of course, I I defer to council. If there's anything you want to discuss, please discuss. But my proposal is that we work off this list. And uh I've got slides for each one of these these I can go through. And as I said, there are a number of amendments on your table. So the blue ones are Matt wrote one of Matt's classic emails where he he he did a Mat and uh it took me about two hours to go through and draft this, but if you want to adopt Matt's and so also Matt's email uh had both uh there's a typo on page 406 sort of things and those I fixed and there were some substantive changes. I wouldn't recommend that you just adopt Matt's changes, but that I'm sure you all read Matt's email. Yeah, he wants a lower

[228:00] number of occupancy, but there are some things where I clearly had missed some typos in there or or some things that weren't clear that I we I would recommend fixing. And and I can walk through these if you if you'd like. Uh the pink I have made an attempt to uh to uh to to codify Mary's suggestion which was posted on the hotline over the weekend. Uh, you shall see. I think her chart should be in here. It's not. It is. It's in a different color sheet. Uh, okay. Sorry. Um, and then uh so these go together. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Um, so yeah. And it's this the the buff is supposed to go between the pink pages and then the uh green is the Andrew Shoemaker suggestion. So, I'm I'm not suggesting that you adopt any of these. Oh, and I'm sorry, there's one more. There's one I am suggesting you adopt. Um there's one that I drafted. Uh that's on the golden piece

[229:00] of paper and uh it it's it's basically um summarized in the memo. There are a few um small changes. Uh so, the first one would be that change that made it clear that rental licenses are always required. Um, and removing the listing of or the registering of vehicles. Yeah, removing the registering of vehicles. And uh there was a interesting there's a typo in the current code. You you asked me to to pick up the separation requirements from group homes and incorporated into the co-op ordinance. I did. And there's Susan Richstone called me and said, "Tom, you've got a mistake here. You call you call it an arterial collector." Well, arterials and collectors are different things. And so an arterial collector would make no sense. So a collector feeds into an arterial. The levels of streets are residential uh colle collector arterial and so there there was a typo in the current code. So this proposes fixing that by making an arterial comma a collector as a as a

[230:00] separating thing. But again those are just there for you and we can go through those in greater detail. I just wanted to walk you through what we had. So zone districts. Yeah. Can we just take another few seconds to look at the Yeah, that too. Um to look at the Yeah. Not for further discussion. Just want to look at it. Of course. Can I make a comment on this? Uh yeah. So uh Tom, just I I have no need to discuss the certification of legitimate cooperatives. I did want to just say that I thought that the changes that you made to that and the expert housing uh organization were both very good. Um, sounds like you had a productive meeting with the CU group that and they get all the credit for that. They did. Okay. Well, thank you for working with them. I thought those were spot on. Very good. Okay. Thank you. That's enough for me. All right. These are things not for Let me bring up a minor point on the things not to discuss. There's the in terms of the new definitions, you have the names for them. Yeah. in the group

[231:03] equity co-op. Isn't that always going to be a nonprofit? Yes. Can't we just call those nonprofit? Because I would like to throw that out there just because every because we have private equ every every co-op is a group. So it doesn't really explain much, but nonprofit is. And then you don't have to explain what you're talking about. They're also permanently affordable. Would you like nonprofit permanently affordable cooperatives? Okay. Bit of a mouthful, but yes. Oh, I like it. That works like fine. Um, okay. So, just in terms of process, and I should just want to make it clear for everybody out there, the goal tonight is to give a lot of direction for Tom to draft and it will go to a third reading. So, do we vote on the second reading? Um, yes, we will have to vote to move it to a third reading, but I just just maybe to point out the obvious there will this is not the final vote and we'll note that two of our members

[232:00] aren't here and so that makes it even more appropriate that this won't be the final vote. Just so everybody understands what we're doing, if it works for us to kind of straw vote at least the easy stuff as we go. Are people okay with that? Okay. And you'll you can just sort of collect them. Okay. Then our motion will kind of subsume whatever it is we kind of struggle with positive, right? And it may be that we have to vote on one of the there may be a few provisions where we split, but maybe we can agree on most everything until we get to some of the hard stuff. Okay. So like I think we just agreed to change the name, right? Does everybody to nonprofit permanently affordable? What does that finger mean? Which one was it? I wasn't pointing to you. I was just waiting to get your attention. Okay. Um, but is that a yes or is No, I agree with that. I just Well, that's the first one. Okay. I just thought before we dived all the way into this that we might just talk a little bit about what we're doing briefly. Um,

[233:00] fair enough. because I think it's important that we set the tone with everybody who's paying attention to this that at least my goal, I'll speak for myself in this process is to get us closer to something that's going to get us real functioning co-ops in this town and do it in a way that really respects the needs and desires of people within whose neighborhoods these co-ops will exist. And so we are working very hard to listen to stakeholders from kind of all perspectives around this and integrate the best of what we hear so that we can achieve both of those goals. I just think it's important that one more thing which is that we uh believe that all stakeholders who are commenting on the subject are doing so with the best of intent. We should at least assume that people are are representing their views and representing their concerns authentically and that we stay away from either making comments on other people's characters or imputing

[234:01] motives to other people and we just try and at least approach this with the assumption that the people who are talking are are talking from an authentic place. So I'm I just wanted to No, no, that's good. I it's good to do at the beginning. I was thinking we're going to do it at the end, but this is even better. I guess I would just add, I think I've said this before, but I think it's important to remember that we've been having multiple year conversations about affordability and housing. And um this is one small piece of this larger um effort that we're doing to address affordability and housing. And so we don't pretend that this is a what is it a meaningful but modest step I guess is is is I think it was Alex Bernes who said that to me and I want to give him credit for that. think that was that was a good way of of summing that up. But it's a part of a much bigger hole where we're trying to provide a variety of housing choices and price ranges per the

[235:00] direction we received as in a statistically valid poll um as being the top issue that people are wrestling with in our city. Mary. So, I would agree with both Sam and Suzanne and I would just add to that that um for myself, I'm approaching it in the spirit of compromise and um and I hope that you all um can understand that as well, both the opponents and the proponents of the cooperatives. Erin, yeah, I think Sam, you stated the overall bit very well, so I won't kind of go back over those points, but I also just wanted to to say to folks, we have gotten an extraordinary number of emails over the past uh couple of weeks. I mean, hundreds, 700, 800, thousand. I mean, just just an extraordinary number of emails. I'm proud to say I have read every single one of those emails. Um, but and that feedback is incredibly important. Um, and it has absolutely informed my thinking on the issue and

[236:00] what I will be talking about today and and the discussions that we're having tonight. And I'm sure that's true of my fellow council members as well. And I a significant number of those emails I think um have said nobody's listening to us. Um, and you know, I sympathize with the sentiment, but the fact is is that these these emails are distributed across an extremely broad array of opinions, and what we come up with is not going to represent any one of those opinions. It's not going to represent any one of our opinions. So, there's an incredible amount of listening and compromising going on here. So, if there are pieces of what we come up with, whatever we might come up with that any one of you dislikes, I'm sorry for that. Um, but it doesn't mean that we haven't listened. Um, we've listened to everyone and then our job here as elected officials is to strike that balance between all the feedback that we've gotten and the city goals as we understand them. Uh, Erin said exactly what I was going to say and and the only thing I would add is

[237:00] that Wow, exactly the same. That's pretty good. is that we do have a we have you said a little better than I could have. So, I'm I'm really actually proud of what what he just said. Um well, thank you, Bob. Right. Um yes, you said that very well. I would just note that we have an existing co-op ordinance that doesn't work and that as we try to balance these goals that Sam said so well, in the end, we need to come up with something that works. So I will I will just strike out that it put that out in the table too is we if we split anyhow that will be the goal is to make sure that we don't just end up with a whole bunch of mush. I did think of something new. Yeah. Um just to follow what you just said Suzanne I think it's also important for us to recognize that whatever we do tonight and on third reading probably won't what tonight and then later on third reading probably won't be exactly right. Just with as we did with the short-term rentals over the last year and a half. if we pass something that we thought was right and that would work and then we have to live in the world of reality.

[238:00] And so um there's a bit of an experimentation going on here because after we pass this and after co-ops become licensed, we're going to learn things. We're going to learn things about them some of the things we're going to do tonight and on third reading and we will undoubtedly want to make need to make um adjustments and changes in the coming months and years with this and um I'm pretty sure that the community is going to help us with that. Yeah, they're not shy about the sharing their opinions and so whatever we do is not the last word on co-ops. Okay. Anybody else want to hype in on that? Okay. With that, let us start it. We'll see if you're right about the easy to hard. So, uh, all zone districts except agricultural, industrial, and public. That was something we already Yeah. Are you fine with that? had some suggestions that sort of depended on zone districts, but I think but that I think that's more occupancy related. Okay. So, you're f still fine with this. Okay. Yeah. One down.

[239:00] Uh but that isn't a change, right? Just so I'm tracking. Okay. And so, one of the things that I wasn't quite clear on and I went back and rewatched the tape uh was this age limitation thing. There was a discussion. I believe Andrew suggested that we require that anybody with an equity ownership be 21 years of age or over or over 21 years of age. Uh I put that in the ordinance. I wasn't entirely clear that that's what you wanted. So that's why I have it on as an issue to make sure that that's something that you wanted or of course we could take it out. Can I ask a question? Yes, sir. Is it legal? Yeah, that was my question too. It's legal to restrict I guess because they're getting a privilege which is over occupying. Okay. All right. And and that was the notion of so the his concern was that parents would put the house in a kid's name who's as a student and not it wouldn't be a real co-op. It would just be a way for parents to sort of overload a house and that if you're going to do an equity co-op, it should be someone who's really there to participate in the equity

[240:00] market. So this is a private equity one. Yes. This would only apply to private equity one, right? Is everybody on board with that? I think I am. Okay, you might not. Okay. Well, except to the extent you can also own a small part of a rental, right? So, rentals can have owners living there too, but it would apply it would apply to them as well. Wait a minute. Say that again. So, um a rental is defined as as one that has at least twothirds of the residents uh being renters. So, you could have a third of the people who were owners who were living there renting to the other ones. basically just that a rental co-op that some people partial owners say as a rental co-op with multiple owners. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, we're good with this. I have a question. So, can that age restriction apply also to rental co-ops? I'd have to think about that. So, saying that that you had to be over 21 to be part of a rental co-op.

[241:01] Um, it does, well, I need to think about it. It doesn't have the same rational relationship that that that the other one does. And I I can usually come up with something, but I'm Well, it's it's it's still a privilege. I mean, all of these situations are articulate for me why you'd want that. That's that's the the so and and the reason I'm asking is to um address some of the concerns that we've heard about um these houses are just going to be um over occupied student rentals to address that concern. But but you know that could be it families can live with their teenagers. I don't Yeah, that's Yeah, that's I don't think we want to go there. I don't Well, I just I mean, I hear what you're saying, but I think it's okay. That's just asking. No, no, I agree. Yeah. Does anybody else that are we cool then? We're good. Sorry, I didn't mean to.

[242:00] So, the I've already discussed this one. This is the one about rental and uh you've seen the language that I have before you. You want to amend the the the with the golden piece of paper that first one? Yeah. Let's that says nothing in this chapter shall relieve any person the obligation to comply with requirements of chapter 10-3 rental licenses BRC1981. And so this Tom only applies to rental co-ops, right? In other words, if they're equity, they don't know. I guess it doesn't if they're renting to someone in the equity that rental, right? Well, so then this is just fine. I I think we should go with what's on the gold. No. So, so just if you would walk me through the process just so I am clear on this because well this would only apply to those folks that are already in. No. So, so walk me through the process then so I can Okay. So, so let let's just put the people who are already there aside for a second. I'll come back to them. Let's take the pure one which is the way we're thinking about it to operate in the future. You have a group of people that

[243:01] say six, seven, eight. Say city council wanted to live together. Yeah. Nine, nine members. That's a good number. We've got nine members of the city council who live all over the city and now want to come together and you you go we do live together here. You qualify, but this isn't allowable zone district. Um, you you qualify as a a a legitimate co-op. You get your certification. you do whatever parts of the application process you can do without having a house. So maybe you do your parking plan too uh because maybe you know that only uh Suzanne and Sam drive and so um so so you do those parts and then you you you get your preliminary certification which is allowed in the or in the ordinance. You get your prelim your your preliminary license and you go out and find a place to live, right? So maybe you go to Mark Elban and you want to rent his house because Mark's a friend and I know he's a nice guy. You all go live there. So, and and so then Mark has to go and get a rental license to rent to you. You you

[244:01] then finish up the co-op license. You you've you've got a deal with Mark. He goes and gets the rental license. You have to come back with get the inspection that's required. He has to get it, too. They can be the same inspection because it only says an inspection that happened in the last 12 months. So, you maybe you both pull and pay for one inspector to do the checklist. So, you get the inspection, you do you do the the certification for the the the carbon monoxide and the smoke detectors and everything else in the ordinance. A lot of that's going to be the same for both, but then you have two separate licenses. He's got a rental license, you've got a co-op license. Once they're both approved, you can move in. Does that make sense? Yes, that does make the question if if this band of folks goes to a landlord that is already gone through the rental license. Yes. Compliance, you say they can just use that inspection and everything else or they have to get another one as long. So, the code says it has to have been an inspection that was done

[245:00] within the last 12 months. So, if it if it's a if it's if it's an initial inspection, it's been done last. Now, remember, the renewal inspections are different than the initial ones, and that's one of Matt's clarifications. So, if they've done a renewal inspection, that's probably not good enough for the initial inspection, but if they've just gotten their rental license within the last year, then you can use theirs. Okay? And and so the second part of your question, Mary, was say that you you are a a rental co-op, I'm sorry, an equity co-op, but uh Sam and Suzanne want to rent. So, the rest of you would have to get a rental license to rent to them after they bought. So, they've already gone through the whole co-op process. They've ended up purchasing the home and qualifying as a a legitimate co-op and then they can rent to us if they get a rental license. Exactly. As long as no more than a third of the residents are renters. So, I suggested two, but out of the nine, but you could go with three. Andrew could rent two. So, uh, exactly. And and the the challenge with the existing ones is

[246:00] we're assuming that the landlord has already has a rental license because the then they're if they're not, they're in violation of law. And my guess is that they're not they're not they're not doing that. So, and the ones I've checked, they actually the ones I know of actually do have rental licenses. Again, they would have to get still go through the co-op licensing process. Um co-opers, not the co-opers. And so we would have still have to go through Yeah. Yeah. So, so, so say you were already living together and and Jane's your landlord because you're actually living here. Jane has a rental license. You don't have to do anything. You just go get your co-op license and it'll be a lot easier for you because you can do your inspection, you can do your parking plan, you can do all of your pieces because you're already living there. So, let me ask you another quick question. This is around the ICMP and what the inspection for the co-op is going to determine. So will there be so the the generally speaking um you won't be moving into a place that's being licensed in the previous year right so it will only have been renewals and so

[247:01] the co-op renters will need to get an inspection done on the structure they're going to live in and so I was curious how the ICMP which is you know defines bedrooms why you say out that acronym I can't do it international property maintenance code PMC I saying it wrong. Um, but it's also the the there are definitions in there of how big a a bedroom has to be, that there can't be egress from one bedroom through another bedroom, you can't have to go through a bedroom to access a bathroom, things of that nature. So, I I was curious, how do those things interact? Is there any assurance that the structure that say 10 people are going to move into actually has enough sleeping space legitimately for 10 people? Yes and no. So, uh the licensing inspection is is done based on a a checklist that we supply to the

[248:01] inspectors. It's done by independent third parties. I've just Googled that that you can find it on our website. anybody who's interested. Um Matt actually one of his proposed amendments was to have something that says that they have to give the city a plan to provide for legal sleeping spaces for the number of occupants that they're planning to have. And that so Sam, I think that's your if that's your question. There's nothing in the licensing checklist that says that there has to be uh that the inspector is going to know how many people are going to be in there and that there's legal sleeping spaces for them. So, if you want to do that, Matt's suggestion was to include that and I've drafted language in those proposed changes to do that. So, I I think we can bookmark that because we can come back to it. But I think that's an important question that we need to answer which is we will know once people have their preliminary uh co-op license how many people will be

[249:00] involved right at least for the initial application. So we could do that inspection that initial co-op inspection with an eye towards is this going to be safe. Yeah. Okay. So this gets a little this is where we start. I don't know. We got to think about that one because you know like when a family moves in, we don't say, you know, the house has to be legal, but you don't say, "Now tell me where everybody's sleeping." Yeah. So I'm not thinking that they'd have to tell you where they were sleeping. But what they'd have to do is say under the IPMC, you have to have I think 120 square feet in each bedroom plus 70. So you'd have to have legal bedrooms. So, if you're going to try to put 10 people in there, you'd have to have legal bedroom space that added up to allow for 10. You wouldn't have to say so and so is going to sleep here. You just have to say so that so that we'd have some assurance that they're not counting on somebody sleeping on the floor in the garage. Okay? Or in the basement or in the basement. and and and and so that's why I thought that Matt's suggestion was that we do that and that

[250:02] we not not get into where people would actually be sleeping but that there there be the capacity and then the licensing folks would have have to be able to say okay well you don't have enough square footage so your limited occupancy is going to be nine and not square footage total but square legal bedrooms of course you can always add a bedroom but it has to be legal and that one of the things that I think is the very positive about this ordinance is that we're actually getting towards the place where council's expressed a lot of concern is that there are a lot of people in sleeping in places in Boulder that are could be dangerous and so that if we can get some assurance that this ordinance is going to provide some some protection for those folks that's a major benefit. So I I would actually recommend to you Matt's change. Wait, can you point to it in this blue? It's in the yellow. Oh, it's Yeah, it's in here somewhere. Sorry. Oh, well I just If we're going to go through and say yes to things, it's nice to look at the word. It it's it's um right below the bottom.

[251:02] It's amend section 101-4 B1G, a plan showing legal bedroom spaces for all proposed residents. It's nice and easy. Works for me. It's it's it's next to the bottom right here. Yep. Got it. Okay. G Mhm. Okay. Is that is that or is everybody nodding on that? Yeah, just a process. I wonder if we should do that. Are we going to jump back and do what? Well, we're kind of smart to something different. Oh, well, since we're here, everybody cool with this? I am. Yeah. Okay. So, put that one on your list. Going back to this slide, right? Um I think how you word that is is on the everybody has to have a rental license. Um anyone renting you mean any landlord renting is required to have a

[252:00] rental license. Well also any co-op renting. Well I know but they then they're in a landlord situation. Just so we're clear. Yeah. See I see your point because I'm not sure how I wrote it in the ordinance but well maybe there could be a a just a clarifying well. So, so the language I have is nothing in this chapter shall relieve any person of the obligation to comply with the requirements of chapter 103. So, chapter 103 says if you're if you're uh allowing someone to live someplace for more than 30 days and you require and you're getting compensation, you have to get a license and then there's some exceptions for sbatical and things like that. Okay. Um I will say this, I heard from a lot of people, yeah, but it doesn't say smart rigs. And I know this means smart rigs, but I I do sometimes wonder whether we shouldn't say such as smart rags or including including including smart rigs just so that it's called out. And the other the other thing that came up they are only words. Um was in

[253:00] compliance with the IPMC. [Music] Got it. Can we just say that right? Sure. That way it's spelled out. Everybody can see it. that makes then I would suggest that it be spelled out correct because people don't know people here didn't know what it the acronym was so um I think it's important and I I liked that suggestion of Matt because um it is a egress issue it is a safety public safety issue so absolutely yeah so do we agree on that to to explicitly state requirements for smart res and that all co-ops have to follow the requirements of the IPMC. Did I get it right? The international property maintain maintenance code written out. Written out as Lisa just said. As Lisa just said. Okay. Now, is your second bullet point Tom something different? Are you are you suggesting that equity co-ops have to comply with smart rigs?

[254:01] No. Okay. Thanks. So, as I said, I kind of gave the answer quickly because it wasn't in there and then as I thought it through the the model I have for the ordinance and it it basically tracks what we do in for uh non-coops. Let me follow up on Bob's. It's 100% equity co-ops do not have to comply with smartregs, but any level of rental would have to. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. um for now. Then pretty soon we're gonna make everybody do it. All right. Parking. Go after them. Sneak preview. So So this was this came from staff. I met with our enforcement staff and they they asked, "Why do you want to get the make, model, license plate, number of cars? First, every time someone sells a car, they're going to have to do an update because we're requiring them to do 30-day updates of of anything that they change. And two, knowing which cars are supposed to be there doesn't help us with the cars that aren't supposed to be there. And as we've learned from the

[255:01] short-term rental experience, just because a car is parked there doesn't necessarily mean it's associated with the house. And it's really hard to prove that it is. And it's not somebody visiting. And it's it it's a level of intrusiveness that that uh it's an extra level of work they'll have to do. It's an extra level of work that our staff will have to do. And it produces very little benefit. So, um, this could be fine. Just tell me when someone says, "So, how will you enforce?" You would say that you've done a plan that says that you're only going to have two. The the provision in the code says that it has to remain compatible with the neighborhood. If we're getting a lot of neighbor complaints about parking, we're going to go try to work with them and figure out what that issue is and try to have them work with their neighbors to help relieve the parking issues. Um, that's that would be my plan, but having a list of license plates isn't going to help that much. And and just to be clear, one of the things that came up on the evening that Suzanne and I were um at the East

[256:00] Boulder Rec Center was the question about how will this be enforced and it will indeed be by complaint. I'm not sure that that's true. That's one of the questions that I have for you is um I I as you know I'm very proud of the model that we've used for rental licensing and that's was basically at your suggestion. You said you hire folks to do this and as you saw from the numbers I displayed the last time you talked about it the results are pretty impressive. So I I think once we finalize this we should really look at what resources we're going to devote to enforcing it and what how what level of commitment you want to make. Uh one of the questions that you asked me was come up with some sort of fee structure. Uh now we don't do 100% cost recovery on rental licensing. It's about 60 or 70%. So the general fund subsidizes rental licensing to some extent. Um this is going to be very hard to get cost recovery on this with only 10 to 14 licenses. Even if you go in the memo, I put down what we charge for conditional

[257:02] use reviews and they vary from about 500 to about $2,000 for that. And we're going to have to pick a number somewhere in there. Um, at some point we're we should address the resources we devote to enforcement and what level you want of enforcement. But that I think that's a future conversation. Although if you want to have it now. No, we don't. I know it's late. I apologize. Yeah. So is council okay? This is an amendment that's in the in the packet. So you don't have to do anything if you're okay with this. I took the liberty of doing this. Okay. Everybody okay? Okay. So this is also in the packet. Not going to do it. We're not going to do it. We're not going to collect licenses and that's the way the packet is. So you don't have to do anything. Um the neighborhood parking permit program, also known as the MPP. Uh there the the current program allows for two permits per resident and then two or three no three two week uh guest

[258:00] permits for each resident. And if you have 12 that again three three two week guest permits per year for each resident. So the challenge was if you have a co-op and you have 10 residents, that means you could have 20 NP permits and 32-E parking permits. So that didn't make any sense. So I arbitrarily said, okay, we could do three residence permits for each co-op license and six twoe guest permits. Well, it just seemed like a fair number. My assumption is that most families have three cars and I don't know whether that's right, but I've heard that's a that's a fair number. So, three resident guest permits. Um, we could make it less. I just picked numbers out of the I was wondering why you why it's not like two resident. Yeah. Why Why wouldn't we make it consistent for all co-ops across the city? Well, it it's in Well, because we don't have MPP zones everywhere. So, this

[259:00] would only be where the co-ops existing in an MPPP. I know. But why why would we allow them to have different Well, wait. Right now, the proposed ordinance says three cars. Yeah. So, this says three cars and then he just was trying to figure out what the guest permit should be, which is equivalent to adult household. I'm saying no. Wait, no guest permits? No. No. This is the neighborhood parking permit program. So, this is how you park a car on the street in certain areas of the city, right? And so we're saying co-ops have a certain number of cars, right? That's kind of negotiated as part of Yeah. It's it's two. It's three. It's three plus off street, right? Isn't that the way it is now? Three on street plus however many off street. So the idea is that you'd have permits for the three you have on street. Right. And so the challenge is the other one. Otherwise, you're saying zero on street parking. No, I'm saying three is the same. Okay, that's what this is. This is just making it the same whether they're in an MPP or whether they're in an area without an MPP. The number is still

[260:00] three. Yeah. So, you already said this. It's in the me. It's in the proposed ordinance. So, it just makes it consistent. What's the guest permit? Well, it's just if they come, you always have guest permits as part of an NPP. So, if you're a resident in an NPP, you get a certain number of guest permits so your guests can park on the street. The neighborhoods are going to say they have a lot more people living in the house. So, are they going to get a lot more guest permits which will cause more parking permit? Well, so that's why he's saying only this many. Six total for a year. Per year. So, a total of 12 weeks you would allow to have one extra car. So, that's as if three people lived in the house. Right. No, if it was three people, they'd get nine guest permits. Is that right, Tom? That's right. So, this is less than what? Three people actually much much less than Yeah. Does that make sense? So, this is a way of restricting that. Yeah. And so, I I as I said, I just came up with these numbers. They seem reasonable to me, but I want to make sure they're okay with you because we talked you talked generally

[261:00] about wanting to make sure that we did something about MPPPS because I had sort of forgotten and I I guess I didn't realize how many residential permits you got. Okay. Uh permanent affordability. Um, so this was the recommendation of you asked me to talk to Betsy Martins and uh Kurt Finebower from our our housing staff. They suggested this as uh where we should go with the affordability. Um, so the the the HUD low income level for our Boulder uh metropolitan statistical area, there's apparently a number. So they they thought the equity for for permanent affordability should be set at that. If we're going to have affordable rentals, there should be 60% of AMI. Okay. So you've confused me by having equity there. So So let's just use if we're talking about nonprofit co-ops, call them nonprofit co-ops, and I thought those were the ones we were making permanently affordable. Okay. So in that context, what does equity and rental mean? So you could have a mix. You could have

[262:01] some people who who want to own equity just like we have affordable equity ownership. So so so say we we you have a co-op and it's it's sponsored but and it's supported it's permanently affordable but if you want to buy in uh it has to be made permanently affordable to someone at the HUD lowincome level. So I thought it was owned by a nonprofit. So what do you mean by buy in? No it's it it could be supported by a nonprofit. They could Yeah. So, okay. I think So, were you thinking new? This is a new beast. That's not what I thought. Affordable would not have any equity. It would be all rental. If there's a nonprofit involved, my understanding was a nonprofit or a group of nonprofits would own 100% of the equity in the home and they would rent it out uh in a permanently affordable fashion. Is that not the way that say Chrysalis works right now? I don't know how Chrysalis works. That's not the model I built in the ordinance, but I can certainly change it if that's

[263:01] you want. That's what I thought we were doing. Yeah. I'm just looking at the definition. The currently it says the group equity or uh nonprofit affordable housing cooperative means a cooperative in which a majority ownership interest is held by a nonprofit organization with a housing focused mission. Okay. By that definition, they could own a majority, but they could sell 40% or something like that to interested. This is a pure policy question. So, um I'm curious if that would ever happen. Um well, I think we there were examples before, for example, a a prior mayor who some of the people had ownership. So, I think we should allow some flexibility for people to buy in. I don't know there was a nonprofit component before it was maybe maybe it wasn't nonprofit but I I thought that you be you're either equity or you become owned by a nonprofit. I know I don't know anybody that's like havsies. Um but we don't have very many. So

[264:00] well I mean would you want to prevent it if someone Well, no, but it's complicating things. If it's not realistic, we don't need it. Tom, where's the permanent affordability? How does that play in the ordinance? I'm forgetting where that comes in. Um, it's I think it's it's in section 1013 if I'm not mistaken. A second. Yeah, it's 1013E. Um, and I'll I can pull it up on the page if you give me a second. Wait, which one are you looking at? It's it's in the Yeah, it says um it's of the agenda of the total packet is page 406 at the top. Okay. So, I mean that this which does state any group equity cooperative shall be permanently affordable which would mean that any resident would have to qualify. Right. So, well, it's the way we've we've

[265:01] drafted and this again was the recommendation of the housing folks that it be based on individual households. So it's households uh income or households affordability to the household not to an exability to an individual but an individual of course can be a household. So the price of any equity ownership interest shall be affordable to a household's earning no more than so so an equity ownership so that restricts what the ownership stake can be sold for. So if you're what what does that mean if you're selling a 10% stake? So, you got a nonprofit that owns 60% and you're going to sell 10% to uh a couple that wants to move in and they have uh a qualif they have a certain qualification. How are you going to determine what they should pay for that 10%? So, the just like in our affordable housing program, the nonforprofit's going to have to subsidize that purchase in. But what if they wanted 5% instead of 10%.

[266:00] How how are you going to how are you going to take whole value of the house. I mean, how you how do you decide what they're buying into? What fraction of the overall I kind of agree with Xan on this one. I'm I'm not sure that we should have private ownership because then it's got to be deed restricted, permanently affordable as well, so they can only appreciate at whatever the deed restriction rate is. So, so should we change the definition to be 100% owned by a not for-profit? I'm I'm going there. I this is something that and that's why that's why I drafted this way because it there was a gap and and if we I I feel like if we get concrete proposals after a year or two from you know nonprofits that want to come up with a different model we could tweak that later. I just wasn't sure how you apply this HUD limit if it's 5% or 10% or 15% are you going to how do you figure out what it gets it gets really complicated. So it's not based on the percentage it's based on what they can afford. So so the

[267:00] the idea Okay. So, it's based on what they could afford. So, they qualify to pay um the $20,000 down payment. Okay. So, their couple does um so if they qualify to pay the $20,000 down payment and they pay the $20,000 down payment, they get the right to have a bedroom and they get a certain fraction of the ownership. Yes. And and then so then they have equity ownership. It's it's deed restricted. It can't go up much, but they have something they can sell when they leave. And there's a modest increase as there is with our affordable housing program. Okay. I cannot believe this is gonna happen. Um well, it already does happen. Where's Where's a co-op owned partly by a nonprofit and partly by equity owners? Do you think that's going to happen? That seems unlikely. Weird hybrid. It seems It seems unlikely. So is what I'm hearing is make this 100% owned by the nonforprofit and rental only. Yeah, I think so for now. Okay.

[268:01] And then isn't there a rule that goes with if city funds are used to help the affordability piece? Isn't that automatic? Isn't there a or we set that? We're just saying these have to be those all have to be deed restricted permanently affordable. I know. So at what AMI is that? Is that is it just an do we have to set it in the statute or is it just automatic? I don't know. That's what HUD's affordability is 36 30 to 60. Well, if if we make it 100% requirement to have 100% owned by the nonprofit, then the only thing that matters is the rents and then that would be 60% of AMI. It does. I agree with that. But at the same time, the nonprofit may sell someday or dissolve and go out of business. And so do we also have the deed restricted permanently affordable uh on the rate that that home can appreciate so that when it's sold in the future that it has been permanently affordable from both the ownership perspective and from the rental perspective. So there isn't a windfall. I mean I but you're talking about a a nonprofit. I mean like I mean you know

[269:02] one of the um things that the um housing nonprofits do is that they do own some properties that are equated and then they sell them and make a profit and then they roll that into you know a property where they're providing affordable housing to other people. I wouldn't try to lock that down for a nonprofit ownership. Okay. Okay. Well, I can let it go for now, but there's an interesting debate to be had around that as well, which is like that's a piece of housing stock that you've given this over occupancy privilege to, and then you would like that for that privilege to be permanently affordable to other people later. But we So, and on top of that, they won't be paying any property taxes. So, there's that other additional benefit that they're getting. So, it it is we can put it aside for now, but Okay. I I will talk to our housing folks and put more information in the the third reading memo on this to see if I can help some. I I think this is going to be the hardest one to build. So, I don't know that we're going to have a lot of applications right out of the box for this.

[270:00] I want to apologize that I didn't catch this subtlety. Um this was an important one. Yeah. Yeah. Wait, what do you what do you mean the hardest one to build? Well, I think that that you that the easiest ones are going to be the rentals and the next one will be the equities, but finding a not for-p profofit who's going to be willing to invest and go through all of this is going to probably be the heaviest lift. That that I mean, not based on any experience. Just just thinking, well, just that the three three ones we have are owned by nonprofits who they've created one every like eight years since. Well, I know. I think it was a pretty heavy lift and it didn't use our co-op code. Well, okay. Anyway, I think that's because it wasn't able to I know from the staff position it was really hard. So, well, I know that's why we're redoing our co-op ordinance because I think part of it was we made it too hard on this end. Yeah. Okay. Are we good on this? Yeah. No, no, no, no. I have one more question. So, it's my understanding that um the current permanently affordable co-ops do

[271:00] allow um make room for section 8 vouchers. And I'm wondering um what it would take for rental co-ops to allow for section 8 vouchers. I don't know. I mean, it's a good question. I can find out. Yeah, I' I'd be interested in that. I mean, we raise it with the mobile home parks and different places not accepting section 8. Yeah. Well, I get Mike Mike, if I start to think about it, it seems like that would be um the renter that the that the co-op is renting from would need to allow the section 8 the landlord. The landlord, I mean, yeah, the landlord. Okay. So, let's put that one on the list of think it can happen now, but if it can't, then we should maybe want to make it okay. Possible. Yeah. So, number of licenses. Uh just confirming what you said, total of 14 10 plus two in two in in any category where

[272:00] there aren't a minimum of of two. Okay. Uh so I want to throw an idea out there. Um one of the things that we've been hearing from um co-op advocates is that um there aren't going to be that many. So I would like to throw out the idea of doing it 10 the first year to take care of perhaps pent-up demand and then five every year thereafter. Yeah. Right. I mean, I assume there's going to be co-ops that are functioning as co-ops right now and want to become legal and and that was what it was initially. Mhm. Right. Well, it was five of each type initially. Well, yeah, five of each type so we could go back to five of each type.

[273:00] Why? What's the motivation to just to help me understand what you're to address concerns about um it growing at too rapid a rate? Five of each type could conceivably be 15 in a year. No, she's saying five rentals a year of all types. No, she said five of each type when I asked her for clarification. So, do you mean five? Five rentals? Five? Well, right now we're we're allowing for up to 10 rentals. 10 of any kind. plus well let's talk about that I mean I'm just saying 10 the first year of um rentals and then five rentals every year thereafter and we can talk about the other ones and so if I can just ask you about this um so on this year you have a maximum of 14 so four of them would not be rental is that correct if we got to 14 if we got to 14

[274:00] if we to 14. Yeah. The whole idea I think for going to 10 to 14 was because we assumed that the demand would be for rental and so that would be to allow for the other two types. Um so what would you do in following years, subsequent years? Five of each type or five rentals. That's what we that's what we said initially. So we could we could go back to five, five and five just the way we started out and then the first year would be the 10. I'd just like to do a little bit of math. There's 46,000 units of housing in the city and so five is 1/100th of 1% of that. So it would take 100 years to get to 1% at five per year. So I I would keep it at 10. It would only take 50 years then. 10 in total. Oh, you mean as I would I would keep it alone, right?

[275:00] One one thing is um I think Matt brought up suns setting or something. I'm not sure that we should do something like that, but I I think is your mic on Ch. Yeah, I don't think you are. Sorry. Could we do something, you know, say there is a pilot for the first three years that limits it to 10 like this and then have a a real review at the end. Um cuz that's one thing that a lot of the neighbors want is to have a chance to review and I know the the co-opers really want that too. They're working very very hard to build those relationships with their neighbors and um you know I wonder if there would be a time I don't think we should sunset cuz to go through this all again would be um very painful I think. Well and and we don't have to um a pilot if you will if we did that. we wouldn't have to run it for the equity types and the non um profit permanently affordable because those

[276:01] it's a different situation. So if we said 10 per year and I think what we were doing with the plus two was just if uh that was to break it up when the original we had five five and five but to to say look we got all 10 rental and we didn't have any equity then a way to get a couple equities in there. um because I think we all want to balance this and so if we had a real time of review of it after 3 years to just see what have we learned and of course we don't want to wait three years to make all kinds of changes but um and then at that point maybe we decide on on fewer or more per year so I guess my thinking is we have in here already this notion of an annual I mean not the notion a provision requiring an annual reporting each year. And I think realistically, just like on short-term rentals, the next council, I guess it's us for

[277:00] another year, but we'll revisit it if there's issues and we'll have this report annually to prompt reflection. And I think we I think honestly I think that's sufficient. So, I guess if my opinion is is let's let's go with this and we know if if we as soon as if we come up if we end up with an outcome we don't like, we'll jump right in because that's what we do. And can I follow up on that because I'm in exactly the same place you are. We did it with short-term rentals. So, we've shown that as a council, we're we're willing to be responsive. There's a lot more short-term rentals in town than there will be co-ops by the end of next year. And as Andrew has pointed out, in the case of rental co-ops, if there's a real problem, it's the easiest license to pull, right? It's a lot harder to pull an equity or a nonprofit because that's essentially a property, right? And it's indefinite. Whereas rentals we expect to be more transient um and change over time. They might last 5 years or 10 years and then maybe they

[278:00] disband. So, I guess I'm willing to try this because a year from now, we may have as many as 14, which is about a tenth as many short-term rentals or less than we've got. So, I'm comfortable giving this a try, particularly since I think rental will be the the number one draw here. Yeah. And I'm good with that as well. I And I agree. I mean, Jen, with your point about a review, I think we absolutely want to have the intention of revisiting to tweak any issues that came up come up and I think the model with short-term rentals has been very successful and, you know, like didn't did we sneak in one small change early and then we did a little bit more of a review after, you know, a little longer and that that model I think is very successful. So, I think we absolutely should apply it um here. So, I'm um I want to make sure I think we should express that intention very clearly. I I want to throw in one more thing. We did put that in the legislative intent. I believe that that we um want to review this um relatively frequently. Is is that in

[279:00] I'm not sure it's in there, but we can put it in. We we should I think we just had the the one year and the the one-year report. So that that's that's we did I did add a sentence. It says the C city council intends to monitor the implication effects and results of this ordinance. I thought I Yeah. Yeah. So, and I think it's up to that's up front us to do that. The legislative the legislative intent. Okay. Okay. Are we are we good with this then? Or shall I say can we move on? Yes. Okay. We're moving on. Uh allow existing cooperatives. Well, this is the issue I discussed earlier. I don't know if you need any further discussion. Um, this is just saying that if you're there, if you're there as of today and you can prove it, then you can stay without vacating. Just to clarify, only if you apply and are found to be a legitimate cooperative under all the provisions of the ordinance. So, there's no grandfathering like you said. The only intent is that we're not going to make people vacate to go apply for a license. Okay. House size limitation. We're

[280:00] getting towards the big three. So for sure I want to support the 2,000 foot minimum. Rationale for that was it's about half of the single family dwellings which are reserved for starter family homes and and uh uh medium income. I'd be willing to talk about what it applies to. I for sure want it to apply to rental. I don't know if people have other opinions, but I guess if we only apply it to rental and we get some smaller equity co-ops, that might be fine. Yeah, I absolutely agree because you I think you're entirely likely to get, you know, four to six person equity co-ops that would work very well in like a,200 foot house in particular the senior type. Yeah, exactly. So, folks good with this Okay. Okay. All right. Occupancy limits. There

[281:02] were a lot there's a lot of discussion. We can skip this part. Yeah. Uh so one of the things I want to make clear is that the way I drafted it uh was that it's the total number of occupants. It's not unrelated. Adult occupants. All occupants. It includes children. Okay. So it's 15 human beings is the maximum that you can have in a high density zone. 12 in a lower density zone. So I always wondered about this. So say you have a family of six related people and then they have one tenant. Are there seven unrelated people in that that space? Well that would be a rumor. So no that would be a what? A rumor. Is that is that a defined term? Yeah. We are allowed up to two rumors. Oh a border. Oh, and border not ruin spreading rumors brief process suggestion here. Okay, we there's going to be another one. Maybe it's on here. Maybe it's not, but it's square feet per person. So, do you have a square foot per person? Okay.

[282:00] No, this is it. This is we talk about what is your last one? Did you have one more? Yeah. A separation. Okay. Yes. And that Wait, these are the last two. I think so. Yep. Wait, let's draw this out. Okay. Okay. Well, I you may be speaking too soon. I know. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to keep it light. Okay. Who wanted to speak to this? Sam, go ahead. Well, um, so in a lot of discussions in the community, it's there's been a lot of um points made that one of the big things that determines the impact or the feel of impact is how many people per square foot in a home. And we had had that historically when we started this discussion, it was like a density issue. How many people per square foot? And so I guess from my standpoint, I would like to bring that concept back. It's not from me. I've heard it from many other people. So I think that would be one way

[283:02] to approach this would be uh density and a cap. Um and so I'm not going to throw out a number yet. I'd rather just hear what people are thinking. Um if if there's agreement on that and yes I'm sorry we had a line Aaron very well I'll just say I mean I'm I'm open to exploring that and we've certainly one one of the things that we've heard from many many people is the oh my god you're going to have 12 people in a 2T house how are you possibly going to cram all that in so I'm I'm open to a reasonable per square footage per person uh control as as well. Mary, so yeah, that I think that was one of the the things that we I don't really recall how it dropped out, but we were talking about that in the beginning. And um and I think that setting the 2,000 square ft minimum and

[284:03] a 12 to 15 occupancy immediately equated 12 occupants to 2,000 square ft. So, um, so I would like to throw out there what I sent out in the, um, the table on the hotline, which was, um, the first the, the first table, the one that went out on Friday. It's on your buff piece. And then today, I sent one out that was looking at it from the standpoint of the square footage of a lot size. So there's there's two ways that we can approach it. We can appro approach it by um square feet based on um number of people per square foot of lot size or number of square feet per um floor area within the house. Um the

[285:01] lot size option would address um concerns that folks have in in small lots. Lot there's there's lots of areas of town that have really small non-standard lots. So that um that approach could address those concerns. Um or we could do it a hybrid where we take a portion of um the zones that are done by lot size so that so so that anything below 7,000 square ft is done by lot size area. Um I I was thinking eight um in the RL1 RL2 and that's a number that um folks have that I've heard was acceptable to neighborhood folks. I know it's not acce

[286:00] acceptable to co-op folks, but um I just did a little asking around um and spoke to um someone who is a realer and also has a bunch of rentals in town and he was saying that right now um a house um in um it depends where it is, but like a round of $625,000 house would depending on neighborhood rent at about $2,700 a month. So, um and that a mortgage with a 10% down for that same house would be about $3500 a month. So if you divide um if you look at it from the standpoint of

[287:00] um covering a mortgage, the number of people renting to cover a mortgage, you could cover it by renting to eight people um as well as the rent being at $2,700, which would probably go up. So it would be kind of a wash um with investors. Um so that's I just have to ask with that if do you mind if I just the with the hypothetical example if you're limiting um uh us to or if you're limiting the pool to houses over 2,000 square feet. Are there any that are $625,000 in this town or or very many? I mean our median home price is climbing towards a million. So I I don't know that. Well, that was just a a a hypothetical that got thrown out. So just we can increase it and um and still even if you divide 8 into um

[288:00] 4,000, that's 500 per person and that's still pretty affordable. And so, um, I understand that that some of the issues with how the workings of a co-op and the chores and how all of that works may not work with eight people. Um, I don't know. It works with less and other kind of situations, the division of labor. So, um, I'm throwing that out there as eight. I think that eight would um take a lot of the the friction with neighborhoods um address a lot of those concerns. So Miriam, I'm a little confused because you have the one that we have on the table here which has eight, but then today when you consider lot size, you suggested six. No, for RL1, RL2, at least that's No, that was for for non-standard um lot

[289:01] sizes. So, for a standard lot size in RL1, which is 7,000 square ft. So, if you divide that by 8, you get 875. So, if you So, so for a standard lot, you would have eight people. If it is any smaller, you start to reduce the number of people. And if it's any larger, you can add more people up to um 10,000, which caps out at 16. So, okay. So, we can I make some comment. Well, Bob's next. Okay. You can get you can go after him. Um let me just kind of follow up with you, Mary. Um um what's the re reason? So, basically, forget about lot size and it sounds like we'll get in that to a second and forget about the cap, but just looking at your occupancy per square foot, you've got um two categories. are the RRS and the RES at 400 um square feet per person minimum and then the rest of them all the RL's and

[290:01] the mediums and the highs at 250. Mhm. What's the um again setting aside lot size, what's the rationale for re for example, I live in an RE neighborhood, but it's just as dense as I can tell you as an as an RL or even medium, we're pretty much on top of each other. What's the what's the rationale for 400 feet in an RE and 250 in an RL? What's what's the what's the um human social reason that we would advocate for that? Yeah, hang on. don't have it or is that I have like two computers here. Bob, are you reading from the sheet? I'm reading from this sheet. So, Mary, it's this one. Yeah. Yeah. But it doesn't have the rationale on it. Oh, yeah. Sorry. Oh, on the de people are used to people are used to fewer people in those

[291:01] areas. But if you do it, this changes when you do it by lot size because when you do it by lot size, um then you can have more people because you have more spacing in between the people, right? Yeah. I was just reacting to the the the square footage per per house the people per square footage. So are you moving on the lot size then? Is that your advocate? Well, I'm just I'm proposing two options. Okay. that we can talk about. And the and the eight is based on the group home um ordinance and there are tons of them and there are um actually two group homes not very far from me um that seem to function quite well. Um so there's a precedent and there's a rationale behind the eight. Um if you think about the occupancy limit of four in the the higher density zones currently that's twice as much as that. So, um it's certainly a compromise on

[292:04] the number of folks and um and I, you know, again, I think that it would um relieve a lot of the the friction that a lot of the concerns that we're, let's put it this way, if we had made it eight, we probably would have gotten about a quarter as many emails. So, Lisa, so I basically agree with Mary. Um, as I said at our last meeting, um, I think this occupancy of 12 and 15, it feels like they're just numbers that are pulled out of somebody's hat and we have no precedent really for them. And we do have group homes and I think the group homes have been in Boulder for several decades and they have worked and it has a good model where it's, you know, the city manager approves eight and if

[293:02] there's a demonstrated need or whatever, the city manager is allowed to add an additional two to that. I think the reaction we've gotten from people who have a really hard time with what's on the table right now is because I think 12 and 15 are extreme for low density neighborhoods and I think people feel very threatened. We got a really good email this afternoon and um this person who I don't know, she basically said, "Why don't you do something moderate that, you know, tries it out and isn't at such an extreme um level that people would be more open to considering it. And we started right out of the box at 12 and 15." And people feel really

[294:01] um insecure about that and really affected. And from my perspective, we're supposed to listen to both sides. People gave eloquent things about trying to um listen on both sides and not everybody's going to get their their way. But I think eight occupants is a lot. And um and I don't think co-ops are terrible, but I think there's a way to start this out where we try at a lower occupancy level. Um and I really appreciate what Mary's tried to do in looking at um lot size and also um what is this? Uh square foot. So, and so I guess I would ask that we really reconsider our occupancy limits and bring them down to something that's more palatable for a larger variet larger

[295:02] segment of our community which would put it somewhere between eight and in the low density neighborhoods. So I would add that if I could just add one more point that a lot of the folks that wrote in I mean they they kind of focused on these last two items is the the separation and the occupancy and those were the variables that seem to kind of um um I don't I don't want to you I don't Yeah, it's the crux of the matter and and people a lot of people wrote in and said either either increase the separation or lower the occupancy. So those were the variables that people were most um um aroused by. Um so okay so let let's I I want to jump in and say um so I

[296:02] appreciate this conversation because I do think this is the crux of the matter. I will say that um I think adding the square footage per person is kind of where we started out with and somewhere along the line we got away from it. Any I think we need to go back to it. And I do think adding in a square foot per person um obviously means then you scale up with as the side of the size of the house gets bigger which is intuitively an obvious thing to do. So anyhow I definitely like that principle. I think we should add that in there. And then if you have a 2,000 ft house, you don't hit the 12 person cap depending on what you set your square footage at. But anyhow, so it puts things back in scale. So I I definitely uh support that. I just I will say this that I do think what we want to encourage is real co-ops. We talked about that. That are functional and will last and will be uh entities that can

[297:00] flourish. And so it is my understanding, it is my experience that we want to um the reason for the caps is in bigger houses in the right places, you want to have larger co-ops u with more people. And I do think that you want me to I think there's an economy of scale certainly around affordability, but also when you have a dozen people, 16 people, I'm thinking of Masala Co-op, which I lived just right down the street for 10 years. you're more likely to have a carpenter or a gardener or an accountant or you have a diversity of skills um that help create this self-sufficient microcosm. So, I do think we want to um help make sure that we end up with the opportunity for real co-ops that are going to be successful. So, I think that that's our goal and of course trying to figure out what the sweet spot is. But that's why I think the reason why you want higher, you want to allow for the larger ones to happen. Um, so I'll throw

[298:02] that in, Erin. Jim. Yeah, Z, I absolutely agree with you. This is well put. The and and I, like I said before, I think bringing back the square footage per person is a good control to have on it. Um, but just the point that I wanted to make in addition to what you were saying is that when people think, well, 12 people in the house, like that's outrageous and they think about that and they can't even conceive of it and that we get a lot of emails about that. And I think the reason for that is because there really are not that many people who are interested in living in a house with 12 people. Um, it's a it's a strongly flavored thing. It's that's not an over occupied student rental. It's if you have a functional legitimate um housing cooperative that works communally, shares tasks, shares shares resources, you're really talking about a limited number of people. I I realize that that's not going to make uh be a final assurance for a lot of people out there, but I just want to make that point that this is not something that um thousands of people are going to be rushing to do, but I think it's an important option for

[299:00] the people that it appeals to, and I'd like to keep it open. Yeah. So, um I I want to uh let me start with an example. So, we have an $800,000 home that has a 30-year mortgage on it. The monthly mortgage is $3,800 a month. That's what it costs. So, if that home were 2500 square ft um and we had a limit of say 250 square feet per person, that would be 10 people in that home. That would mean that the mortgage share for each occupant of the home would be $380 and then they would have their share of utilities and other expenses. So, I can't tell you exactly what AMI that is. Some people here probably could, but that seems to me to strike some kind of reasonable balance between affordability, which is one of the goals that we're talking about here, and 10 people and say an RL district. So, I'm

[300:00] thinking about this in RL single family dwelling that's um that costs near the median for what single family dwellings do in Boulder. Um so, I guess I'll put out a bid for 250 square ft per person in RL and a cap of 10. Now, the question that will arise, and I think it's the only one, is is 10 too many? And so for me, I think 10 would probably be okay if they're good neighbors in a 2500 foot home, provided it could safely house them. The only thing that would make that harder to take as a neighbor would be if you had a small lot. Okay? The smaller the lot is, the closer you're going to be in proximity to people who are um making their phone calls outside or having a cigarette or a beer with a neighbor or whatever. You will be impacted more by the noise um and the traffic that's generated. So, I would take this proposal for RL and I would say if the lot size is smaller than the

[301:00] um standard lot size of 7,000 square ft, you scale down the cap by how much smaller the lot is than 7,000 square ft. And I'm kind of doing this in the name of simplicity because I would do a similar set of things for the medium and high zones. I would set a different cap. I would set a different square footage per person. And I would just scale that with the lot size as well. Oh, you have you have thoughts? I just don't want to interrupt, but I'm setting aside the lot side adjustment because we can come back to that. Do you have some thoughts on what the medium and high would be both as to square footage and and um caps? Uh I would go to 200 uh square feet per person and 12 person cap. And the one thing I would add in in medium and medium and high. And so the one thing that I would add to this discussion is that I hope that we can have a provision where the city manager can approve something uh at either a different square foot per person or a different cap if there is a exceptional

[302:00] opportunity that arises. So something like Masala, Crystalix or Oara um those qualified I think under boarding house kinds of um conditions. But say there were something like those that became available. I would want us to have a relief valve where, you know, if it's a really big house, you know, an 8,000 foot home on a standard size or can't be on standard size, but on a big lot that um the city manager could take a look at that and see if it made sense. But that process then could be called up by the planning board or council if there were a neighbor outcry around that. So there there's a proposal. It's a different proposal. Well, so the the other thing that we could look at for the smaller lots is go to the the table that I sent out today where I don't know if any of you have it up, but that factor can be that factor is based on 7,000 divided by 8. So what's in there right now 875 is 7,000 divided by 8. So per Sam's

[303:02] proposal, you could start with 7,000 divided by 10, which would give you 700. It's the same basic thing. Yeah. Yeah. And then for smaller lots it would scale down. For 6,000 it would be eight people. 5,000 it would be seven. So on so forth. I hear where you guys are coming from. the the problem that I know in the past that made it difficult to have more and misal is finding well there were a lot of I think impediments in the existing ordinance but it's the opportunity and I think if you look at if we start layering on different requirements we're we're just narrowing narrowing narrowing the opportunities and so Um, so we could start this way, Suzanne. We could start this way and then we're going to be in the legislative intent. We've got the promise to monitor it. If

[304:02] something like that came up, we have a basis from which to say here's an opportunity and review it and what can we do? Well, but I guess don't we want to start with the um I guess I would want certainly in um we can argue about the RL one and two zones, but it seems to me we want to allow for large co-ops um certainly in medium and density if appropriate and not assume that we're going to make them go through a process um just to hit, you know, right now we have 15 or 16. What what's wrong with I mean I think 12 is a pretty reasonable I'm sorry Bob it's your turn. I was just going to actually agree with you if I can interrupt and agree with you. Um I want to come back to the caps and the lot adjustments because those are kind of interesting discussions but I we're kind of trying to do about three or four things at once here. So I want to kind of try to do them one at a time. I know they relate but but but maybe we if we can zero in on one thing then it maybe helps us get to the next one. So I I want to agree with you actually on the

[305:01] 200250 are stated differently. The 250 in in the in the low density and the 200 in the medium high. I think that's a those are good numbers based on what I've seen here based upon what our what our housing mix is in the community. It just feels to me like a good number. I want to talk about the cap and whether there's adjustments to the cap. But I I just want to go out and voice at least for that point. Thank you. Um actually why don't we just pause there um and just have people riff on that. Um I I can work with those numbers. I mean that although they play together for me. So um so the um I mean I I I think I um I would really like to see the uh cap of 12 in the the lower density districts. But I am open to the idea of scaling it down as for smaller lot sizes. So I know you told me Rick on one thing, but to me they kind of they pull okay they pull together. But the 200 250 I think that's in the right ballpark. And that I I'll just weigh that. I'll

[306:01] weigh in. How I know you have a your chart is a little bit more complicated than that. Jan. Yeah. I think the square footage is about how can the co-opers make it work financially and make sure that it's feasible for them to to, you know, get enough people in a house that they can pay for it. And then when we talk about the distance, that's more about how many houses they can find. And that would have to do with the caps as well. So yeah, I think we're in the ballpark. Okay. in. Okay. So, not for you and not for you. Okay. But that at least gives us Okay. Did you want to then move to the next? I mean, you said they're interrelated. So, Well, I think Aaron did, but I I I actually agree with Aaron that I think we need to be in the more in the direction of of 12 um in low density.

[307:01] The cap. The cap. Yeah. So that means the cap you wouldn't hit that till you're at a 2500T house. We don't happen to have the No, that'd be 3,000 foot house. Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. You're right. 2 in low density. 250. Yes. Yes. Into 3,000. So yeah. Yeah. It' be eight people in a 2,000 foot house and 12 in a 3,000. Assuming you can sleep people safely. Correct. We don't have the bell curve of the housing sizes, do we? Yeah. Well, it's half half at 2,00. Um, so as you go higher, I mean it starts I mean is it a I have this in the upper corner here. I don't have it doesn't doesn't break it down. Let's see if I can pull it up. It was we had it before. It got to be about the 85 90 percentile at 3,000 ft. Yeah. Residential building sizes. So I do have it here. I can tell you as a fraction what how many are there. So, here's the there's the curve of house

[308:02] sizes in Berlin. Can you can you just quickly Can you email me it to me? I can put it up on the screen. Take a screen. That'll help. I'll email it to Tom. Hang on. Won't you email it to all of us? Okay. I'll email it to council. Then everybody's going to have it tomorrow morning when they get in to work. We won't be able to find it among the hundreds of emails. What's that? All right. What's it called? So, we can search for it. Right. Was trying to look something up then. And I know we did the at the last meeting we had we had majority support including Matt and Sam. I'm not Sam's here. Matt and Andrew. I can't believe you just did that. See, it's not just me. You guys look so much alike. It's like you're like injury without the beard.

[309:01] Okay. So, where are we? Um, so Tom, I just sent it to you. I did forgot to do council. So, you can forward it to council. And it's going out right now. Come on. Go out. There it is. It's not quite gone yet. Well, while we're waiting for that, I just want to observe um um something that's kind of interesting. This chart that we all have on our desks, the upper leftand corner says residential unit size. If you look at um what the staff has done is they've taken and broken the house sizes up um into four categories of size. And if you look at 2,000 ft or larger, um we've got about um roughly 11,000 units at 2,000 ft or larger, but 9,000 of those 11,000 units or about 80% are in low density. So, I guess the

[310:00] point I'm trying to make is is we're probably not going to end up with a whole lot of co-ops in in in um medium and high density. And so I I want to talk I think we should spend a lot of our time about the cap and the low density because the rest of it kind of will follow. I'm not I'm not sure it's going to matter a whole lot. So So I'll point out that in Matt's email he suggested a cap of 10 for rentals. Okay. Okay. And uh so I think he might be at 10 uh rather than 12 because he said 12 for equity. Um and I can go along with that. But I will also point out that as I said before for affordability an $800,000 home um that's 2500 square f feet that would be 10 is $380 for the mortgage part. Um and then I've you know you can assume utilities will be another 50 or so on top of that. So you're talking about a rent of $420 which is significantly less than market rate rents in this town. Um, so I guess I don't feel like a cap of 10 really dooms

[311:01] affordability from that, you know, policy standpoint. So 12 is a little bit better. It's 20% better, right? So what's that mean? That's another $40 off the rent or something, but no more. Although you have to get to 3,000 ft to get to you have to get 3,000 ft to get to 12, in which case the value of the house is higher, has gone up, right? the affordability. So, I think it's somewhat self adjusting, I guess, is the point I'm making as far as affordability. I think you're right. Yeah. Yeah. So, I I I look at this as less of an affordability issue and more of a impact issue, which is how many people do you want living next to you, right? And lot size, I think, has as much to do with that in a sense. So, you could have a 3,00 or 2500 square foot on the same footprint and one would have 10 and one would have 12. And so the impact on the neighbors goes up by 20% as you go back up to 12. Um from 10. So as the house got bigger. Um so I guess just a matter of do people

[312:01] spend more time inside one way or the other. You started to float a proposal where where you said, you know, based it off the standard lot size of 7,000 ft and I think you the number you had was 10. Could the adjustment go either direction? Could it go down or up? I mean that's what kind of Mary's chart does. It does. I was thinking it would just go down for the beginning and we would see how it worked. Um because down for the beginning in the first stages when we passed this in an abundance of caution, it would just be you would scale down if the lot size was below 7,000 square feet. So you would scale the cap down if you had people closer together. And how are you proposing are you proposing to scale it the way it's done for for this chart? It is, but you don't have the 8,000, 9,000, and 10,000, right? No. So, you would just do it from here down. Correct. Yeah. But then you end up with Yeah. So, you're going to have no no can I say robust co-ops.

[313:02] The opportunity for that is significantly limited given that the vast majority of the housing stock is in low density. And um if you're starting with a lower cap and you're going down from there. Yeah. But it's only it's only small lots. There's not that many of the small sub 7,000 foot lots like up on the hill um on 9inth Street. There's Grove has a lot. There's some Do we have a We don't have a distribution of lot size, do we? I had I had a version of that. Um so you I mean most of them are 7,000 um square feet. they but there's a significant number that are smaller and a small amount that are larger. The um I mean I think what Zan says I mean we're when as you start to add um more and more limitations you just um you get fewer and fewer opportunities to actually create a a functional um cooperative house. And so I, you know, with the

[314:01] 2,000 foot minimum and and then a cap of 10 and then separation requirements and um you know um and particularly if you're scaling down on lot size uh you're getting a smaller and smaller subset and I just we're um we're going to a great deal of effort um to make this happen. And I would I just want to make sure that we create something that's functional. Um and uh like I said before, I don't think there's a demand for hundreds of these. So, but the ones we want to be able to create um solid functional ones. So, if I might point out um because Bob did some math like this before that I thought was pretty interesting. Um if we get to 50 co-ops, 50 rental co-ops, that's 2% of the 22,000 single family dwellings. So, it doesn't have to be very many. you know, if we've taken some small lots off the table, maybe that's an appropriate thing to do, especially when we're getting started because you won't need

[315:00] many opportunities to be able to make this function. So, I I think we're horse trading now and I think we're we're horse trading between 10 and 12. It sounds like we have some consensus on square foot per person. Does that sound So, Sam, are you saying to take anything below a 7,000 foot lot off the table? Is that what you're saying? No. I think we're we're talking about the caps at the moment and the distinction between will capping it at 10 take too many homes off the market and it doesn't take any homes off the market on the basis of a home size. No, no, no. And for me, the the 10 is more about creating a functional organization. So the it's it's about, you know, being able to have have a functional Yeah. the I you're you're sorry it's getting late. Um a good co-op. So that so it's less about restricting the number of houses and more about okay whether you're able to make them happen. But many co-ops in single family dwellings if you look at the number of

[316:01] people with one exception I think most are 10 or below. Now people here can shake their head or say no but um I I saw some that were eight several that were eight. So I guess I don't know if that really does do that or not. I mean that's just something that we have to see. Um, I know that that's an assertion. Sam, I think I could live with a with a lower cap if if the um if the the lot size adjustment went both ways because I'm I'm envisioning the 3,000t house sitting on the 10,000t lot, you know, and to back to Zan's point, that calls for a robust co-op. And that's where I could get comfortable going up to 12 because because 250 to 3,000. I could go there. I could easily go there. We could do the lot size adjustment both directions um and have a square foot per person and the cap and the cap can go up or down. But the which is kind of like what Mary did except for maybe slightly different numbers. Well, I would put it also depends on

[317:00] where you put the cap. So if the cap is um if the cap is 12 for a 7,000 foot lot and you go down from there, I think Sam was suggesting going up or down, but 7,000 would be 10 cap of 10 in RL, right? So, we're talking RL. We haven't got to the So, so for example, I'm not sure if I'm agree I'm going to agree with what I'm about to say, but you could you could um you could take Mary's chart basically and do a PL add two to the maximum occupants. So, 7,000 would be 10, Sam, and 8,000 would be 11 and 9,000 would be 12. Something like that. I don't know if those are the right numbers, but that's kind of concept. So, it's basically saying we we do 10. That's the standard which your most homes are going to be next to each other at and we're saying for now in RL um we're doing this because we've heard

[318:00] concerns about I mean this is the crux because we've gotten so many people who are very concerned about what the impacts on their property values will be, the impacts on noise uh and and so on. And so from my standpoint, I'm trying to be responsive to those, but it's not apparently not responsive enough for Lisa. But again, it is that's part of the balancing act. And so 12 for me seems like an awful lot for a standard size lot in a 2500T home, but it would be a 3,000t house. It would, but you're still in the you're still mean that the the separation between the neighbors is still the same, whether it's 3,000 or 25. I I see where you're going, Sam. I will note that that the many of the emails that we've gotten have zoomed in on what people consider the worst case scenario, which is 14 per year, 12 people in a 2,000 foot house. So, you

[319:02] know, if you have this, if you have um say, well, it scales by lot size, you know, um people, I think, will still a lot of people still focus in on what they consider worst case scenario. So, if we go with 250 square foot, the worst case scenario is eight in a 2,000 foot house. Yes. Right. So, anyhow, that that is I think very responsive that I mean that is directly related to what we're hearing. Um so, okay. we do need to sort of land someplace knowing that we can tweak it, but I guess I will also note that I do want to be responsive and so, you know, we'll work this out together, but we almost half the emails we're getting are supportive of co-ops and want us to to maintain where we're going or go more. So, I just keep that in mind is when we talk about being responsive, half the people want us to go the other direction. Yeah. So again, um the we got to some of

[320:03] these places through compromise like taking 2,000 square foot and below off the table for rentals and those make sense to me, but I think we're kind of at the edge of I think hitting a balance point. If we had the square foot per person, I think that's very responsive to what we've been hearing. Suddenly the worst case scenario is eight for 2,000 foot house. Um, so any guess I'll just put that out there and I'm going to go to the restroom. I'll figure it out. Susan has left the building. The mayor's left the building. Anybody got any good jokes? I have one. Bye, son. What did the mother buffalo say to her son when he went off to the river one day? Bye, son. You told us that one last time, man. I just seeing if anybody remembers.

[321:02] And by the way, it was on television again. You're killing our ratings, Lisa. So, speaking of our ratings, can I summarize where I think you are? Sure. And then you guys Oh, let us know where we are. Well, I'm hearing that there's that that you want what and I could be completely wrong. You want to keep the ordinance sort of as it is and then add a limitation of at least 2 uh 50 square ft per person in RL just an RL no lower density districts and then two and then 200 in RL r all the lows in all the lows and then 200 square feet per person in the medium and high density zones. What about small lots? Well, I we haven't gotten to that yet. Just as far as the square foot per person in the house. Yeah, because I think that we've fig we've consent consensed on more or less piece. We could also begin a conversation about

[322:02] caps in the R the higher density as that's not something we've touched on yet. It's at 15 in the ordinance. Is that where we want it to stay? But, you know, the nice thing about about I kind of like Mary's approach. I don't entirely agree with their numbers is is um um if we focus on lot size, we don't really have to make allocations between RLS and mediums and highs. I mean, I think they're self-defining, right? Mhm. Because again, we're talking really what we're talking about is impact. You mean on the lot size? On the lot size. Yes. But the cap since you're scaling the cap. Well, that's what I'm saying. I I think if if we do it on lot size it doesn't if we if the cap is dictated by lot size I don't think we have to have a separate set of criteria do we or well I mean there's a theory was that medium and higher density districts were areas where you're more accustomed to having more people and actually the lot sizes tend to be smaller you guys know more about this and I mean I live in a medium density district and it the lot sizes are pretty small but we are used to having more

[323:01] people around so you know works out I I guess I was thinking that we would go to a higher cap which would also allow you to scale up or down and the higher cap I would propose 12. So I'm starting the bidding at 10 in RL and 12 in RMX and if you have a bigger lot then you scale up to more than that and then again I want to reiterate that if there is a an opportunity that's higher than that I feel like you'd be able to apply for an exception for for a nonprofit or for all kinds. I would do all kinds personally. Um, in a way you have a cap when you set it by 250 or 200 because you just divide it the square footage of the house by the just because you could end up with 20 people in a house. It's a it's a lot. But if it's a 4,000t house and you divide it by 250, then yeah, it's 16 people. And we just have So then I can definitely see where a

[324:00] small lot size you would want to control that. But if it's a big lot size, then maybe that's the right number to make it work as a true call. That's right. So if you set it if you were to set the cap at 10 in uh R L and you had a huge lot, you could get up to 16 because it's the cap that scales up. I mean maybe this is a question that needs to wait for a full council to get its final answer. Okay. Yes. Um, so in the interest of time, so I have a proposal for that it's legitimate, which is we have a couple options come to us on third reading. Uh, so we can do one that's a 10 and a 12 at 200 and 250 scaled by lot size and we could have another one that was a higher cap and those options just come back to us and we talk about them and pick. Well, I I would definitely want to keep the 12 and 15 as an option for sure. Like uh Zen said, we had a solid half of

[325:00] our emails saying you should be less restrictive than that baseline of 12 and 15. So we had half saying that this is crazy. So yeah, just I'm just saying to keep it as an option. That's that's fine. Yeah. And I do think that um let me ask a question. Um the square footage would go into both. We've agreed. I think there's a consensus unless somebody objects 250 is what was in your proposal as well. So, so let me ask a question on on the cap. Um, and maybe this is probably for you, Aaron. Um, setting aside the numbers that correspond to the lot size, are you okay conceptually with um with a cap scaling up or scaling down? And this would be for each district. They'd have a different threshold, but so there's there's kind of a median there's a median um lot size in each of these districts. And there's and there's a number. I mean Sam suggested 10, but maybe that's not the right number, but there's a number and that scales up or down depending on lot size. Is that concept setting aside the numbers? I guess if we were going to take that approach, I I would be willing to to do

[326:01] it with our, you know, starting out with like say you have a full-size lot, 7,000 square feet, and you had the cap of 12, scaling that down with a smaller lot. Like so I would I mean Sam's getting too restrictive for me, but the like I would consider I would certainly I could work with scaling down um as the lot got smaller. Okay. You mean going with the caps we have but scale down if you have a smaller lot? Yeah. That might be a compromise that we could explore. So let's have a So can I can I articulate what I'm drafting in my head? That would be helpful. So you you have the ordinance as it is. You have 12 and 15 in the two different sizes of zones. You limit the the the um low density to 250 square ft per person, the high density to 200 f feet per person. And then you say that th those numbers are allowable if the lot size of 7,000 square feet. For each thousand square feet of lot size above that, you go up one and for each thousand seat of lot

[327:01] size below that, you go down one. Sure, that sounds fine. That's low density. No, that's that's in all densities. the lot sizes regardless of of the area. He said caps of 12 and 15. So 12 in the low, 15 in the high. And the caps just scale with the lot size. We just have to agree with and there's a cap on square foot people per person too. Well, there is a assigned square foot per person, right? There's a requirement requires 200 or maximum 200 square feet per person minimum minimum in RL sorry in medium and high and 250 in low R R L R R L R E so the only thing I would like is an option I would propose if nobody else goes with me that's fine I would like an option brought back with the caps lower with the caps at 10 and 12 rather than 12 and Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, those so those two options and I guess I would also we're going to try

[328:00] this lot scales. I thing imagine those two options with and without scaling of the lots. So, you want four options. Yeah. But hopefully and and we'll just see the implications for because I I do think we're making difficult drafting. Yeah. But but but it would be helpful if if we're going to if we're going to kind of start picking these numbers um if if staff could give us lot size averages or ranges or you know bell curves in each of the three because I don't know what 7,000 I know you folks said 7,000 is average in a in low density which is great. I but I have no idea what the average is in medium or high. It varies. So yeah. Um so I was that request clear? Yeah. Okay. Okay. And yes I don't know if there's any easy analysis that goes with that. There's one uh variable to this and this is we'll call it the Matt variable. He wanted to have different um caps, occupancy caps for rental than for um equity and nonprofit.

[329:02] Okay. Well, let's So, so he had proposed in his email Yeah. a cap of 10 for rental co-ops and a cap of 12 and this low density in um ownership. So, want to bring back those options. You know, Matt wants them. Okay. But since we'll be in those those we can just Oh, whatever. Easy enough to slot in if we decide to do that. Yeah. I mean, that's just changing a number, right? Yeah, that's what I meant. But yes, that we should keep that in mind that that might be a a way forward. So, the uh oh, screen has gone dark. No, it's fine. It's all good. Okay. So then the last question is um spacing separation concentration issues. Yep. We need to extend this meeting. Yes, we do. Move we extend second. All those in favor. Uh this half the room's Oh yeah, you actually have to vote if you're going to do that. Everybody but

[330:00] Lisa's you were everybody. Lisa. Okay. But George, can I make a Yep. Yep. On this. Um, so I did some did some math on separation. I know Tom, the way Tom wrote the separation was um from the correct me if I'm wrong here, Tom. The the house of co-op A to the lot line of co-op B. Is that right? Lot line to lot line. Lot line to lot line. Okay. So lot line to lot line at 500t separation. Assuming for sake of discussion that an average lot size of 7,000 ft. My math and people can check my math a few people already checked it. is that separ that means a co-ops at 500 feet separation. There's one co-op about every 21 or 22 acres. So for for me it's an easier it's easier to understand it by acreage than it is 500 ft is a little bit a little more challenging. I don't know if that's a block, a block and a half, whatever, but if you think about these radiuses we got on the maps here at 500 ft plus the the the distance between the house and its its lot line, if you do that math on it, it comes out to about 21 or 22 acre spacing.

[331:02] It's helpful. So I guess um I would just leave it like it is. I I would agree. Yeah. 18 acres. I've got a quick question. Okay. Are these drawn like this or like that? Somebody want to talk about the circles? Yeah. Because these I mean I I think the new one is correct because the the way it's it's done is that no co-op can be less than 500 ft separate. So that means that their circles can overlap the the so the circles that can overlap but these because each circus circle is 500 foot radius radius. So um so I think this is accurate although I I don't know in that example theoretical example in Martin acres that didn't look at um house size did it

[332:00] no no so I mean you since this is I don't know so so th those circles were intended to depict 500t circles that's all this is this is is intended to depict the separation between co-ops if you assume those little those little blue rectangles are are the lot lines so that that's the theoretical minimum space theoretical maximum number of co-ops. Yeah. Um but of course that um many of these homes are not 2,000 square feet. Okay. So um hey, if nobody's going to put up a a lively disagreement, let's go with what we have with the the correction that there should be a comma after arterial and the article A before collection. That could be the most important decision we make tonight. Yeah. Yes. All right. So, uh, I just summarized all of the amendments here. This is the last slide I have. I think you've you've taken care of them all, um, with your discussions, unless there's something I'm missing. And Andrews, I don't know

[333:00] that you discussed. Oh, let's discuss. I think that's Yeah, Andrews is printed here somewhere. It's on the I I think it's green, but yes, it's green. Have you added that or No, I just I printed it out. I just got it last night. So, what I'd say on Andrews is I'm fine with the concept that that somebody can't um take a house that's below 2,000 ft and bump it up to over 2,000 ft in contemplation of turning it into a co-op. It just seems to me that the five-year timeouts a little bit long. I'd probably live with something more like two to three years, Mary. So, um, on that one, I would think about that, um, ability to allow for a co-op modification or add at add at add at add at add at add at add at add at add at add at add floor area a little more broadly. I think it's kind of inequitable to limit it to an 18,800T house that goes to 2,000. I

[334:02] think just do it for everybody. And so that when a um a co so do it for everybody put the restriction on on any house size any addition for any house size and whenever they come in to if they come in to get a co-op license then you check to see if there's been a permit for square footage within the last two years and you reduce it to two years for everybody. Um it just seems unfair to me to just do it for So um but this is anybody that's under 2,000 square feet. Well, because you're sort of Oh, to get over the 2,000 to get over the 2,000. Yeah. You're just you're just the whole I'll tell you his reasoning if this helps. Um, we want to make sure we're not fueling the conversion of small single family

[335:01] starter homes into co-ops. And this wouldffect uh effectively prevent anybody that's thinking of investing. So, don't bother because it's going to be 5 years of waiting until so that's is a squaltch throwing uh, you know, moving into the co-op category. That's why he he did it that way. Um, it's just about single family houses. Yeah. I think Mary's No, and I appreciate that and I like that, but I think Mary's point is she wants to do it across the board. So, even including 2,000, but if it's a 5,000 square foot house and somebody wants to add on to it in order to convert it into a co-op, isn't that what you're done? Yeah. Yeah. That we should apply it to across the board. So, but all that would affect would be this would be the the um the limit. So, let's say let's use real numbers. Are you saying that if somebody had a 2250 foot house and they expanded it to 2500 and now using Sam's number instead of

[336:00] getting um insteading getting nine people in there and they can get 10 people in there we should prohibit them. Is that what you're saying? No, they can do it. They just have to wait two years. Two years to get 10 instead of nine, right? I see. But why? Because then we're kind of taking housing off the market. No, you're not. They're just taking um they can still do it. They could still do nine. So, so I mean I I mean I would be if what you're saying is that um that if you do a square footage expansion of your home that um for a period of two years, you're um um the the occupancy for a co-op or ability to be a co-op would be based on the pre-expansion square footage. Yeah, you could look at it that way. That's fine. But the Okay. Well, I do think what I like about Andrews is it's targeted to a certain thing that we want to preserve, which is preserve single family housing. I don't think we're against if you want to expand your

[337:01] rental, right? I mean, the co-op that just provides more housing units. This this is not a necessarily a bad I I don't think we want to be too restrictive on pulling housing off the market for the co-opers because they're trying to live in in a very efficient manner. And I I definitely get the idea of taking small homes and making them bigger, but um why would we want to take a 2500 square foot lot off for the co-opers if they're the ones that can negotiate the right price? Because I I know what we're trying to do. We're trying to eliminate these um um investors to rape the market. But these co-op people are smart business people. They're making good business decisions. It's a little different than college students coming in and don't have the negotiating capability because they're coming in not really knowing the market and all that stuff, right? So, I would tend to to go with Andrew's proposal just on the small end and and not expand that to the rest of the

[338:01] houses. Anybody else want to weigh in on this? Just for moving forward, I would like to support Andrews the way it is. So, it's just trying to prevent people from going from non-qualifying to qualifying. Cool. Does that reflect the majority? It's fine. Okay. All right. What else we got? Do we have to go through everyone a mass typo? No. Well, no. I'm I'm going to just suggest that that you accept the first six on the blue paper. They're all just corrections and clarifications. There's no substantive changes there. So that would be amend 1011, amend 1013, amend 10113, 11 10 114, 11 10 114, and the one you've already accepted uh is the sixth one. Yeah. Well, the the other one is the is his is his occupancy suggestion. M Andrew Andrew Sam just asked me to to bring back. It's late. Oh, and not as late as it's gonna get. Later. Yeah. Yeah.

[339:00] I have to dye your hair purple. Okay. So, let's get let's keep this one in our pockets um for when we revisit. So, I would like to make these changes because they they make sense. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Is everybody okay with the typo pins? Yeah. Shout out to Matt for the difference between less and fewer. He's done that to me before. Yeah, that's important. All right. No, it's less important than some Yes. Okay. What else we got? That's it. I'm done. Thank you. Unless I missed something. Okay. So what are Can I have um a motion? Oh, the next step would be a motion to move this to third reading. Okay. Well, motion to approve as amended tonight orally. I So I I move that we approve the cooperative housing ordinance in front of us tonight as amended um and is it going to be continued or No, go to third reading. Go to third reading. So So I second that. Okay. We did there will be a public hearing. Well, you have to decide that. can just we

[340:00] uh I mean there's substantial changes in this so I think there should be a public hearing what let's vote let's let's vote okay people can weigh in on you know what we're going to have a retreat in between then and we can we can figure that out um so can we go ahead and vote on this to move it to third reading and it's got it's got multiple options in there yeah it still has multiple options we agreed on a bunch of stuff and then passing it amended and you're instructing me to bring back other options on occupancy. So, I'm going to leave it as it is on occupancy in the version that you're passing and bring you back alternatives for third reading. Well, so we're passing second reading. You're passing now as amended with the amendments that you've approved, but you've asked for other other issues to discuss on occupancy. It probably would be helpful for you to include the 200 250 in there because that's in all of our four options. Just the cap. It's really the cap that we need.

[341:00] Okay. So, you want a cap of 250 per square foot. It's not a It's not a cap. It's a minimum. It's a minimum. A minimum. Sorry. Yeah. I think the only thing that's open is the cap. Well, just because people are going to be looking at this draft version and I think that's an important surely I can do that. the step we took that amendment. The two things that are options are occupancy and low and high and whether we do the um scaling by lot size or not caps and low and high relate to the caps. So I said you said occupancy. I said capsy limits. Got it. Caps and low and high whether or not we scale by square footage. And then Matt's got the wild card of you do occupancy limits different between rental and equity. And when he said scale by square footage of the lot. Yes. Of the lot. Got it. Cool. All those in favor, please raise your hand. We're passing two second reading. No, just passing the second read. Passing this to second reading. So it looks like six.

[342:00] Six. All those opposed? Yeah. And I have a comment. Okay. So, I think this needs a lot more work. 00 in the morning and it the thought went in my brain that this is exactly the same process that we went for Fulsome and we know when we tried to do right sizing, it's the same people. Um it that was a disaster and I think this is going to be a disaster and I think um the other thing that is really worrisome to me is that is this whole issue of over occupancy and there's a lot of people I think there's a majority of people who are living um or a lot of people let's just say that um who are living somewhat overoccupied for financial reasons. And these people are people who are

[343:01] literally occupying one bedroom per one person per bedroom. So you have a five- bedroomedroom house and there's five people living there. And my concern about passing of this ordinance tonight, well, not tonight or but the way it is right now is it's going to be a witch hunt on all of those people and we're going to be exposing those people and they're going to be thrown out on the streets and we are not resolving the issues here, I don't think. And I think um and we haven't heard from those those people who are one-bedroom, one person. And most of those people they um because I've lived in these situations, most of those people are just busy working people and they don't have enough money to afford a normal house and they also don't have enough

[344:00] time to want to participate in a co-op situation. They basically want to have their room and have eating and you know normal things of the house but they're working all the time and so they're not interested in coming having a kumbaya and they're not interested in um really having communal living. So I don't think we're addressing that. I I would like to do something where, you know, you can have co-ops and you can have overied house over occupied houses. So, so you're just interested in raising the occupancy limits broadly. I am, but through an application process where somebody would come and I wish we had a housing board. I've been trying to push for a housing board for several years and we've gotten no traction on that. But what I would prefer is something where a co-op or a group of

[345:03] people living together and not disturbing anybody's peace or whatever could come and apply for an application. Um there would be a limit in terms of separation all this stuff and there'd be um a modifi a notification and um there would be an ability for people to live peacefully and somewhat overoccupied but not really overoccupied. I mean it's I think it's more of the norm of people living by um you know four to six people in a in a home. So right now I think this is headed the same direction as folsome and that's not fair. Well you know I can't I have it's right I have a right to make my comments Tom and you shouldn't interrupt. So let me

[346:01] let me finish. It's foulome. It's not. It is wholesome from my perspective. And I think this thing is going to end up in another political mess. And I think um yeah, we've heard from a lot of people who want these higher caps, but and everybody made or most people made these eloquent things that we're trying to listen, but you know, we haven't moved anywhere tonight really hardly. And I think we're going to continue to get um an outpouring of letters of people who feel very threatened and feel um not part of this process. So I just will leave that and um those are my comments. So okay. So can I just comment on it? So so Lisa brought up a point that actually does concern me. So about what about what we've been promising in parallel with this is um to enforce over

[347:03] occupancy. So if if we you know pass the co-op ordinance then we have to abide by what we've been saying or else or or else we won't be living up to our promise of enforcing over occupancy. That means that all of the people that are living one per bedroom perhaps people that are living four, five, six um will be vulnerable to over occupancy. So So either we're going to enforce the occupancy limits. It shouldn't be an either or. It is the law. So okay. Okay. So So then then I'm correct. and and Lisa um in in what Lisa has brought up, Lisa's correct that we're going to then be enforcing people that are living five and six. Yep.

[348:00] Okay. That's real inclusivity. The there there's nothing inherent about the co-op orordinance that involves an occupancy crackdown. that was a previous council's decision to begin that process there the through some kind of tangled mess um you know path that they became linked but there's no inherent link between them so we and we could change it if we wanted to so we have three other major issues so um if we could leave it here right now I think that would be best and move on okay yeah but I but I hope that people do think about that because we're either going enforce occupancy limits as we've been saying all along or we're not. So just and okay go to the beginning of this ordinance and it's partly to be able to enforce occupancy limits. So okay all right with that let us move to matters. Your first item under matters is

[349:00] Boulder's climate commitment. Okay everybody stand up and stretch. pot feel good resolution. Yeah. I don't even know. This is part I looked it up. Marijuana's a first go here. I think is like I'll let it be a joke. I was going to say, but I think co-ops is slogging through like the crux of. Okay. So, here we go. Hey, um if we can transition quickly, we might get out of here before too.

[350:02] Okay, we're going to have the short version of this. Um, let me introduce David Driscoll. I thought he'd already left. Yeah, not yet. It's not David Driscoll. It's not David Driscoll day yet. He only wishes he had already left. I wanted your last meeting to be memorable. Yeah, exactly. I can go into the next day. Um, no, just quickly, I I'm excited to be here for this final item. is my last agenda item and it's something that I I care deeply about and we've been working on a lot and just it's incredible how far we've come in our understanding of this issue in eight years. Um the depth of analysis we've been able to do and the and the level of action that we're engaging in. And I just want to call out that Brett is here presenting, but he's one he's the spearhead of of a large uh cross departmental team that's working on these issues and and very importantly a broad partnership with the community. And I just want to thank everybody who has participated with us so far and all of the challenges and adventures to

[351:00] come. Good evening. Uh delighted to see you all even though it's so late in the evening. I'll try to be as brief as I possibly can. Our objective this evening is to formalize a long-term uh climate emissions reduction goal for both our community and for our city. We are currently operating without a climate action goal. Our last one expired in 2012. This we've spent almost three years working to build the capabilities of projecting what the emissions reduction uh abilities of our existing programs are and also to build a mechanism to monitor our progress going forward. Um as a result of your feedback, I should also note that since our May session, we actually have revised downward a few of the interim targets that we've set so that we could make them both ambitious and achievable. So, this is a process though that has involved um a significant amount. These are the three motions that we are asking you to consider this evening. The long-term goals for both community and uh city

[352:02] organization and the adoption of um some sub goals, particularly the 100% renewable electricity by 2030. This is a process that we've been deeply engaged with our community about for almost two years. We've had literally 2,000 direct contacts with people. Over 600 people have responded to our survey. We did many, many presentations and we've had 15 structured community dialogues with all types of different um ethnic and interest groups in our community as well as four professionally facilitated focus groups. The feedback from this is is very clear and very consistent. Over 95% of our community thinks that climate action is happening. Over 90% are taking action in their own life to deal with it. And thanks to the recent uh daily uh camera uh survey, we know that about 83% of our community says that climate action is either important, very important, or extremely important to them. It was actually the highest ranking priority over uh housing, homelessness, or congestion in our

[353:00] community. There's also a very clear set of priorities from our community's feedback. The first and foremost is installing more renewable energy. Um the second, we continue to be concerned about how we use energy. several issues around transportation both more emissions um low emissions public transportation as well as EVs and also taking care of our landscapes really though climate change is not the problem as we know and from the the document the climate commitment we've really pointed out that it's about action in these other systems that humans have our energy systems our ecosystems and our resource systems and as a result of our community feedback we've also gotten the resounding sense that we need to also address social equity as someone said very eloquently earlier this evening. You can't have real sustainability without social equity. So energy is the is the focus of our action. But I think one of the things that we're trying to also illustrate in how we approach um our climate action is that it's not a trade-off of climate action versus other community priorities. It's really about how we address these community priorities in ways that actually address

[354:00] climate issues. So I'll give you a few examples in relationship to the energy systems change that we need to to um effect around affordable housing. We've worked quite closely, for example, with our own housing department and also with Boulder Housing uh partners to look at ways that we can design affordable housing in ways that reduce our the low uh families monthly expenses as well as improve air quality um increase their energy security and create even opportunities for ownership of those uh renewable assets. In transportation, our our whole transportation master plan is built around this idea of reducing emissions while generating co- benefits. in public safety and security. We are actually involved right now in three really interesting projects with VIA, with Boulder Housing Partners, and with CU in which by combining solar, storage, and backup generation, we can actually reduce the emissions of each of these facilities by over 50% while also creating the capacity for them to be able to island themselves if there were actually a power disruption. All of this

[355:00] actually in ways that will also reduce their overall operational costs. And in terms of human services, again, a theme that we've heard a lot tonight through the work that our community's been doing with us. We're actually looking at ways that this transition in energy actually creates job opportunities, creates new small business opportunities, and through work that Jonathan and others have been doing, we're actually looking at ways that we can create ownership opportunities in solar through for our lower income parts of our community. So really, the point we're trying to make here is that climate action really equals how we approach building sustainable systems in our community. This is really actually something though that goes beyond our own community. This is a copy of an email we got a couple of weeks ago after a Scottish delegation came through the city about uh two months ago and they basically literally said they're now looking at how they might update their own country's climate action plan based on using Boulder as a case study. There are other innovations that I could talk about. I'm not going to try to go through all this this evening, but I will just note that in in September, as a result of a project that was funded through our Boulder housing,

[356:00] our our um Boulder Energy Challenge, Boulder has become a leader in looking at how we would actually get off of natural gas. This work was so convincing that five other cities including New York, Boston, DC, San Francisco, and Burlington came together with us along with all the other major heat pump manufacturers in the world to talk about how we could aggregate our work together and create the kind of market forces that would actually lead to large-scale market transformations. Also, our our net zero building code work has actually been leader a leader in the country as well. We've joined with 10 other cities to start figuring out how we could codify that and create a streamlined process so that other cities around the world would be able to do this as well. This is going to bring funding to the organization too. The there's an organ these organizations that are listed below are going out to raise over $2.5 million that would be split among these cities to help do this work. There are costs and benefits to climate action. In terms of the costs, I think the thing I just want to underscore in this slide is that so much of the work that we're doing is not

[357:01] about the general fund. It actually comes from the cap tax. It comes from special assessments. It comes from grants. It comes from uh things like um the trash tax. So, we're being able to leverage all this to accomplish the work that we're doing. There are of course many benefits though. Also, the city actually saves $600,000 annually now because of the energy performance contracts that we've done. We've actually been paying for all of the the upgrades that we've done in those buildings through those savings. We've also been adding solar in places like the Potasso Water Treatment Center. That's the the slide or the picture in the middle. That will actually enhance that that facility's capability of being able to operate if there were a disruption. And we're doing some very interesting work with our wastewater treatment facility that's actually looking at be able to become net zero because it could use its methane generated to actually produce um renewable natural gas. This work because of our leadership actually is bringing other resources to the community as well. Over just the last three years, we've tallied up, I think we've raised

[358:01] something like a million and a half dollars in direct funding or leverage funding through all these different sources to support the work we're doing. So, just to bring us back to where we are, we're asking this evening that you consider these goals that we're asking for there for us to adopt so that we have this leadership and this guidance within our community, within our organization. Why we think it's important to act now is because early action makes a big difference. This is from the analysis that we showed you in the memo. the more ambitious that the actions we take especially around decarbonizing our electricity sources now could lead to dramatic reductions by 2030 and then help us achieve that overall goal by 2050. Now an analysis that the environmental advisory board asked us to do was to say not just what is our emissions level at 2050 but what is the difference in these scenarios in terms of the accumulated emissions that you generate between now and 2050 and this was a very interesting exercise. So these are the different levels of emission in the different scenarios. The one on the far left is if we didn't do

[359:00] any further improvements after 2020. The other scenarios show a sort of gradual increase in the ambition of the work that we're doing. So I wanted to just show you the difference. The difference between sort of a baseline fairly modest level of action now and the one that would take more ambitious action is essentially equivalent to 16 times the annual emissions of our entire community. So it makes a big difference how soon you start this process. So, but this is not of course the only reason that we're doing. As I've said before, there are so many local benefits that come out of this climate action as well. So, how are we going to do this? Well, it's clearly not just the city. It's been a part of a collaboration. And one of the things I'm most excited about over the last year and a half is to see how many different parts of our community are really eager to step forward and doing and do this. And of course, this is for a lot of our community that actually right now can't take action yet. So, I would just say in closing, um, in terms of what you might see next year, um, there are a number of things that are moving forward in terms of energy codes. Um, you'll get an

[360:00] update on our 2015 inventory in Q1. We'll be up we'll giving you be giving you an update on the building performance ordinance. Um, our Boulder Energy Challenge is going to go through its second iteration. We're also working on an IGA with the county around developing an energy impact fund. And then there'll be other work um on things like uh the resource center. Energy is the focus in 2017, but we're looking at ecosystems becoming a major focus hopefully in 2018 and then shifting um or expanding to include resources in 2019. 2020 is going to be a major milestone check-in. And as I think you heard earlier this evening from Tim Hillman at the Environmental Advisory Board, they're very eager to work with the council to go through those kind of milestone checkups. So, I just want to say in closing, um it's kind of sweet, bitter to be here tonight in this in this regard. Uh it's sweet because it is an enormous honor and privilege to work for a community that cares this much about this issue. It's also something that's very near and dear to my heart. My own son will only be 38 in 2050 and

[361:01] he's very likely to be able to live to see 2100. So, it's I feel very, you know, very strongly that we need to take action. But it's also a little bit bitter because one of the people who's been so important in our work in doing this is now taking another role in this world. Um we're very appreciative to have David here with us. Um he's been um so so inspirational to all of us and I think um it's hard to underestimate how much he's contributed to this effort. So with that, these are the three motions that we're asking for you to consider this evening and we're certainly open with other staff here also present to answer your questions. Could you just riff a little bit on the um Oh, never mind. I'm good. I take it back. I have a question. You have a question. So, fantastic work. I mean, what you showed us in your presentation is just the tip of the iceberg compared to what was in the packet. So, I really, really enjoyed reading through the packet, which makes me a geek for sure. Um, I do

[362:00] want to ask a question about the local renewable energy generation goals because that's not shown here. It wasn't shown on the first slide. So, I want to at least call it out and understand it a little bit better. Um, it's 50 megawatts by 2020, 100 megawws by 2030, and 175 megawws by 2050. And all of that past 2030 is renewable. Um, so right now we're at what? Something I assume these are base load megawws that you're talking about. These are name plate capacities. Oh, it's name plate capacity. Yes. As opposed to kilowatt hours. Kilowatt hour equivalents. Correct. So when you say 175 megawws by 2050, that's all renewable, right? Yes. And so is that our entire energy supply that we need at that time? But that that again is name plate capacity. That's not the total number we would need. You know, it depends on how much storage is available at that point, but you know, our um maybe Sam, I'm not sure I entirely understand.

[363:00] How much would come from outside? How much is not local? Well, we figured that um at 2050, if we were converting most of our natural gas, petroleum uses to electricity, our total energy command for demand as a community might be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 to 350 megawatt. Okay. In in that way. Okay. Thank you. That helps me completely. So the local generation that we're talking about isn't just electricity. It's also heating. That's all right. That's all electricity. Oh, it is all electricity. That's a renewable electricity supply. I thought you said natural gas. So So this is saying about 2/3 little less than 2/3 is local um of the electricity generation. Not really. Yeah. Does my question make any sense on a kilowatt hour basis? hour basis. Do we know the rough percentage? I mean, I think Oh, you have to come up. Um, you have to introduce yourself. So, right now, oh, sorry. Hi, I'm Kendra Tupper, energy services manager.

[364:01] So, Sam is right in that um if we achieve the 2050 goal of having 175 megawatts of installed local generation capacity, that would be about 2/3 of our projected peak demand. And that I don't know if that number that you quoted the 300 to 350 includes increased demand for electric vehicles. It does. Okay. So it would and so the rest we estimate would come from um more centralized renewable electricity, community solar or wind farms, etc. So that the goal by 2050 is that we will have converted everything that we can off of natural gas onto electricity, petroleum cars, off of petroleum onto electricity, and they're either being powered by that 175 watts of local generation or from the clean electricity coming from the grid. Sure. Got it. And that's all I was trying to understand was what fractions these represented to see how attainable are they, you know, in a real world

[365:01] scenario. So, um, that's very helpful. Thank you. Are there any other questions? There's one one question. Go ahead. Have a comment. What does the third one mean? City organization goal. Yeah. So, our own city organization has an emissions goal or we're proposing one. So, you know, our we um have been analyzing our own emissions and that's where I reported we've actually reduced our city organization emissions by over 30% since 2008. So, this would be all transportation, all buildings buildings buildings y it would include our all of the city buildings use of electricity, all of our petroleum and other uses of fuel. Um we actually account for our own procurement um emissions as well. So and you can track that. We do. Yeah. And where are we today?

[366:00] We're at 35% emissions reduction below 2008. Our city uh baseline is 2008 just because of how the data was collected. So we're 35% below that. And Marvel would be by 2020. Uh I think that the goal that we've set is um 50%. Okay. And I have one more question on item number two the electricity um would we have the capacity or the capability to get there no matter which option we took municipalization or um negotiation and um with Excel and remaining with Excel. And I I know you can't project that, but I just want to make sure that we since we have said to the public that we're looking at both options, that both options are available to us before we adopt this. It's my understanding that that standard is what's being used as a part of the discussions.

[367:01] Okay. And then my final question would be what are we going to do about transportation? um because we're really not making any progress on transportation. Well, I'm I'm not sure I would um say that's exactly the case. I I think there's a a very significant move in just in the last couple of years around starting to work on the electric vehicle um infrastructure. Um there's some very exciting work that's going on around the use of um some of the ride share programs and looking at helping them electrify. So the downtown todoor program that uh former councilman Keenan is working on, it's very interesting. We're actually working with them to look at the development of solarbased electric vehicle charging in our parking infrastructures that could be used for those Uber andyft type of vehicles. I think we're very close to a breakthrough in this and we're going to see some big movement there. Cool. Well, I think um unless anybody

[368:02] has questions, what we have left to do is gush. Um Sam asked to go first on the gushing. Why don't you So I'd like to to make a motion. Um I would like to move to adopt a communitywide greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. I'd move also to adopt sub goals and progress indicators related to energy system change, including a communitywide goal of achieving 100% renewable electricity supply by 2030 with local renewable electricity generation objectives of 50 megawatts by 2020, 100 megawatts by 2030, and 175 megawws by 2050. I'd further move to adopt a city organization greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of 80% below 2008 levels by 2030. Second. Okay. So, I uh have a few things that I want to say about this. Um, climate change is the single biggest challenge

[369:01] facing humanity today. It's existential in nature, threatens human existence as we understand it today. And so I'm very proud of our city for addressing this threat to future generations of living beings on the only planet that we're aware of that supports life. The staff work behind this measure is extremely thorough and impressive. I want to thank you again for that. Um I want to remind people that at the climate action conference in April in DC, it was emphasized over and over again how important local action is on this front. Twothirds of the world's citizens live in cities. So municipal action of this type is absolutely crucial. And now we've had the November elections. So the political environment in which we have to function on these subjects is going to provide a lot more resistance to the energy system changes that we need to mitigate this dire crisis. So because this is such an important

[370:01] step, this is a huge deal for us. we are actually going to adopt these goals. I want to take just a brief time and read you a couple paragraphs from a book called Learning to Die in the Anthroposine. It's written by Iraq war veteran Royce Scranton who's now an academic. And I have to say this is one of the most important books I've ever read on the subject of climate change. And he says, "The crisis of global climate change, the crisis of capitalism, and the crisis of the humanities in the university today are all aspects of the same crisis, which is the suicidal burnout of our carbonfueled global capitalistic civilization. The odds of that civilization surviving are negligible. The odds of our species surviving are slim. The trouble we find ourselves in will likely prove too intractable for us to manage well, if we can manage it at all. Yet, as German philosopher Peter Schlater Jik observes,

[371:02] it is characteristic of being human that human beings are presented with tasks that are too difficult for them without having the option of avoiding them because of their difficulty. We cannot escape our fate. Our future will depend on our ability to confront it. Not with panic, outrage, or denial, but with patience, reflection, and love. Our choice is a clear one. We can continue acting as if tomorrow will be just like yesterday, growing less and less prepared for each new disaster as it comes, and more and more desperately invested in a life we can't sustain. Or we can learn to see each day as the death of what came before, freeing ourselves to deal with whatever problems the present offers without attachment or fear. If we want to learn to live in the anthroposine, we must first learn how to die. So, I want to thank staff and everybody for doing this great work, and I'm very glad that our city is taking the steps we're taking. Thanks. Whoa.

[372:04] Hey. Um, let me just add um quickly by saying I um this is one of those issues that unites our city. And only in Boulder would doing this be one of the least controversial things we're going to do tonight. And I love that about this city. And I am I am also proud and uh of us of of of the efforts that have gone into this. And I'm glad that we are trying to do our part to help lead and that we'll be joining um I think some 17 other cities that have adopted the 100% renewable um electricity goal. I I agree this is a this is a big deal and it's really important that we do this. I guess I I want to quote I'll have a much smaller quote. It's a quote from Bill McKibben and I I'm paraphrasing a little bit, but basically this is a war that if we win slowly, we lose. And that's why I think

[373:00] it's important that what we're doing is bold. What's also impressive though is that it's achievable. And what I like about this plan is that it lays out the steps to get there very clearly. And we have we you guys um have researched this very well about um the different pathways to get there in the in and the trade-offs and um that's why I have a lot of confidence in this and I will say that I have shared the draft everywhere I go and um and and other cities have asked for it. I also say on the heartening end of things that CML of all entities just had a meeting and there were like over 15 maybe I'm exaggerating I don't know 15 cities um participating in this conversation about how can we set up um some conferences and trainings that CML is going to lead in the coming year on climate change and Gley was on the phone and Lakewood and they're they're like we want to know what we can do um to start moving forward on this

[374:01] which is just it's amazing. I feel like finally we're the Titanic is turning. So anyhow, um I also just want to note that this document is also impressive because it not only lays out the energy and the transportation goals, but it also acknowledges the water waste food piece of it which not very many other cities are really grasp grasping but get at consumption. Um, so I think that's really important. And then of course the ecosystem portion which is all about the promise of carbon sequestration in our soils and other things we can do that to help solve um climate change through those um efforts. So I'll quit gushing, but I'm I thank you all. I'm I'm very excited and proud to be a part of this and it's good that we can um we have this action plan that we can really go now and and walk or talk. Oh, sorry Erin and then Mary. Thanks. I I won't say quite as much thanks to you both for your comments. Although um when we look at the larger

[375:00] country, I get depressed because I think with the Titanic analogy, the last election may have been an iceberg. Um no, no, no. Uh but we I'm so um proud of our city for doing our part and leading the way and we are an inspiration to many other cities in and in in this country and in other countries. So, thank you for the extraordinary amount of work and the high quality and the analysis blows me away. I too enjoyed the packet. I geeked out over over it as well. So just my my one comment or request that the thing that I'm interested in tracking as well, I've talked about this before and mentioned we we discussed this as well um was the the um tracking both aggregate and per capita um values on this. Obviously not with the 100% renewable electricity, but with the greenhouse gas reductions just because we do um on average live a much lower carbon lifestyle here in Boulder. And if someone comes to our town from an ex-urban place where their emissions are much higher and they move here with much lower emissions um and have much lower emissions then we have made the problem

[376:01] the global problem better even though our aggregate emissions have gone up slightly by them joining our our town. So I would I would like um us as we uh move towards these goals to track both aggregate and per capita um measures. That's my my request. very and so I would just like to second um what's been what um Sam and Suzanne said and I want to thank staff um for all this great work and I want to recognize Brent for um back when this came as um through as a draft there was a glaring piece that was missing and it completely um it overlooked the social piece and and you took that to heart that feedback to heart and you came back with something that's just like blew everything out of the water and um so I want to compliment you on that and creating that collaboration with the university is just fantastic. So thank you for that.

[377:03] Anything else y'all? Great kudos and it's an easy one to pass. it probably wasn't so easy to work on. And so I really appreciate everybody's efforts on this and um it's so important. It like you said it it's our most important thing we do. Jen, thanks for all your comments and I'm not going to um repeat anything. One of the I think the recommendations the EAB had was to have a joint meeting with the council um every six months to review our um progress. I really like that idea. Um because my sense is we've got maybe 20 25% of the community that's really bought into this but a lot of other people who aren't as involved and that might be a way for us to both track the metrics um and also Jame putting into the you know kind of the milestone

[378:02] tracker that we're going to review next. Um, but then also ways to get people try to get other people involved who aren't quite yet involved and give the EAB the kind of uh mission to make that happen. I'd love to see that. Thanks a lot. Anything else? Okay. Shall we Is it next item? Oh, no. We had a vote. We vote at the end. Oh, it's matters, right? But can can I just say that my mic um the that and I don't know if if I have and any other people also support the per measuring per capita. I don't know if we can register that in some more than just a comment that I threw out there if there's people are willing to get that. I'm I'm totally fine with that as long as we own that we it's in the end it's the total that the physics cares about. But yes, it's I think it's useful in in tracking behaviors and motivating

[379:01] people. We can absolutely include that in the metrics. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next item is update and council input on the community dashboard. What you going to say? Say I'm like offline. Can I Oh, I see. Oh, I thought you were going to deal. Oh, well, no. Yeah, I don't want to deal with it tonight. I don't know that we can. Um, we can problem. My thing keeps turning off tonight. I'm so sorry. Um, let me introduce a person who you all know has joined our organization for the last several months, but this will be her first time presenting to you. Uh Tanya Anji is our

[380:01] deputy city manager and with her is Chris Trice. Um and Tanya and Chris have been leading a group working on a community dashboard. I I'm just going to say this one thing. When I came to the city over eight years ago, one of the things that I had in the back of my mind as a goal was to create a community dashboard. And I am so thrilled that we have these great people and there's many more in the audience that have been helping to create this. This is our first cut at it. It's very important. It's the way that all the best cities are going. This very council has said over and over again they wanted more metrics, more ability to take a look at how we're doing in so many different areas. And so this is the beginning of it. Um we're going to do a great job. We want your input tonight. So, let me turn it over to Tanya and Chris. Thank you, Jane. And hey, can I just butt in and just say given the hour y

[381:00] it may be that we don't get to give you all the input we would tonight um and we will give you a lot more via email and in other ways. Thank you for that. And I was actually going to make that suggestion in respect to um everyone. And actually, I want to say it's refreshing sitting up here because I was sitting underneath the vent um in the audience and um it was a little chilly. So, we're glad to be in front of you tonight. And um Chris Trice has taken on the project lead um of uh Boulder Measures. He is our information resources manager. And just for the sake of time, I'm going to go through the intro even though they're having some difficulty pulling up the PowerPoint. So, why why a dashboard? What is a dashboard? It's an online tool. It's the ability to share data to measure progress um and identify opportunities and trends. So, similar to the um the metrics that we just talked about in the last presentation in the

[382:00] future, those types of indicator metrics are good um subject matters to be on the dashboard. That way, Jan, to your point, how how would the larger community know this information? It would be in a web-based environment that it would be easy access for those that may be in interested in climate, interested in transportation, fire, etc. Um, it also for the council can be an area um that can be used for decision-making processes and that would be something that the council would have to have conversation on how you would want to use that. So phase one, as Jane had alluded to, this is just the beginning. So we all need to remember that and this is putting the framework the dashboard in front of you and also in it will be in front of the community to get input. What do you want to see in the future? What would be beneficial to you? Phase one we we had to start somewhere. So we focused on um primarily existing council goals and also

[383:00] departmental master plan goals. Chris. Great. So, Boulder Measures uses a sustainability framework as a way to organize all of the metrics that are in the dashboard. Um, the project we focused on um creating an iterative process. Uh we defined program goals, identified metrics, defined the process of gathering data, building the pages. Um we tested and ran the pages and the visualizations and then we'll assess the effort. Uh currently the project is at that purple arrow where we'll be reaching out and engaging stakeholders to get their feedback. The dashboard is designed and built on a software called Tableau which is a data and visualization software. Um last in October the team reached out uh to the library patrons to get some basic uh initial feedback on the uh on the site

[384:00] and use that feedback to redesign it to improve usability. Um the site is interactive. It has interactive visualizations. It's mobile friendly and it's searchable both from the city's web page and from uh just googling it. Um Tableau has uh excellent visualization capabilities. Uh these are three examples that I just pulled off the internet that are um I thought were fairly interesting. Um unfortunately I'm not going to be able to give you a a demo at this time. Um I'm was trying to pull it up on the internet here, but the internet seems to be down. I'm not getting any Oh, your your internet's down too. That's that's great. the demo jobs, but you guys have a have a link to the um to the site and I'll you know can provide additional information or if you have any feedback um that would be great. So let's I I just want to walk through some high points. Um so we'll just use

[385:02] our imagination of what's on the site. So, we've embedded and this is important just for council information as you provide feed feedback um that there is feedback loops on each page that you're on. So, is it useful? Is it beneficial? What information is not on the page that you would like to see. The two measures that we had planned um to show you tonight is the greenhouse gas emissions which really aligns with the council action um just taken and also our fire emergency response time. The slide that Chris has up um shows the phase one metrics that are currently displayed on the dashboard. The metrics um that you can see in the right hand column are organized in accordance to our sustainability framework. um users can also search that just by an all metrics category or by the sustainability framework. So next steps so January um will be the

[386:04] public launch. So we'll be soliciting council feedback between now and then and looking at opportunities to um um to improve and incorporate that feedback. Um I know right now um Chris and our fire department are working on some mapping integration into the fire response time um pages. So um once we um once we launch a page in in February, we will be starting community feedback sessions and we will um be not only seeking uh community feedback on the dashboard but also our existing open data catalog and our open data work. We'll be working with representatives from Sunlight Foundation who focus on um open data and I'll touch on just briefly what our relationship is with Sunlight Foundation. All of this information, so information

[387:01] from the council, our community engagement strategy will then lead into phase 2 scoping. Um so we don't have phase 2 determined yet. We need to hear from you. We need to hear from the community to inform us on what phase 2 looks like and what the next steps. So related to the dashboard, we have been selected by Bloomberg Philanthropies what work cities to be um a member city of their work. Um this is technical assistance and peer-to-peer assistance. Um and it's working with Bloomberg Philanthropies Sunlight Foundation who focuses on open data. um John Hopkins University and Harvard School of Government. We're focusing on three areas of work. Open data looking at our existing open data catalog. What are inventory processes? Um processes for improvement. Um performance analytics. Um can we just go back to the do you

[388:02] just since I'm on this slide just the present or are you connected? I'll just finish this. Okay. um performance analytics and our performance analytic scope of work. We'll be we'll be focusing that on the human services strategy. As the council is aware, we're revising the human services strategy, the goals and priorities. Through that process, we'll be establishing metrics that lead up and meet the goals, the goals and strategy. Also we will be engaging um in a performance contracting scope of work and the performance contracting scope of work is also within the human services area specifically aimed at our service agreements with other providers. So how are we meeting the goals and strategies once again in the human services strategy and linking those goals and strategies and metrics within the contracts with other service providers so that we're meeting council goals and community goals. So, with that, and I

[389:02] apologize for hopping around. We're wanting to do this in the spirit of time, even with technical difficulties. We do have um the website up. So, we'll do a quick demo and um Chris will focus on navigation of the site and greenhouse gas and then the fire department response time. Those three areas. Great. Thanks, Tom. Appreciate the help. Wow. If you're getting technical help from Tom, everybody gets technical. That's right. So, this is the the landing page on the site. Um, it's organized by the sustainability framework categories with the addition of an allmetrics category. Uh, we also have a a link to our open data catalog as well as a a link to provide feedback. Um if we dive into uh one of the

[390:01] framework categories, we have uh three different metrics along with the um the goal associated with each of the metrics and then whether or not we're meeting the goal um or not. So for this particular one, uh this is the GH emissions from city operations and facilities where the goal um that you guys were just just discussing 80% reduction by 2030. We haven't met that yet. So I'll I'll show you real kind of real quick what we were thinking with this page. Um just make it a little bigger there. So each of the pages uses this accordion design uh where we're um providing information on the definition of the metric providing information on the target um providing information on the significance

[391:00] as well as information on the overall trend. Um this design right here follows the city's design standards for the website. As we dig in, this is where we start to utilize Tableau where you get additional information and where we were saying that we were meeting the target is that we were trending. This is the trend line here and this is the overall 2030 target. So users have the ability to isolate some of the data. Um, as you scroll down, users also have the ability to u manipulate these different emissions by source information. So, you can turn them on and off all on and off. Um, if you want to look at buildings and facilities on top of business travel, that kind of information. And directly from this page and all the other pages, we have um the ability for users to provide feedback. Was this

[392:00] helpful? Yes or no? Do you have any questions? Um, and then you can provide your information for direct feedback. Let's back out to look at the um fire department's page which is in the safe community framework category. The fire department has a emergency response time goal of six minutes or less for 90% of the responses. And we're again following that same where we have definitions, targets, significance, and trends. We provides additional breakdown on what actually composes uh a response time call and some of the significance. Um,

[393:01] and then a trend. And what I really like to highlight for this one is the fire department's done a great job outlining some steps that they're taking to improve their response time. And that's what we'd like to see in moving forward with all of our um, metrics that aren't meeting the targets. Users also have the ability in here to scroll around, get more data. You can see the number of calls. Um we have the the high and kind of the low and then we also have this six uh six minute target line. Another visualization we have here is just the total amount of calls both emergent and non-emergent. So, the final thing that I'd like to show you all is this all metrics category, which just is a quick way to to take a look at all the the 23 metrics that we have in phase one, as well as

[394:02] the targets associated with them and how we're doing, whether we're meeting them, not meeting them, or if they're still tracking. What does tracking mean? um either it's something that we don't have enough data to have a target or we don't have a target um identified or it's something that we're kind of we're calling community indicators or foundational data. So say retail um retail sales tax revenue for example. I I'm sorry I looked away for a moment. How did you get to the page where it listed all of them at once? Um, all metrics. It's on the sustainability framework page. Um, on the lower, it's an all metrics button. Wow. Are you done? I'm done. So the question before council and in the spirit of time we can take feedback

[395:01] on an individual basis after the council meeting through email or if you wanted to sit down and kind of walk through the pages too we'd be more than willing to do that get feedback compile that and share that back with the council if that would make sense. Um, once again, January will be the public launch and then February we'll be commencing the the public engagement where we'll be reaching out to the public to ask what they would like to see in the dashboard. So, this is really cool. Um, I will say just off the top of my head and I I guess we should take all of two minutes here. Um, the target met when we're we're trying to meet trends. I I would think about these aren't static. They're dynamic and I anyhow I think having a more complex thing that's either trending the right way or meeting the target or as opposed to if we you know when we meet our affordable housing of 10% then

[396:01] we can say we met it. But most things are we are meeting if we're meeting it because we got to keep meeting it tomorrow. We got to get the fire rate right as well. So anyhow that's but this is really really exciting. Any other quick comments? Yeah. So I like your initial phase one metrics. I will throw out there things around housing affordability um growth and enforcement are very hot topics. So if there were ways that we could track enforcement cases for rentals and Tom has shown us some of these. Um, but when I say growth, I mean things like square foot of building permits pulled by month, you know, every month for commercial and home because I think it'd be great for the community to access that. I mean, there's one place I find it, which is the community update that we get annually, but if there were something that we're tracking it that came out of the building department, I think that'd be very useful for people. But other than that, I think this looks like a great interface for transparent

[397:02] data. Erin, yeah. Uh just to reiterate uh Suzanne's point, but um this is exciting. It's going to be great. Um this is kind of in my professional field, so maybe we can sit down at some point. I'd be happy I'd love to go over this in detail. Thank you, Mary. So, thank you for this. And I want to thank Jane. I think I remember talking about this my very first night on Planning Board back in 2009 or something. Oh gosh, that'll never happen. So, here we are. And um that's great. Thank you. Okay. So um just to tie a bow on this. The when would you like input from us by we like deadlines or that's what spurs us to action perhaps I should say. Um by the end I don't have a calendar in front of me so I would say by the end of the second week in January would be very helpful. What we can do to ease that is

[398:01] um I will send out a email to each of you individually that we can maybe get together, sit down and just kind of talk through this too and work through the pages. Great. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Do you plan on doing something on channel 8 with the kind of public uh roll out and doing some kind of example of how you get into this, how you use it and stuff like that? I think that would be immensely valuable. Thank you for that. And that actually is in our communication plan. Okay, great. You're welcome. So, did you hear that, Bob? We're supposed to get any input in by the second week in January. Okay. Come on. Only two other major topics.

[399:00] Good night. Your next item is background information regarding sanctuary cities. You want to talk first? I'll start. changes. All right. So, at the last council meeting, council asked me to provide some more background information about the sanctuary cities, what they mean, what other people have done. So, I did a memo which you can find in your packet that has a whole bunch of information in there. Uh I asked at CAC what kind of presentation uh was necessary and the response I got was have Greg here to answer questions about what we're doing now and provide options. So that's what I've done. Uh I'm not planning to do any detailed um presentation tonight. But I what I'm looking for from council is direction on

[400:02] next steps, what you'd like us to bring back when. Um, and as I said, Greg's here to answer any questions about uh what our current policies are. Okay. Why don't you just say um two sentences about how sanctuary cities aren't really a thing, but the policies that contribute to them maybe are. Can I have a few more sentences than that? Yep. Okay. So, the the sanctuary movement goes back to the 80s and the the idea was that uh it started with Central American uh immigrants who were um being deported even though they were victims of um of persecution in their home countries. And the idea was not that you could actually create a sanctuary because you can't uh no city can declare itself free from federal government uh intervention, but that the realization that the federal immigration services have limited resources and they rely very heavily on local resources to augment those to actually do their jobs.

[401:00] So the sanctuary city movement began by just denying the assistance to the uh immigration services of the local police and uh and jails. Uh the the concept has expanded a little bit with a realization that it's not just about going to jail. That um are are folks who are not documented uh pay taxes have an have the right to use uh local services and if they're afraid, for example, that they're going to be asked for their immigration papers when they go into the rec center, which sounds like something no one would do, but in a lot of countries it's not unusual to be asked for your papers when you do something like that. So, uh, giving some level of reassurance that you can access the library and the rec centers without being asked about your immigration status and most importantly that when you're a victim of a crime or you see a crime, you feel comfortable to call the police and know that the police are not going to ask you for your immigration status and potentially put you at risk. So, cities have have developed different

[402:00] policies along the lines and I happened to be a Seattle city attorney when we drafted the ordinance that I attached for you and that was back in 2003. So, there I remember that discussion very well then uh and I think that's a pretty good ordinance but there are other ways you can go. Um so, so what we're looking for is is there some of the examples I think I gave you Davis California which just declared themselves a sanctuary city and do and that's fine. that sends an important message to the community and that there's nothing wrong with that. There's also more detailed things that you could do. Uh you could ask us to come back with an ordinance and I've given you some examples of things that we could do. U I I I think and Greg can can elaborate more that our police department doesn't ask about immigration status, doesn't discriminate based on on on whether someone's documented or not. Um but and and as as you heard from one of the pres presenters uh back in 2014, all of the sheriffs in the state of Colorado declared that they would not honor ICE detainers. And uh an ICE detainer is uh the Immigration

[403:01] Naturalizations, the Immigration Customs Enforcement Service takes the position that they can just issue an order to detain someone uh regardless of whether or not there's probable cause for arrest. And some courts have held that that violates the Constitution. Sheriffs could be personally liable for that. So the sheriffs in Colorado said they wouldn't do it. So ICE can send them to detainment, they won't hold somebody. The other side there is some risk to uh not um holding some folks. So my recommendation is if you if you ask us go forward that you allow for some flexibility and most cities have done something. San Francisco for example has has a policy regarding felons or active felons. Um the the one of the suggestions you've heard is say you can't use any city funds for immigration enforcement. That's fine. I I would want you to be clear about what you mean by that. U because arguably when I answer a phone call I'm using funds and you wouldn't want to be violating the law. So I'd really want you to put some parameter about what what you mean by that and so that our

[404:02] particularly not me but the police officers have some idea what they're supposed to do and what they can't do. So that was more than two, Suzanne, but No, I think that's helpful. And and maybe Chief, you're gonna talk a little bit about what we're currently doing now. Yeah. So um hi council and Mayor Greg Ta, police chief. Um so um state of Colorado used to have a law um implemented in 2006 and um was repealed in 13. That information is in your packet that Tom had supplied. Um that law required specific things of local government um agencies and uh uh uh police officers and officials. That law is repealed. There is currently no law, no requirement in the state of Colorado for law enforcement to report immigration status to the federal government. So the Boulder Police Department um does not ask, we do

[405:02] not detain anybody. based on immigration status and we do not report immigration status to the federal government. So that's our current stance and our current practice. Did you hear this woman tonight who um was speaking in Spanish and she talked about her husband getting deported and she's I think she said it was the Boulder police um or it happened in Boulder. She said, "Do you think that was the federal agents? are they active here? Um I'm I'm um Jan I'm trying to remember what she said but um my it it was somewhat unclear to me my my I I I was unclear whether um the action taken um on her husband happened in Colorado or happened in Boulder or not? Um that's a great question. Is uh are immigration

[406:00] officials active in Boulder? And my honest answer to you is I don't know because we don't have direct communication with them. I was trying to in anticipation for our conversation. I was trying to think of the last time that um either as a commander, a deputy chief or as the chief of police, I had uh conversations with uh with Customs and Immigration Enforcement where, you know, they said, you know, we need information or we're coming up to take some action. And I can't recall that. And that has been many, many years now. We have heard um through our community meetings and I have participated in three community meetings uh the district attorney Stan Garnett has been involved in I I think four and um throughout the county. So we have heard stories where people um have told us that at a uh maybe a a department of motor vehicle

[407:00] hearing or after a court hearing for either a minor or um maybe a serious violation that uh an ICE agent or a federal immigration agent is there and we'll pick them up and we'll detain them. And so the assertion is that um somebody is telling them that um you know Stan Garnett or myself could could never say that's absolutely not the case. But I feel very confident in telling council that the Boulder Police Department or Boulder Police officers aren't aren't notifying ICE saying, "Hey, heads up. you know, Greg Ta is is going to a DMV hearing at two o'clock and and he's going to be there. Most of the time, officers have no idea, unless they're subpoenaed for that specific hearing, that those are even occurring after an after a detention or arrest is made. And as Stan pointed out, most of

[408:00] that information, if not all of that information is public record. and any one of us or anybody can if if you're looking for somebody those are public record documents. So, um long answer to your question. Thank you. Thank you for that, Greg. Greg, and thanks for participating in all those meetings that you've been going to. Um, so one of the speakers tonight, um, Ana Kasas, I'm very familiar with her story because I've watched her, um, she's been part of this monologue series that, um, was put on by by Modus Theater. And, um, so I've watched her tell the story of her brother Luis, which she mentioned tonight, who was caught in Boulder and deported. And so I'm wondering um I guess I would be interested in learning kind of how that happened so that folks know cuz if it was one of those cases

[409:00] where he was caught in Boulder and in the story she talks about how he was caught with marijuana and um and was deported for that. So how how did it go from there to deportation? And maybe there's some clues there as to what things we might be able to strengthen. Now you're talking about the public record piece. So, right. And I don't know that I can Mary, I don't know that I can answer that question. I can tell you that um if a police officer in the state of Colorado or a Boulder police officer um arrests somebody. So, it could be for a municipal ordinance violation. It could be for an arrest warrant or for state charges. And they are taken to the Boulder County Jail. We do an arrest report. Um, we fill out whatever paperwork we need for the jail and for um for uh for the Boulder Police Department. In other words, we document the arrest on an arrest report and we're

[410:02] done. We leave. We have no further involvement with no with notifications, nothing. previous to um 2013 when that law was in effect, we had a legal obligation to notify immigration officials. So, how we did that uh our policy was a uh a teletype was sent to immigration and and I'm not specifically sure what it said, but it probably said name, date of birth. um we have probable cause to believe that so and so is not in the country legally and um it would be short and succinct and then we were required by law u actually um the head city official so it would have been the city manager but it was defaulted to the police chief at the time where you had to keep an annual log of that to prove that you were indeed

[411:00] complying with the state law. None of that occurs now. So with respect to to marijuana is that no with respect to any notification. So in other words, we drop somebody off um if they're arrested on a marijuana charge. Um I I don't know unless it was a warrant. I and and I'm I'm talking recently now. Okay. I I can't I don't know the time frame of that. I don't know whether this was a year ago, if it was 3 years ago, if it if it occurred during when this law was in effect. Um, but I can't imagine that why we would arrest somebody on a marijuana charge short of if it was a felony amount or there was a warrant for that. Um, if it's marijuana usage, um, and there's any enforcement, it's a it's a municipal ordinance ticket. But to get to your point, I don't know how um

[412:00] immigration officials are notified. Um they're lodged at the jail, we do our paperwork, and our officer leaves. It goes back into service. Okay. Thank you. So, and for the purposes of this evening, I think it would be useful for us to just kind of get a sense of counsel about kind of what we want to direct staff to do. To that end, I have a I have a question about I see that Seattle's is kind of written like a resolution, but then is an ordinance with Yeah, they actually put in their code. They put it in their code. Okay. So, that's the difference between doing a resolution. Um, Lafayette, our neighbor, just did a resolution and that also does some of the same things. I think they've maybe they did it last night or they're doing it tonight which talks about the same sort of things about not asking not spending city resources and sort of reaffirming commitments to basic rights. So okay so

[413:00] that's my question is one it goes into the code and the other just merely kind of restates practices. Can I just just the relative one is a lot quicker to do than the other for example? I don't know. Um or or is that a question? I mean is Yeah. I'm trying to understand. So yeah. Yeah. I mean I mean if we already do these things it's not it's not that it's it's not substantially more work. It's you can do a resolution in one reading. Uh regardless of which way you act staff will comply. So the form doesn't matter. Uh and and as you know, we're probably doing most of it today anyway. Yeah. I just meant about whether it needs to be an ordinance or whether res doesn't have to be no or do you have a recommendation? No. Okay. Did you have a question? I had a quick question. So chief, when you're talking about the policies with respect to not contacting immigration and such, is that written down anywhere?

[414:02] Or is it like just in a handbook somewhere or at what level is that documented there? Since the we had a policy when the law was when the state law was in effect because it was very specific. Once that law was repealed that we um uh we did away with that policy. So we we currently don't. But um I I've taken a look at our policy manual and I think that um there's a change that we could make an addition that I think would be valuable and that's in our uh discretion arrest enforcement policy which Tom has put a um put a section in in the information packet right on quoting yeah uh on page four where we talk about law enforcement decisions. It's under uh it's on it's on page four

[415:01] um under the anti-profiling language and package page 466. Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah, my page four is not your your page four. So, uh, the language that you see here was really, uh, language that Hillard Hines had given us and then we tweaked it to make sure that it was in compliance with Colorado state law. So, we had to add a couple of caveats in there, but I think we can certainly add in uh, immigration status and and that's really what I alluded to last night at the community meeting. you know, I felt it was important to to really go through and highlight each one of those caveats because of the myriad of folks that um who who potentially were were present um at the meeting. And so I just added immigration status in there. So um I'm interested in one of these options that you were discussing, but could could just from council direction tonight, could you go ahead and proceed

[416:00] with making that change to that policy or do you need an ordinance or a declaration? I uh do it. Oh, your boss said so. Yes. That's that's called progress. Thank you. So, and then can I address what you're So, I'm done with my questions. Do you want to I just have one more question for you about um and maybe it's in here, but it says what um about not not giving information to ICE unless we are forced to, right? Or unless we're required to. that I didn't see that as a that's not spelled out specifically or anyhow would that be a thing as well. Is that internal policy because that's not how was that? Mayor, are you talking about in the options that that Tom has Well, I don't see it in the options, but you were talking about how you before you were required to turn over information to ICE and now the sheriff said they don't. What do we would it be

[417:01] worth us saying and we don't either or is that already said somewhere in our policies or anything? It's not explicitly um written in there and I can certainly craft something to to do that in the Now it's going to be in the police department policy. So, it's going to be applicable for police employees. It won't be citywide. It'll be police employees. Um, and I need to Well, that so that's a question whether that's whether which level would that be appropriate in the police manual or in the city ordinance. Most of the folks who who are going to do immigration enforcement are the police officers. So, I think if it's in their policy, it's going to cover, but if you prefer to have it in an ordinance or resolution, we can certainly do that. Si Suzanne, can I speak up here? I think there's a couple paths for us. One would be to make direction about what we want the police to do and then uh memorialize that with a resolution. So in other

[418:01] words, we've we've got it in, we know we're going to get it put in the manual. So we go through the checklist, but the other would be we do an ordinance and the ordinances would then apply to all city employees and the ones that would be most impacted would be the police. So, I think we should make a philosophical decision and then I think we can go down the list and either get it all in police manuals or put it all in an ordinance. Okay. So, Erin is also wanting to riff, but Mary Well, so Oh, you're Okay, you can go next, Mary. It's right. Well, I was just going to ask um teethwise does an ordinance have more teeth to it compared to the first path that Sam described are I guess I will not not Yeah, it's theoretically yes. So if if you could prosecute someone for violating an ordinance uh and uh most

[419:01] municipal ordinances you get a fine. Uh if an employee violates an ordinance generally it's it's grounds for discipline and often discharge. For the police department if you if you disobey a police policy it's a grounds for discipline and potentially discharge. So there as a substantive matter there is no difference because we're not going to put anybody in jail for violating this ordinance. uh but the the police take their own general orders and guidelines very seriously and they have a whole disciplinary process and it would it would probably have exactly the same result. So that's that would be true in this case but but there are several other recommendations in here or just a itemized list of things to do like the refusal to allow use of local funds. Now that that would be outside of police scope. Yes. And so I don't know that we can make a general blanket um philosophy as you describe because there are some that could be done sort of police-wise and others that need to have an ordinance and be broader.

[420:00] Uhhuh. So I mean I guess that to me is an argument. I'm just trying to move things along a little bit. Yeah. Even Aaron wants to jump in and Yes. I just So I I wanted to propose a course which is that I think um I think we do we I think it's important to make a a statement and to make uh substantive uh substantive changes. I think that the community is looking for both of those things. There's a lot of fear in the community and uncertainty and also desire by people for us to make a strong statement. So I think that you know the police department is all already doing the right things which is wonderful right. So um I think what we should do is um is is do something official from the city council and what I would propose would be something that's a combination of the resolution with an ordinance in it. Um, I liked that format from Seattle. The that has the whereases, you know, that lets us, you know, talk about our legislative intent and what kind of community we are and and want to to be and remain. Um, but that also includes uh specific code

[421:01] changes that codify some of these things. So, the about police uh policy and procedures and also potentially about funds um so that it does have the force of law and also gets that level of reassurance out to the community. Good. I'm happy with that. So that's just we can not worry so much about what's in police procedures now if we think they're doing the right thing but asked Tom to bring an ordinance to us. Mhm. Although we just like something seconding. Okay, I agree. Jane just told him to make a change to the manual and that stands. Yes, we got that in that that will happen. But that that gets done, right? Still to the point that I think I agree with about Aaron is we might as well put it in code, right? Because then we've like put it out in front of the whole community and by having it happen tonight, we know it's it's the right things are going on sooner. Does everybody agree with doing a resolution ordinance to see it? But well, yeah, I meant as a vehicle. Sorry.

[422:02] Okay. Then in terms of elements we want in it, um, one is about not asking about immigration status. Yes. One is about not spending, and we'd have to word it correctly, city funds and resources and enforcing immigrant. Why? Why not do all of them? I mean, I'd like anti-profiling in there as long as as long as we're doing it. So, I I think AB, it's just not this list that we're looking at. So, I was No, no, I'm looking in the packet. I'm sorry. No, that's cool. What page are we? Um, packet page 466 So, there's the list of measures that may be considered. And I guess I don't see one on the list that I wouldn't want to put there unless Tom said you shouldn't put that in law for some reason. Yeah, agreed. So there's four there. Yeah. So, okay, that sounds good to me.

[423:03] Does that work for everybody? Mhm. Mhm. There's also, I think, as part of the resolution though, the the things that we want to affirm about recognizing human rights and um the um sorry, I'm um Laf I thought Lafayette worded some of this really nicely um about trying to foster an inclusive I haven't seen this community. I'm sorry, it just came out. um anyhow that we affirm basic human rights and we and we're supporting the civil rights of our immigrant population um that we're also doing other things to promote an inclusive city and um they also have something in anyhow I think there's a few provisions like that that also what is what the community needs to hear as well. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And so maybe we can both contribute those to Tom oursself so we

[424:01] can offline here say what the whereases we're hoping for would be. Yeah. Does that work? And I I will forward the Lafayette one for inspirational purposes. We also have our own inclusionary policy uh resolution. Yeah. That that we that we did last week integrate some of those that language and those intentions. Not at all. Um, and I mean I and I would be interested in I know this is maybe a little risky but get getting that concept of the sanctuary city in there even though I know it has no legal meaning but it is in the wherees you mean? In the where? Yeah. No, I think that's good too. Well, so in what sense? Because how would you want to um because we can't because we're not allowed to give sanctuary. How would you well that that the the the declaration of the concept is one that means a lot to people you know that it it offers that reassurance I think that a lot of members of the community are looking for

[425:01] um to use that language even though it has no legal you knowations I got some feedback from um some folks from the Colorado Immigrants Rights Coalition and they said what matters is that we have the the force of law behind it and not so much that we here at Sanctuary City. That was the actual that we that we walk our talk was more important to them than talking the talk. But what if we do both? Well, so the only reason that I have heard is that it's somebody else's label for us. Um I don't know. We we could debate that one. I do think as long as we have the important stuff in there that that's great. That's that's what's important. I'm sorry. And I guess the the other thing about about um not saying sanctuary city is that we can have the effect of that without risking the possibility, however remote it might

[426:02] be, about losing federal funding. So there is that threat out there. So we can have a further conversation about I I have a feeling if we have a an ordinance that lays out all the policies, we'll be as much at risk as if we have the words attached. But Do you have enough from us? Yes. Okay. Um, is this captured it for people? Thank you very much. And what what kind of a time frame do we need for something like this? I problem is the council's agenda, not mine. So I I guess I I would put out there somebody mentioned about kind of the importance of having having this in place as before the new administration comes to office and or at least in the ballpark of that and that seems to be a meaningful uh goalpost to shoot for first meeting and all. Yeah, I'd say a great way to start the new year sometime in January anyway. Yeah, I

[427:00] think January 3rd is a bunch of smaller stuff if I remember correctly. We have one in the third and the 17th. If it's not going to The whole idea is that you don't want people working over the holidays, so we're not asking that. Yeah. No, it would have to be done before the holidays for the January 3rd. 3033 the 17th 3033 Broadway is on for the third, right? Well, it's just a question of do you want to call it up or not? Yeah. Right. We don't have to. We have to hear it. I have to have a hearing on it. Yeah. Okay. So, CIC can wrestle with this, but sometime in the first half of January to at least take it to the next step. Got it. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Final item is consideration of a motion regarding resolution 1200 declaring support for the Standing Rock Sue tribe.

[428:00] Okay. Who owns this one? Well, I meant Is it staff? Um I I guess it's hard to know, but Karen's here, so I'm going to say that Karen will kick us off and that others can join in. Okay. in your uh December 6th 6th packet, there was a proposed resolution based on um HRC support of a resolution in opposition to the construction of the pipeline through the um uh construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. So that information was summarized in your packet. We sent out this afternoon a revised resolution based on action that the Army Corps of Engineer had taken on Sunday. So that was sent out to you over hotline today. So we just wanted to make sure that you receive received that and we're happy to take any questions that you may have. Okay. I didn't receive that. That would be a nice thing to have. But it is in an

[429:02] email from you. Search for search for Karen Ron. Yes. You want copies? Um, well, it depends on what you're going to tell us. That for Yeah. And No, you might need that. It's okay. All right. And the the And is there somebody from HRC that's here that wants to speak to it, too? Got a couple back there. Hang on. Yeah. Lauren and are here. Okay. Will one of you come up and and speak briefly to it? I think that's what we had said at CAC. Thumb wrestle for privilege. And then and then mayor you weigh in. Okay. Oh, really? How would that be? Um, this is a resolution that we were Oh, I'm Lauren Gford from the HRC. This was a resolution that we were always behind, but I think after our last HRC

[430:00] meeting when we had would you say 30ome people speak up um about feeling uncomfortable, feeling possibly unsafe, vulnerable, and boulder. We really wanted to push um the importance of this resolution because it's symbolic, because it um sorry, I'm falling asleep here. um because uh it is symbolic of a larger movement to amplify the voices of people who are feeling particularly vulnerable, marginalized, disenfranchised at this moment. And um so you're talking about the Standing Rock one. Yes. So the Standing Rock obviously we want to support the indigenous peoples at the the Standing Rock Sue tribe. Um but we also see it as broader rep and representational of um a broader climate that we're dealing with a broader social climate. Okay. Um would you like to briefly add?

[431:02] Yes. Just just that we had Can you introduce yourself? Yes. Sorry. Nquille Mano with the human relations commission. So, um, we spent, uh, some time, um, the staff spent some time drafting that and got input, um, from the Native American Rights Fund in drafting it. And, uh, based on the community support we had at the meeting, like I I had said in my public comment that we had about 80 people showed up, all of whom did speak to it, and even those who did, and of the 80 people in the audience, all of them loudly clapped in support of it. and based on community out outreach we did um community outreach I had done since the indigenous people's day um with the um many of the indigenous um groups and peoples that performed and continued contact with them uh there was uh constant uh and strong support for this and and I think that uh the commission as a whole we feel it's is reflective of

[432:03] of what we committed to in passing the indigenous people's a resolution and that that was an initial step that was going to be get uh further steps uh that included renaming public lands and trying to set things uh right with our indigenous population and this would be um an excellent step to take second step to take to follow up with that. So if you have any other questions you can thank you Nikil. Okay thanks guys. Okay, Mary, speak to us about this. Here's more copies if you want yours back. Well, I guess I have um questions for Lauren or Nikquille about the I don't know if you've seen the one that was sent to us today. Um Okay. So, you might want to take a look at it. Um

[433:00] we have some Do we have extra copies? Yeah. And there's Oh, wait a second. Yeah. So, it was it was substantially shortened. And um one thing in particular for me that that was taken out that I think was very important was the the section that you had in there regarding um disproportional responses. Um, so if you could talk a little bit about what you chose to put in there from the beginning and um what the um uh the supporting um sources were for what you put in there and the um I guess the the reliability of those sources if you could address that. Um, did we copy another we we we're inspired by other cities, right? Go ahead. Yeah.

[434:02] Hi, good morning. I'm Gman Natilano, community relations manager with the human um human services department. Uh what happened was um subsequent to the Indigenous People's Day resolution, there was members of the Indigenous People's Day committee that wanted this resolution passed. So they worked with u members of the the HRC to work the draft. Uh they modeled a lot of the language of it from the Seattle resolution. So, a lot of the different whereazes that appeared in the um resolution uh 1,200 that was attached to your December 6th memo was based on that. And that is why one of the first whereases in that resolution referred to the Seattle um resolution um an affirmation of those of of those clauses.

[435:04] Okay. But it seems that more than that just first clause was removed from the version that we received. Right. So then what happened if I may then based on the feedback received of the and the recent decision of the US Army Corpse of Engineers uh staff um submitted uh to you earlier today that revised alternate um resolution 1200 that council um we asked council to consider. So in addition in addition to um uh reflecting the latest decision of the corpse staff staff also made the changes that were necessary to remove references to resolutions adopted by other cities and to delete assertations uh delete um sorry it's late delete uh assertions that the city could not substantiate or find reliable sources for. Um so we were trying we were trying

[436:01] to find the sources but because of time constraints um is the revision that you got today um so or yesterday. So the HRC passed a resolution without sources to substantiate some of the information that was in their version. They the this they substantiated it by um referring to a Seattle resolution but but in but they did not look at clause per clause to substantiate um any factual information based on any of the whereases. So then as I um as indicated, so then when um the US the decision on Sunday of the the corp of engineers then staff took the next step to um to to come up with the revision that you have there tonight. And um in

[437:01] your December 6th memo um that is why there was the staff recommendation put forward to you um that um um uh further analysis of the different aspects or clauses of the resolution um needed more time to be looked at. And that's why the staff's recommendation that was in the December 6th memo uh was was different from the uh HRC feedback that was forward to you as well. And um if I may ask just one more question about the um the removal of the disproportionate responses. Okay. the anything that was removed and and of the and that was presented to you in the alternate resolution was just based on things that staff felt comfortable that we could that we that

[438:00] we did have um information to affirm different things that were in the resolution and we removed those things that because of time constraints we didn't have the time to substantiate those as those assertions. So with a little more time, you could likely substantiate all of Yes. Yes. I um I'm curious what substantiation would look like for for you for the council just because these numbers are pretty standard like the numbers of barrels of oil, the numbers of So you're look you're looking at a version that I think is considered substantiated. The one that you guys passed was the one that Oh, is that that issue? That's the one. Yeah, that's the one I'm thinking about. So, well, here I want you to finish and then I'm going to try to get us out of here by one. Yeah. Okay. I think if I may, I think a good model that staff would base it on is the Indigenous People's Day resolution

[439:01] where, if you would recall, there was a number of citations that were um uh attri that were attributed to regarding the different wherees in that in that uh resolution. So I I a couple things I would jump in and say. I do think at our retreat we need to kind of clarify how what's the best way to go about such things kind of going forward such that uh we we you know we don't want to end up with resolutions at the last minute but we you know HRC anyhow to clarify this process of when staff comes in and decides if things are substantiated or enough which is a totally legitimate thing. Um so I do think that so let us we'll clarify our process. I think or I would suggest that. Um the other thing is I'll just weigh in. I would like to pass something tonight and one of the things that the memo said is that staff felt like they needed to do more research which I don't think is necessary and if this is maybe the compromise that allows us to move

[440:01] forward. Um I think it says the most important things that we want to say. Um, and if you concur, Mary, I understand that the process was a little rocky, Mary, but I guess if you can live with it, I think it captures the spirit of what we need to say. Um, and I would love to be able to say it tonight. Well, I I would be okay with that if you we council were open to adding the the section two that's in our packet regarding the disproportionate responses. [Applause] I'm sorry. Who's Who's next? Go ahead. Yeah. Um I actually like the way the staff cleaned it up. I think it's more maybe it's a little bit more I don't pertinent is not the right word but it brings it back to what we have previously done with the indigenous um

[441:04] uh resolution and some other things and it's not so much focused on what other cities have done and I think that's what some people in our community may have a problem that we're getting involved with um you know national affairs and I think if we can bring it back to what we already stand for that to me is kind of it ties it together better. Okay, Erin, so thought here I um generally Jen I agree with you. I think that the new one is is tighter and more substantiated. But Mary, I also have the sympathy with you about that clause because I was also very troubled by the issue called out in that one. But it does have two pieces in that section. Uh I'll just read it real quickly. The city of Boulder condemns the militarized and disproportionate response to the water protectors which includes but is not limited to the use of military grade weaponry material as well as drawing upon outofstate law enforcement and private security resources. What if we cut off that sentence at um water protectors so that we condemn we say the city of Boulder

[442:01] condemns the militarized and disproportionate response to the water protectors stop which gets our point across but maybe doesn't include these details which I think are not necessarily relevant and I personally don't have the facts at hand to say that's exactly what happened. I think that would be okay. Cool. Okay, Nikil, we're going to let you say something real quick. Um we had a section in this uh that talked about uh something that was mentioned um by CU Indian law clinic in the keynote at the indigenous people's day which was um ex express Bruce's uh implied consent and what that means in in the litigation of this and I know that uh Suzanne you had mentioned uh that that was something meaningful to you on that day when uh when you asked me that uh maybe the commission could take this up and present something to you. um I don't see that line in this. So, um I understand you guys do want to um pass something tonight and we'll find something um appropriate to you. But I do feel that that idea of the doctrine of discovery

[443:02] and implied versus express consent and the basis of that um in this struggle and in the lawsuit was something uh quite significant and it was mentioned by our local law school who was helping with it and it's something that stuck out to me. So if uh within the time if you can find a way to to include that cool if if not I I'm not seeing any language about that in the in the resolution in the packet from a week ago. So I I can read it. I have it it's at the top of page 505. Okay. It's a whereas I problem with it is it refers to several treaties which we haven't read. Gotcha. Um, wait a minute. Sorry. Yeah, I um

[444:00] I will agree the lecture that she gave about this issue was pretty moving about the evolution of Indian law and the importance of both getting um what are the two C words? God consent implied and yeah cons consultation and consent. Um I'm not sure how we can definitely put that in there um without um which where where which is the whereas I'm not finding it. It's at the top of page 505 very first close. Okay. Yeah, that would and and I would agree Suzanne that was really really significant in her um discussion or her speech. Well, the other thing we could do is put it in our section three at the end and say um including but not limit to finding an alternative route something about

[445:04] and ensuring compliance with Yeah. or and ensuring both consultation and consent. Um, ensuring is a strong word, but um, okay, we have to resolve this really quickly. Um, are we good on adding in section two that one sentence? Is everybody fine with that? We want the Aaron suggestion against Okay. And we want to give you time to talk. Um, okay. So, we're good with that. Anybody gonna help me with consult and consent? I didn't hear about this concept. So, failed to um and

[446:01] Well, how about this? Don't have wording. Um, I have some language if that helps. Could we stick it in on line 19? We have a long-standing policy of inclusion and respect for all people and believes that they should have the ability to protect their lands, people, and waters and give both there should be section. I make a suggestion at the end of section four where it says um ancestral lands, waters, and sacred sites and honors the trib's legal right to consultation and consent. Are you looking at the first one? I'm looking at the one I'm editing the one you just had. I thought we were editing Tom. Aren't we editing? Yeah. Yeah. He's stuck in two, so it made this one four. Yeah. So, I added two. I'm sorry. Okay, I got it. I see. Oh, so you add you added the disproportionate response. I wanted the city condemns the the section two, the city of Boulder condemns the militarized and disproportant response to the water

[447:00] protectors. Great. Okay. And then I section four would read, respectfully calls upon the president of the United States to take swift and meaningful action to address the concerns of the Standing Rock Sue tribe, including but not limited to finding an alternative route for the DAPL that minimizes environmental and social harms to the trib's ancestral lands, waters, and sacred sites, and honors the trib's legal right to consultation and consent. Yes. Good. Brilliant. Thank you. You're hired. Got it. All right. Okay. Um before we vote on these things, I would like to let um Bob speak. Is there a resolution? Is there a motion? I think you motion. I move that we approve resolution 1200, a resolution declaring the city of Boulder support for Standing Rock Sue Trib's opposition to the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Second,

[448:00] I'm going to read this because I want to make sure I get it right. Um, I will be voting against this resolution uh not because I want to take sides in this dispute. is because I don't think we should take any side in this dispute. I firmly believe that this dispute lies outside of the jurisdiction of the Boulder City Council and has little bearing on the interests of our community. This is a legal dispute between a Native American tribe and a private company over the routing of a pipeline in a certain location in North Dakota. There are many legal disputes right now throughout the country involving various Native American tribes. Yet, the Boulder City Council has not take a taken a position on any of them. There are many pipelines being built in the United States, some right here in Colorado. Yet, the Boulder City Council has not taken a position on any of them. But tonight, we are choosing this one Native American legal dispute in this one pipeline in North Dakota on which the Boulder City Council will take an official position on behalf of the people of Boulder.

[449:00] The people of Boulder did not hire us to take official city positions on legal disputes between parties in another state. The people hired us to take care of the interests of Boulder. Any connection of Boulder to this North Dakota pipeline is strained at best. And if my colleagues believe that a legal dispute over the routing of a pipeline in North Dakota is within our purview, then there really is no limit to the scope of our jurisdiction. With this precedence, we can take positions on legal disputes between parties in any state, in any country, and on any topic, regardless of the relationship to Boulder. This will distract us. And tonight, it has distracted us from doing the job for which we were hired. I do not know who is right in the legal dispute between this Native American tribe and this company over the routing of this pipeline in North Dakota. I am happy that the United States government said on Sunday that they will require that the pipeline be relocated to a route that is less troublesome to the Native American tribe because this

[450:01] will undoubtedly help deescalate a tense and unsafe confrontation. But it is a step too far for the Boulder City Council to insinuate itself in this North Dakota legal fight. I cannot in good conscience support this unfortunate precedence. Thank you for listening to my concern. Thank you, Bob. And could I just clarify one thing if I may? Oh, do you? Okay. Yeah, I do. I just want to just clarify that we weren't hired. We were elected. Okay, fair enough. Um Bob, I totally support your the space for you to to say that and I respect that. Um I will say this and and that is um I am um moved by how many people in our city are engaged and affected by this fight. I know that where I work, people left and to go up there to spend Thanksgiving there and take supplies. And uh it made me really realize just not just how symbolic, but

[451:01] how important this um this battle is, I think, to the larger narrative going on. And not to mention um as it was eloquently discussed at our indigenous people's day about um the rights of indigenous people and the evolution of Indian law to try to undo some of the harm that was done and and write some of the inequities. So anyhow I I I totally respect what you're saying Bob. I'm I'm wholeheartedly supporting this resolution though and um thank you for your guys's work in putting this together. I'll briefly say that this ties a whole bunch of threads together and people have already spoken about the indigenous people's um rights, but I will point out that what will flow underneath these water sources is fossil fuels. and fossil fuels is what's uh killing our

[452:00] planet right now, the burning of them. And so it ties a lot of different pieces together. So I'm personally going to support this, not only because of the social justice issue, but because of the climate justice issue. Okay, does that sum things up for us? Okay, I think that's our last matter, so we can start to vote. We have no one signed up to speak. Oh. Yeah. Well, they already spoke. I was going to say, do we have to speak on matters? Okay. Yes, I guess we do. All right. So, with that, can we do we vote from So, you want to open and close the public hearing. You just did. No one signed up to speak. So, we're going to close the public hearing. Okay. So, the first motion is um three different motions regarding the climate commitment. Yes. Yes. Yes. Oh, all okay. Can we vote on them all at once? I think so. Okay. All of those in favor of the three climate goals, raise your hand.

[453:02] It is unanimous. And the next one is a motion to adopt resolution 1200. Resolution what? 1200. Standing. Oh, sorry. All those in favor? All those opposed. Okay. Six to one. Okay. And we already gave our direction on sanctuary cities. So, um, anybody have any debrief? Yes. Well, I'm I mean, it's one o'clock and look, we still have 20 people in the room. I'm so impressed with you. Thanks. Thanks for sticking it out and thanks to all the community interest on all these big topics that we've been working on. So, okay. Does anybody want to say anything about this meeting other than it was too long? Was too long. I will say this. Come on. Oh, hey. No, it's all about all the things we want to get done by the end of the year. And I just want to say we are getting a lot done. So, thank you.

[454:01] [Music]