December 15, 2020 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] you to give you permission to do those sort things so thank you all that I don't know I I still say Mr wall I he Intimates me seriously right he's kind of intimidating right [Music] Grand k well hopefully it's a little further along down the streeta this is Debbie my parents did the same thing with [Music] me my son does it now [Music]

[1:01] 41 I just told my [Music] how I'm just going to be one [Music] all the C members are here who are going to be here I believe that nearby is going to miss me so um I think we're ready to start Chris Alicia are you guys ready yes sir okay very good so I will gel in tonight's meeting it is Tuesday December 15th and this is the regular meeting of the Boulder City Council uh we will start with a few announcements before we call roll um the first announcement tonight let me get my announcements up

[2:02] is a reminder that the state of Colorado has announced that a mobile digital covid exposure tracking application has been launched to help individuals be aware that they have been close to someone who has had a positive test for covid this application is available for cell phones running Google Android or Apple iOS and is secure and Anonymous and will provide those signed up with a notification if someone that they were near test positive for Co over 15% of Colorado's cell phones have already loaded this application which is expected to reduce Co incidents by 8% please sign up to increase your own protection and that of fellow residents more information and the application itself can be found at www.you phone.com that's www.ad D yo P ne.com

[3:00] and we're all looking forward to not having to make these type of announcements once the vaccine is out so but for now we need to make sure and take precautions as we wait for probably next summer second announcement is at last week's study session we held a group interview for the purpose of appointing two non-voting ex officio members to the Cannabis licensing Advisory Board later this evening under matters we will um Matters from the mayor and members of city council we will be nominating and appointing those members at which time we will open a public hearing for members of the public to provide testimony if you'd like to participate in the public hearing for the appointment to canbus licensing Advisory Board please sign up to speak by emailing the city clerk's office at city clerk staff at bouldercolorado.gov that's CI Ty y c r k s

[4:00] TF bouldercolorado.gov the clerk's office will be compiling the names and emailing the link to the meeting to those who sign up to speak speakers will be called upon in the order that they are received and with that we will proceed with the roll call Alicia thank you mayor and good evening everyone council member Brockett he's stumping you on your first yeah ER okay I hit the wrong button on my my speaker I am actually here I am present thank you sir I knew that I just needed to hear your voice friend here Joseph present Nagel sweti here wallik present

[5:00] Weaver here Yates here and young present mayor we have a quorum very good thank you Alicia and um I will ask Council for a motion to amend the agenda um we will be removing item 1A tonight that's the Declaration in honor of Nino Gallow we're moving that to January 5th and then we also remove item 6A which is the website update and demo which we're moving to a future meeting so could I have a motion to do that so moved second second second very good we have motion and a second does anyone object seeing no objections we will amend the agenda our next item is a declaration in honor of outgoing Boulder County Commissioners Deb Gardner and Elise Jones and that declaration will be led by uh read by mayor protim juny Joseph juny

[6:00] thank you Sam and Council for this opportunity to read this declaration on behalf of our uh Commissioners so this declaration honors Deb Gardner in Elise John service to Boulder County this December 15 2020 every day Boulder County community members directly benefit from the dedication and committed service of our County Commissioners these public service events work hard to keep the county running and pursue continuous improvements in their work County Commissioners represent people from a myriad of jobs identities and backgrounds possess a broad range of skills and expertise and put these to use with efficiency and integrity for everyone in our County County Commissioners Deb Gardner and Elise Jones have served Boulder County for a

[7:02] collective 17 years and in that time have performed their jobs with the utmost skill and professionalism their abilities to bring together diverse voices and build consensus have advanced many county goals and priorities including climate change climate action air quality flood recovery Wildlife response and Recovery affordable housing sustainable Transportation Solutions criminal justice and social justice and equity and the final year of their term commissioner Gardner and commissioner Ellies focused on protecting the Boulder County Community from the damaging impact of the covid-19 pandemic these efforts required a careful balance of growing demands with

[8:02] limited resources extensive coordination with the state and local agencies and stands as a testament to their commitment to dedicated and competent government service we the city council of the city of Boulder Colorado recognize and honor and appreciate the many years of service and significant contributions made by Debbie Gardner and Ellis Jones during their tenure as Boulder County Commissioners and we congratulate both of them for a job well done thank you both thank you juny for reading that and I think we'll turn now to the Commissioners to see if they have a few words to say we'll start with commissioner Gardner well well thank you so much

[9:01] thank you for reading that the um it's quite overwhelming to have someone talk about what you've done um over the last few years and um the um and I think the the point of course we have to make right away is we didn't do anything on our own and um that I think the partnership with the city uh has done nothing but grow over the years that I've been a commissioner and it's been um a pleasure to be able to count that I think as one of the accomplishments is that we work uh even more closely together and accomplish great things together than we have in the past this looking at everyone's faes here the some of you I know really well and have worked together a bunch and some of you I really don't know at all and I think a big chunk of that is because of this last year with covid nobody has it's

[10:00] hard to make new friends and new relationships when you never get to see somebody actually in person so um but um thank you for that recognition and um it's been U my biggest pleasure and honor of my entire life to to have this job and um to do this work and uh appreciate the thank you but really appreciate the relationships we've had with y'all great thank you Deb and commissioner Jones well I well said Deb I totally agree it's very um sweet of you all to take time to honor us it is a partnership it takes a village and um I I really really do cherish not only um the the working relationship I have with you all but but also the friendships we have um you know a car pooling to Denver uh with Aaron for Dr hog meetings and

[11:00] doing MCC meetings with Sam and uh letting Bob pour me a beer at bands on the bricks and uh you know just uh and that the list goes on and on but it it um it really makes a difference and I I love the fact that the city of Boulder and Boulder County are so aligned in terms of values and advocacies advocacy about everything from you know affordable housing to to homelessness to climate and that together we accomplish so much and innovate together and it's it's really really important that the county um have a good working relationship with the city and I certainly have enjoyed um partnering on so many so many issues and I guess I want to take a moment to thank all of you for your incredible public service and being on the front lines engaging with your constituents um we've done that too the difference is we get paid to do this full time and you will do

[12:01] this out of the goodness of your heart on top of um you know however else you pay the bills and um that is not lost on me so thank you so much for all all of the work that you've done that you will do and um please continue the partnership with the county we've got some good Commissioners following us you're gonna love them and um and de and I will still be around so now we can help volunteer and and uh come speak at your hearing and uh um and and continue to haunt you in our next chapters but thanks again well good maybe the not kindest thing we could do is not come well I want to say thanks to both of you and the partnership between the county and the city is extremely important and tonight we are going to be looking at the update to the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan which is a big accomplishment between the city and the county over many years with that I will turn to other council members to say their thank you I've got Aaron's hand up

[13:00] other council members please raise your hand if you'd like to speak Aaron hey well I'll just Echo Alise and Deb the enormous thank you for the extraordinary work you've done over the last eight plus years and it's been an honor and a pleasure to work with you both on the city and the county and the regional issues and then just have have to give a special shout out to Elise uh for being my mentor on Dr Cog um I learned so much from you and I don't know what we're going to do over there with you not on that board but anyway I know we've got great Commissioners coming in but there's no replacing Deb Elise so thanks for everything thanks Aon thank you Aon um Mary and then Bob Mary yeah thank you Deb and Elise um you guys were part of a groundbreaking um team of Commissioners all women Commissioners so that's that's pretty awesome um I've enjoyed um working with you all when we had the the ability to work together but certainly um enjoyed

[14:01] um my partnership with Elis goes way back way back and um we were we served on planning Bo board together and um and Deb I enjoyed um all the work that we did together on um The Immigrant project a couple years ago a few years ago um so thank you and um onward to greener pastures and um I look forward to seeing your faces in your new Endeavors thank you thanks so much Mary and Bob well this is truly bittersweet because um as Leisa observed we have some outstanding Commissioners coming in and so we very much looking forward working with them but we're going to so desperately miss you you you folks have been great partners and allies to us and um I think that few people um recognize the um level of commitment the level of effort dedication that's re required um of an

[15:00] elected official other than an another elected official so I think you have the nine of us knowing full well um the hours and the sacrifices that you've made over the last year 17 years in the aggregate between the two of you to serve our community we we can't thank you possibly enough for everything you've done for our community and everything that you will I know continue to do for our community in your new U roles in life so thank you so much thank you thank you Bob and thank you again Deb and leise I hope that um the next seats that you occupy are a little less hot than the ones that you just occupy fair enough with that we will wish you both well thanks very much for your service thank you yep bye bye yeah bye and then next we will move to open comment um and our first three uh speakers at open comment will be Philip Doe alexio paros and Evan

[16:00] rabbits start with Phillip Ryan I see you working the computer is Philip thank you it doesn't look like Philip do is present and we can move on to Alexia par good evening I am Alexia parus and I've lived in Boulder for three years now I have grown to love and be connected to my local community over this time however I've become aware of the severity of the eviction crisis facing not only my immediate area but all of Colorado with the lapse of Governor Po's eviction moratorium in June we saw numerous families thrown out onto the street during a dangerous pandemic with a reissuing of the order and a relapsing of it as well we will see more of these devastating circumstances including my

[17:00] friends and neighbors city council has put in a lot of work to help ease the burden of this pandemic and has supported a number of effective and helpful services such as free mediation and free legal assistance the problem I want to emphasize is that these Services remain underutilize this is not because of the lack of necessity but because people are simply unaware of the help that the city council has worked hard to provide to them it would be low cost to provide workshops and raise awareness for existing workshops on how to navigate available resources on the town state and federal level and the cost would be offset by production gained by House people this is a necessary investment and one that really makes it so many of the efforts already put forward are accessible to all citizens thank you for listening and I would like to thank city council and the actions of Bolder safe access for everyone for their work on these issues thank you Alexia and so a couple of notes there will be two minutes um per speaker for open comment tonight so we'll have a two-minute timer and we got

[18:01] a note that Philip doe may be in the meeting as Paula Nan Ryan did we see him sir uh yes and I have have changed the name so um Phil do you are up next thank you very much my name is Phil doe and I i' just like to make uh a few comments about the initiative process which I think will be discussed later this evening I've tried to run four four initiatives Statewide inititive in the state never been effective but let me give you some background it was added to the Constitution in 1910 by Article Five the courts have ruled that the citizens now have the first right to legislate it's a right Superior even to the legislators so we should respect that what it is not it is not a law for to make laws it is an imitation for a public conversation about what is of

[19:01] interest to the people and you should respect that it is the highest honor that you can give to the people is to allow them to express their concerns and to legislate any effort to subvert that option constitutional right is mistaken and I just hope that when you get into these conversations about the initiative you respect that the people are the sovereigns and they should have every right the first right to legislate and you should encourage it as we know there's not much there's not much confidence in government in this country and if the initiative were a national right we would have public health we would have free education we would probably not have any wars so you can see its Advantage if it's if it's dealt with honestly and sincerely and um I guess that's about all I have to say except that the rule lead have always been opposed to this

[20:01] part of the problem is was probably Taber but the legislature got plenty of advanced notice if they didn't control their spending this bill was coming down the line and it passed and the public still votes for it as bad as it is in some cases so respect the people allow the conversation to to be engaged in and you'll get some good laws the best laws the most Progressive laws we have in this state in the last 20 years were from the initiative process thank you thank you next we have Evan rabbit Joy Sanchez Dixon and Eric tusi Evan yeah you can hear me yep hi regarding direct democracy consider that this year the people wisely advocated three reforms that will or would have made Boulder far more ready for the pandemic the no eviction without representation ballot initiative will mitigate the coming W of evictions and

[21:02] homelessness kudos to council for following the people's lead and even improving on it with rental insistance number two the bedrooms are for people ballot initiative would also have mitigated the housing crisis by letting people use housing already available but kept empty by the occupancy ordinance I agree that allowing four people in any unit went too far one reason many ballot initiatives have flaws like this is that it takes a Monumental effort to do the busy work imposed on us collecting signatures when petitioners should instead be Consulting the community and experts and lawyers to get the details right remove the busy work with online petitioning and you'll have more deliberation and better initiatives and of course

[22:02] number three the online petitioning we voted into the city Charter in 2018 but whose implementation still looks bleak because of poor design opposed to community input which would have saved a lawsuit thousands of angry people as well as virus transmission from passing paper petitions older would have been the toast of the People by doing this first in the world it is sad that our highly paid City attorney has obstructed two of these three examples of the people's leadership and foresight thank you thank you Evan next we have joy Sanchez Dixon Eric tusy and Gary erling Joy look like Joy is present this evening I'll go ahead and unmute Eric to see thank you

[23:14] right Eric you should be able to speak you'll just need to unmute yourself that'd be great hi my name is Eric Tessy I live in the county on the road to the boulder Reservoir we bought our house in 19 91 um I appreciate you guys taking public comments we're showing we're kind of letting you know how the neighborhood feels um bringing up the reservoir and the new Reservoir facility that unfortunately hasn't really been able to been open yet but the reason I was um addressing you guys tonight is in the last 30 years the boulder Reservoir um has just added event after event after event much to the public uh the neighborhood

[24:01] detriment um we have tens of thousands of new people coming every summer to different things whether it's a triathlon or a race or anything like that and now um it's been brought to our attention not not through regular official notices but um we're finding out that the boulder Reservoir is trying to open up a restaurant which will be open late into the evening possibly after hours serving liquor and um and also occasional quote unquote occasional live music and this is a very big concern for the neighborhood because we didn't move out here to have you know restaurants and bars and bands and uh INE inebriated drivers on our neighborhood Loop and we're very concerned about it and we feel that the city and the parks and recck Department um need to really address this before the company that owns River

[25:02] and woods who is currently under a liquor uh violation moves out here and instead of actually providing a restaurant mostly I think does food trucks and um is planning on making all their money with alcohol so we're really concerned about drunk driving and an increased traffic noise nighttime activity to our neighborhood danger so I wanted to kind of put that out there for you guys to think about as than you ER thank you Eric for your consideration y um it seems like uh number six and seven Gary erling and Paul Coleman are not on the call um today so we'll move on to the next three bishan jubin Misha tour and Christy Russell bishan members of council thank you for your tireless efforts during this Global crisis my name is Ban jubin City a

[26:00] Boulder City resident and prior to the covid-19 shutdowns a bar owner here in town I'm concerned about the tactics that the city is employing in the management of their commercial properties it has come to my attention that the city has attempted to coer some of their commercial tenants into signing a non-disclosure agreement specifically related to tenant landlord negotiations I believe that the purpose of this is to protect the real estate market by hiding the actual data representing Market rents during covid this is a faulty strategy the way to protect property values and associated property tax revenues is to drive down uh the real estate market cap rate by boosting investor confidence through sound and solid policy policy that focuses on economic growth and more specifically High Velocity retail cash flow the city must encourage organic economic growth by allowing businesses to flourish one example of this might be a moratorium on

[27:00] licensing fees for q1 of 2021 the city must not be Pennywise and dollar foolish forcing non-disclosure agreements on City tenants can also set a dangerous precedent that can put small business owners in an extremely disadvantaged position the city must recognize the potential applicab applicability of the common law doctrine of a frustrated purpose um as the landlord City in this case has a duty to provide the space they are leasing for the purpose uh as prescribed in the lease I asked city council to investigate the city administrator bizarre tactics and provide some answers to bowler residents and small business owners uh thank you for your time I appreciate letting me speak thank you ban next we have Misha tour Christy Russell and Shirley shallot it doesn't look like we have Misha or Christie here tonight I will go

[28:00] ahead right of them wrote down great and so if we don't have Misha or christe we have Shirley shallot Deborah vanen honer and ly SEO Shirley hi there uh yes I'm Shirley Sher uh there was a typo there and I'm calling while I'm speaking in regards to the restaurant the prop Post restaurant at the reservoir uh my husband and I live at 5054 51st Street and we just don't believe that the drift is going to be a good fit for the reservoir they have 60 over 63,000 square feet of area to monitor for alcohol use and alcohol is also still going to be allowed to be brought in by patrons of the Beach area and I imagine for the

[29:00] voters um there's just no way that you can separate who's drinking what and where they got it from and if you run out of your drinks from your cooler um you can go over to their bar and speaking of bars they're not going to be serving lunch they're going to have food trucks but their bars will be open so that means that they could Poss possibly have two bar areas so who knows who's getting drinks from what bar and this just is not going to be a very good thing because alcohol and water do not mix U I know that I'm not sure if all of you know about the kinetics races but it was absolutely bizarre with all the alcohol and the drivers that went by our home where I mean it was just amazing that people made it home a few years ago Avery

[30:02] Brewing had an activity on the 4th of July and people were gentlemen were pulling wheelies on their motorcycles there was a bicycle accident at the bottom of a hill and I was trying to get people to slow down and I got the one finger wave back so please reconsider take a look at this thank you bye thank you Shirley next we have um Deborah ven honer seagull and Sharon Anderson and I assume Ryan that you're also watching the Alexia Parks issue in the um Q&A so let's move on to Deborah banden Hunter hi I'm Deb Vanden honer um and I'm at 900 Baseline Road in Boulder and I have comments about the city's racial Equity plan which you discussed last

[31:00] week um I'll start with a quote from James Baldwin that you do have in the plan nothing can be changed until it is faced facing it means acknowledging racism in our history for sure but it also means facing it in our present the plan should be crystal clear about the importance of looking for and identifying any policies that are on the books today be they land use or any other type type of policy that exacerbate racial inequities if you ask the plan to be silent about that if you don't ask the plan to help us understand and face the present you will be working against the plan's first goal of everybody gets it everybody won't get it we will be avoiding inconvenient truths George S George Schulz uh former Secretary of State offered some wisdom recently that I think is here he said that trust is the coin of

[32:01] the realm in his experience when trust was in the room good things happened and when trust was not in the room good things did not happen so in Boulder for good things to come here we need trust and for trust we need honesty so as you final finalize the plan please consider this the extent to which we avoid talking about and honestly facing to today's racial inequities in Boulder is the extent to which we will fail to end them in the future thank you thank you Deb and so we'll go backwards a little bit now we have joy Sanchez Dixon present who was slated to speak earlier um we'll go to the Joy now good evening my name is Joy Sanchez Dixon and I have owned owned Salon liquid located at 1100 Spruce Street for

[33:01] the past 18 years I'm a single owner operator and um I'm writing and I'm speaking with you tonight really in regards to my city um lease I have paid for 18 years on time every single month I post I've postate my 12 checks every year on the first of the year and every single one for 18 years has cashed I am disappointed and really disenfranchised with the lack of support I go around town and I see all these signs that say we're in this together but that's simply just not the truth um I'm now speaking to you because I've exhausted all of the options with my property manager and to the city of Boulder due to co9 economic Devastation I have an outstanding balance of read around $7,300 and I tried to clear this this year by giving an offer and compromise

[34:01] for half of that and I was told that that that there was going to be no rental um assistance end of story not even 99 Cents after 18 years but they would defer it and they would have me sign my name to multiple new documents that would make me liable and not just liable for money but liable in a way in which would not be possible it's not economically possible um with is stated there has been Mi minimum six previous emails requesting my personal documentation of my finances my business finances um starting from 2018 it's been requested of me that I prove um that I prove that my house is on the market uh I'm exhausted from the amount of requests and I found it degrading after 18 years of consistent rental payment I have watched many of my neighbors go out

[35:02] of business over the 18 years but I work tirelessly in this community to make sure that I serve it I also make it right with my agreements I and uh here we are we're in this pandemic and the City of bowler says no you don't get 99 cents as a matter of fact sign your name thank you thank you Joy we will we will follow up with staff afterwards if you want to listen thank you very much we have Lyn seagull Sharon Anderson and Hannah Samson ly um yeah I'm sorry to miss Misha tour somehow um well I found out something interesting this week and I think all of you should know about this deconstruction when you deconstruct something you have to um put down a deposit and um I went to a deconstruction talk this week and I

[36:02] missed the beginning of it where they said what that deposit was and so I asked Karen Merz well what is the deposit 500,000 or what no for a 2,000 square foot house it's $1 a square foot it's 2,000 bucks stunning stunning now I know why you know we don't have this is this is our pre-existing housing the best use of you know embedded energy is keeping what you have there and using it or repurposing it Mark I'm sure understands this um that Alpine ballson project that has got to be kept up that's a huge piece of real estate that's perfectly good it's GED now so repurpose it this is like stunning I had no idea um and then I brought up to you last last time that um my two best comps were

[37:03] disqualified on my fighting my property taxes because they were demolition after sale and I was thinking demolition costs a lot well deconstruction is not in practice here we have a Nexus study coming up because this is a Taber issue if we were to have a huge fee because it's fee not a tax then we would be paying um a lot you know we would have to have it vetted and verified but in any case um this deconstruction thing is a big deal and I go for municipalization in 2021 we are going to get an initiative on the ballot 2021 not wait until 2025 Sam thank you Lyn next we have Sharon Anderson Hannah Samson and Shan R Sharon hi I'm Sharon Anderson 4867 vahalla two

[38:04] minutes is not enough time so I sincerely invite you to come to my deck and share a rural setting with open space and beautiful views including the reservoir you need to hear different points of view to make informed decisions you will learn why it is so important to appreciate what you have built and what you are about to destroy because of a need to make money in the quiet Reservoir sitting you have tested the limits with events such as Iron Man which was loud intrusive and dangerous and now under the guise of Co you are setting up another scheme to have an environmental intrusion worse than Iron Man Saga why because it will be nonstop this was talked about as a done deal before the balla Waterstone neighborhoods were even informed parks and wreck and planning have misused their power and although doing surveys in open houses don't listen to or share their data a simple idea to help boers

[39:02] and swimmers to get a snack has blossomed into an event center operating seven days a week from 7 a. to 10 or 12 midnight with people drinking alcohol in The Visitor Center on the beach and elsewhere does anybody remember the July 4th 10,000 strong event where young people were blasted out of their minds ask yourself this are you giving Mr Diner uh exclusive rights to cater all events is this really a restaurant or is it a takeout or is it a bar with bar food think of event Music and Sound wafting across the Valley all day and all year long think of the stream of car lights flashing on nests of birds of special concern and hideouts for wildlife as well as nearby neighbors homes think of the danger of near or real crashes and interactions among bikers joggers wildlife and car drivers perhaps intoxicated on an unlit narrow

[40:03] County Road day and night you arear thank you Sharon thank you Sharon next we have Tannis Samson Sean R and Kim beex dixel Tannis hi I am a vajala neighborhood resident um I've been here five years and I have to um agree with my neighbors that I didn't realize that I would be held hostage at my house during all these events you don't realize it unless you actually live in the valala neighborhood so we are concerned that approving the liquor permit will continue our ongoing battle to keep the peacefulness of the reservoir and that more events will continue all throughout the year and into the late evening hours every day of the week an ongoing party for the patrons or the staff that we neighbors will have to parent the fear

[41:00] is that with the alcohol license permit private seasonal events and extended operating hours that doite is proposing will result in alcohol rated accidents on 51st and at the difficult intersection at 51st and J 51st is an active road used by many cyclists and Runners throughout the year not only will vehicle accidents occur due to the alcohol availability being offered at the red say but drownings are also a potential occurrence docside will be responsible responsible for patrolling 1.4 acres of an area with Zero Entry water access Studies have shown that the percentage of drownings attributed to alcohol is between 10 to 30% Studies have also shown that drownings involving children were mostly due to inadequate adult supervision please help us prevent the tragic late night drunk driving crash or drowning that could easily occur if the city allows a bar to

[42:01] operate at the reservoir until midnight 7 days a week the city's Financial liability will be tremendous but the blow to its moral Integrity would be even worse do not allow the promise of a retail SX retail sales tax revenue from a public private partnership come at the expense of our neighborhood or the safety of our community we neither need the new liquor license proposed for the res War nor desire it thank you for your time thank you Tannis next we have sha R Kim bixel and Patrick Murphy Sean hi thanks I actually have to apologize I I thought I was signing up for the public comment on the clab board positions um but if it's okay with you I'll just go ahead and and do my 10 seconds here um I just wanted to say I was really happy to see that someone from Colorado Board of Public Health or sorry B Boulder County Public Health was applying for the board I think it's a perspective that's really important and

[43:01] I really hope that this uh Council um strongly considers Miss Bailey's um application and that you I would ask that you appoint her to the board um and um thank you that's all I had to say thank you Sean next we have Kim dixel Patrick Murphy and we will close with Ryan Harwood Kim hi this is Kim bixel thanks for listening um I I guess I'm joining my fellow Reservoir neighbors here in asking that you please ask parks and wck to Halt their restaurant and event venue plans for the boulder Reservoir I emailed you a few photos last night and you can see at the res after dark there are no lovely water views or Mountain views there is only dark and silence is this a good place for the city of Boulder to be uh itself to voluntarily start a new yearr round full service restaurant and nighttime event venue I I'm asking that you kind of just please ask yourselves and parks and wreck a few

[44:01] important questions is it one of Boulder's values to increase and introduce new light pollution and introduce new noise pollution at one of its own quiet recreational n natural areas in the photos I sent you can see 51st Street at night the only road to the reservoir is a quiet county road with no street lights and two dangerous blind spots on 51st there are no sidewalks and no bike paths and dozens and dozens of daily cyclists Runners and Walkers is it really Boulder's value to voluntarily put it citizens in added danger at the same time as degrading its natural resource is Boulder really voluntarily adding a new venue that encourages single car driven vehicles to a sparsely populated area why money how much additional money will City need to spend to add lighting appropriate lighting and appropriate safety and winter snow removal will the potential profits even pay for this by every measure these plans are a

[45:00] detriment to the community and not an amenity after dark the reservoir is simply a really inconvenient and dangerous location to go to for any purpose Boulder needs another restaurant and event venue like it needs a hole in its ozone please ask Parks and Rec to work with a food operator at the res that does not need to serve alcohol or operate in the dark to make money use seeds Cafe at the library as an example with the current plans the city is acting irresponsibly and as a terrible Steward of Boulder's own values thank you for uh taking this into serious consideration appreciate it thank you Kim next we have Patrick Murphy and Ryan Harwood Patrick my name is Patrick Murphy I live in Boulder is Boulder truly committed to fast and real carbon reduction there's some evidence that might be true but what we do with our resources now needs

[46:01] constant scrutiny based on the December 1st City memo we may start 2021 with about $43,000 meaning that since 2017 we have spent over $13 million what a shame what a waste can we do better now it's essential that we lose the unnecessary staff and find real experts at achieving fast carbon reduction that's Equitable setting up charging stations in a town where few can afford an electric car subsidizes the rich and ignores a town where about 10% of the children live below the poverty line Boulder's efforts to reduce carbon have been sadly weak and no Awards can hide the fact that the effort has a 35% overhead and those who were supposed to be reducing carbon were actually spending most of their time on the mun I would never don't to an organization that had 35% overhead for example Red

[47:01] Cross has 10% United weigh 18% and save the children 14% leadership needs to change Jonathan Cohen and Yale gishan for many years have spent their separate budgets working 80 to 100% of their time on the mun instead of pursuing real carbon reduction we need to find real experts at solar incentives wind incentives renewable energy certificates and energy use reduction Plan B with Equity that you've all received from me many times makes that clear slowly evolving delayed carbon reduction is no longer sane starting with LEDs distributed in an equitable way we can get the new effort off to a great start if it isn't fast it isn't it's likely worthless or too late and too little please quit fiddling thank you Patrick last we have Ryan Harwood Ryan

[48:01] hello Council uh Shay Castle's latest piece titled Boulder cops collect cans to raise cash for new bomb truck raises far more questions than it answers about the Boulder Police Department's fundraising for their new $400,000 lightweight military vehicle which is replacing the previous bomb truck that has never been used for its intended purpose of diffusing bombs Dion wow the Boulder Police Department spokesperson said BPD raised $39,000 towards the cost of the military vehicle by collecting cans when I read this I thought to myself wow that must be a lot of cans so I did the math and to raise $39,000 with cans you're looking at a minimum of 780,000 cans and that's if you're getting 5 cents a can the Boulder Police Department would have had to collect 213 cans every single day for 10 years straight to raise that much complicating

[49:01] this further Colorado doesn't even have a fixed uh recycling rate for cans like other states do so to recycle cans here BPD would have to have bring them to a private recycling facility who pay by weight and give far less than 5 cents a can realistically the police department would have had to raise well over 1 million cans to bring in $39,000 it would honestly be more believable if BPD said they raised $39,000 from a lemonade stand as they would at least be getting a dollar or two a cup according to Shay Castle the BPD spokesperson was not able to give any information about the can drive and the bomb team Commander refused to be interviewed this reeks either the be either BPD is lying about this money coming from cans or they acquired over a million cans illegally there's no way the police department collected that many cans legally without anyone noticing collecting transporting and Rec cing this many cans is a huge operation I was unable to find any news articles

[50:01] about this either youall need to figure out what's going on with this money when did they have this can drive who was involved how many cans were collected where were these cans recycled and and was this done using Police Department vehicles and resources thank you thank you Ryan yep thank you so that closes our open comment I will turn to staff first and uh Chris do you have any feedback or responses I do thanks I have two items from tonight uh good evening Council the the first is related to the several speakers that spoke about the boulder Reservoir and the restaurant out at the reservoir um I'd be happy to send Council some additional information about uh the the reservoir and uh the lease agreement that the city has with the operator the um the liquor license hearing is tomorrow night December 16th um uh where where where the liquor license for that facility will be considered um so that's the first piece

[51:01] and then uh the second item um is related to a couple of the speakers that spoke about uh their their leases with the city as tenants um and so I'd like to invite uh IET to to jump on to address those speakers thank you Chris and good evening Council um first I want to value and continue to Value council's time and our commercial tenants in the CID business district as well as elsewhere in the city the city has a not only uh property manager but a broker relationship that these conversations have been going through at the same time I do want to encourage um the speakers who spoke that they can call me and I'll provide my number and email immediately following this comment should you like to speak with me directly I would say that the city has since the beginning of the covid pandemic recognized the incredible this was going to take on Commercial tenants we have in accordance

[52:00] with Council Direction negotiated in good faith with those tenants through the broker as we are contracted to for uh first a three-month referral which was extended to six months and then 9 months at the current time we are not considering a batement which we understand currently not to be a reimbursable expense under the cares act and we want to be good stewards and continue those negotiations in good faith those convers ations are ongoing with many City tenants and most um we I'm able to speak with and they understand the process uh we are asking only business expense and performance impact related to the covid pandemic we are not asking for personal information so I encourage the speakers who have brought that concern to our attention this evening to contact me I can be reached at area code 72467 8563 immediately follow following this comment 720 467

[53:00] 8563 and I look forward to providing council with additional information on these negotiations in a broader context at another time are there any questions thank you that Council I'm watching for hands here great I I've got Mark and then Adam mark my first question is for IET um IET this uh the city policy in in providing rent relief seems to me to be more stringent than you would find in the private sector where I think um rent relief encompasses both deferral and and Readjustment of uh uh rental payment terms and I'm wondering why we are um obviously we we could use the revenue but but it seems to me that we're being harsher than our counterparts in the private sector would be am I am I right am I or was that

[54:01] incorrect actually Mark I'm glad you asked we have made several rent reduction offers through our broker I'm not at the moment aware of all the details of that third party conversation and I want to be careful um that I have both sides of that information and context but I do welcome the conversation I think that person just called me and I look forward to calling her back but we do have this as an ongoing conversation and there are reductions that are being considered as well watching the market close we're not well suited or well positioned at this point to be losing too many tenants no that's not what we want and I value tenants especially those and I'm pleased to say that we we have great tenants and they have been paying their base rent in incredibly difficult times and I look forward to speaking with that individual thank you Vette great Adam hey Sam uh my question is just a followup about the reservoir for Chris

[55:01] and that's just sort of a procedural thing you know does city council tend to look at projects like that uh for approvals or is that pretty much solely in the hands of parks and wreck uh th this use the restaurant use was included in it's in the new Reservoir Services um Center that was constructed um that did go through a development review process uh and the restaurant is considered an accessory use to the primary use is as a uh um facility out at the reservoir um and I'm happy to send you a little bit more background and detail on that yeah as someone who spent eight years six days a week at the reservoir and worked at the bar industry it's a Confluence of things I'm pretty interested in so um really would appreciate that great very good uh Aaron yeah and just to follow up on that I know you said you get us more

[56:00] information in general but just to some information on the operating characteristics that are proposed for the restaurant um you know would be valuable to because I definitely hear the um concerns folks raise uh about the evening uh later night um hours when the res is generally I'm imagine currently closed and and dark so if you can just give us an update on on all those plans I'd appreciate it we'll do thanks so Mark I see your hand again yeah just just to follow up on Aaron's comment um as presently contemplated are there any restrictions on the ability of the tenant to hold events um are there any protections for the local neighborhood in terms of um controlling what goes on there um let me get that information for you Mark I don't remember all of the details of uh in the lease agreement or um based based on the the approval so let me make sure we get that information

[57:00] to you I'd appreciate thank you Chris yep very good seeing no more Hands Chris are you done I am very good and Tom I have nothing Sam thank you very good and now I'll turn to council is there anything additional to the questions you've asked Rachel we can't hear you Rachel I think your mic might be up there you go yeah this thing takes um getting used to did we consider whether to um allow the person to speak who got here late and texted us I I would be happy to do yeah I saw it I I would be happy to do that I will point out that um we do have to run on the schedule typically so if they're here now if we want to let me your tour speak that's okay but generally speaking we need folks to show up on time so that we can keep the meeting moving so um Ryan are you able to bring Misha in uh

[58:00] Misha has since left and so we were communicating with Misha that the open comment period was missed um but Misha has since left very good okay um seeing that Mark yeah I apologize for being so inquisitive tonight uh I um just two questions one is are we in fact asking tenants to sign ndas when we when we negotiate with them and if so what is the purpose of that because it's it's not exactly uh transparent the um non-disclosure component and I don't believe it's worded that way is related to the ongoing negotiation and terms so that we can share information back and forth about their particular business experience and not have that shared across businesses um we would never prevent someone obviously from speaking with their financial institutions or

[59:01] representative or our broker and my my other question related to the individual who had questions about the um Drive of the police department to fund the bomb vehicle um what do we know about that um as he was unable to get any information I'll work on getting that information to you uh I don't have that here in front of me but we'll follow okay that's that's very fair thank you Chris yep very good Council any other questions comments followup I I have one then I will speak to Mr Murphy's comments um I have worked with Jonathan con and yel gon uh they are both Stellar employees who have worked very hard both on the mun and on subjects which are related to sustainab ility and resilience and um Community Values that

[60:00] I think we all share so um the comments that Mr Murphy made about the roles that they played should be directed to council either previous councils or this ones um the direction from Council as related to the city manager and on to um Jonathan and Y um they they did the work that they were asked to do by Council so Mr Murphy has complaints about um the work that Jonathan Conan deson did the right venue to direct those at is Council Members um I I would I would stand behind the work that either one of those have done in my experience with them with that um I think we're ready to move on Alicia what do we have next all right so yes we have the consent agenda now with items 3A to 38 very good um so as far as the consent agenda I know that we have um one issue

[61:00] on item 3F that folks are going to want to raise are there any other issues besides 3F that Council wants to address okay seeing none uh Rachel I think I'll turn to you because I I happened to know that you had an interest in this yep um so I was reading this Con sent agenda after reading um the the annual letter that we got from housing Advisory Board chair Charlotte and um this agenda item is uh about Prohibition sales limitation on prohibition sales of mobile homes and it struck me that um I didn't see where Hab had weighed in on it um and this seems like if we are um making uh creating ordinances or or amending them um on things that have to do with housing that it would make sense for our housing Advisory Board to weigh in so I wanted to ask if we could um between first and

[62:00] second reading have invite Hab to take a look at that so that's my suggestion I know it's a little bit uh late in the game I wish that I had thought of it before uh when this first came to us but I think it was the the letter that we received sort of saying hey don't forget to invite us to weigh in on things that triggered this for me and I think as a matter of just process it would make sense um for for issues like this to to be um hand it over to Hab so do I need to say anything beyond that or I I don't think that um I think that as a kickoff that's great Mark I see your hand but I'm going to turn to Chris and just see if we can get staff response to what Rachel's brought up sure I'd be happy to I'd like to invite Kurt fobber to respond uh good evening Council uh Kurt fower director of hous and Human Services so um uh Rachel was kind enough to call me this afternoon um with this question and thank you for that um so

[63:01] Hab wasn't um or wasn't able to review this um at the time that it was open for them um based on other things that they were working on um but I would fully support um creating an opportunity to bring it back to them we may have to reschedule the second reading um to make that happen um but it's already been pushed um a couple of times so I think rescheduling it um also would not be a problem very good um before we uh I think Rachel do you need to hear more before we move on to council comments on this okay great so I see Mark's hand and then I have a comment as well and few hands Mark go ahead I'm sorry and then Bob Adam ask between now and second reading if they could um uh address the the the legal enforcement mechanism here it may be elsewhere in in

[64:00] the statute but I want to understand what are the penalties for interfering with the sale how the enforcement is going to occur are there damages I mean how is this going be handled and secondly if we could get a little more explanation as to why um we decided not to Pro uh provide a userfriendly guide um for all residents in terms of explaining their uh rights and responsibilities under these statutes um and I know that was that staff decided not to do that I'd like to understand that a little better and so I would I would ask that be addressed between now and the second reading thank you Mark then we've got Bob Adam and Aon did you want to respond Kurt yeah I wanted to say um thank you for that and we will um be able to do that at second reading perfect

[65:01] Bob uh this afternoon we received a very helpful um email from Chris and laer on Kurt staff who responded to a resident who raised some interesting um concerns and observations and I think Crystal uh suggested several changes in amendments and language adjustments to the ordinance which I thought were all very good and helpful improvements so I guess I have a process question do um is it the will of council to um amend on first reading um as set forth in Crystal's email or are or do we want to hold this over uh allow staff to make those adjustments and then allow the housing board to weigh in as Rachel suggested prior to First reading that's just a process question very good and I think we'll we'll address that Bob before we leave the topic so thanks for bringing that up um Adam Aaron and Mary Adam thanks Sam yeah I too wanted to

[66:01] just support the idea of holding off until everything is better prepared and have ways in um in order to get the best end result it sounds like there's many members of the manufactured housing community that also want a little more time to get their thoughts in so um I'm I'm good for holding a little longer Aron yeah Bob thanks for calling out the the initial email from Renee hmel and then Crystal wanders very thorough responses and so there are a lot of good ideas in there that are worth exploring and Rachel I really appreciate you bringing up the referral to have idea I totally support uh sending you know grene suggestions and and Crystal's responses on to have along with the ordinance and taking a little extra time before we come back to Second reading very good Mary um so I as I recall these suggestions were brought up by the residents at the

[67:01] previous um ordinance change and um I guess I would like to know if the residents are okay with the delaying passing of this because at that time it seemed urgent so I just want to make sure that the residents are okay with delaying this and so I guess I would ask residents to um weigh in if um by writing us emails on that matter okay very good so to organize the conversation um I guess it's my thought that we probably don't know now if we need to delay the second hearing I believe that currently the second hearing is January 19th is that right Kurt uh that's correct um uh I mean our our our next Hab meeting um I I believe the next H Hab meeting between now and

[68:01] the 19th um is actually tomorrow night um it probably wouldn't give them enough time to um absorb this tomorrow night um it it'd probably be our recommendation to um put that out a little bit further um and in response to to Mary's concern obviously we can't speak for the residents um but but at the time time um they um we we were working to have this resolved before the end of uh 2020 um the engagement process did take a little bit um longer and was a little more cumbersome um with covid um but we did have good engagement with with those residents um I think that they um their main concern was simply knowing that these things were addressed Within a reasonable amount of time my assumption is that if this went in you know in

[69:00] February that that would probably meet their requirements and so Mary I have a suggestion to follow up on your point why don't we monitor any feedback that we get from the um manufactured home communities between now and the first CAC in 2020 and we can decide then whether we want to um move forward with the hearing on the 19th without Habs input or if we want to delay it into February after the next T meeting so Kurt I guess I just asked that the first CAC meeting probably January 4th if you could show up with the feedback that we've received from the manufactured home Community as well as when the February Hab meeting is and we can we can assess at that point is that good enough Mary and Rachel for he and there are specific res there are specific residents that have been involved in this and we can certainly reach out to them great um Rachel does that address

[70:04] your concern about Hab and is it good enough to hear from the manufactured home community and have CAC handle scheduling I think so I I would assume Hab meets in January like you mentioned February they ium it's on the third Wednesday it's the day after our meeting right so ideally they could weigh in in January and we could you know only delay this a couple weeks unless I'm missing the calendar math still like is that what you're saying Adam they would meet January 20th yeah so um if we were moving it back just a week to give them time to Wi that would seem ideal and then I think it's something to discuss at The Retreat just process of making sure that we're inviting you know boards to weigh in on subject matter or have some kind of clean lines for that but that'll hold for the

[71:00] retreat so I think good for my perspective for this evening on that very good so we'll return to this at CAC on January 4th okay Bob I guess I think that's all great um gives have the opportunity to weigh in we can hear from all sorts of folks are we going to pass this on consent tonight with Crystal's amendments or are we going to hold the whole thing over until January 4th so the Amendments can be incorporated January 5th I'm sorry what's the preference I guess I'll I'll start with C CT is your preference that we pass it on first reading tonight with Crystal's amendments as set forth in our email this afternoon or is it your preference that we clean it up and pass it on first reading on January 5th yeah since these um uh suggestions were only made today I would prefer that we

[72:01] we um not not pass it with those amendments tonight and um give us time to also reflect with the other residents um those suggestions I would I would concur with that it's it's um a little on the Fly I thought Crystal's changes were all great but um we should probably see it as one package at our next meeting perfect and so with that whoever does move the consent agenda um why don't you move the consent agenda except for item F when you move it I will move the consent agenda except for item F there okay we have a motion and a second are there any objections to passing the consent agenda seeing none the consent agenda passes unanimously except for item F okay Alicia to you all right sir next we have the callup

[73:01] checkin uh callup consideration Landmark alteration certificate for construction of an inground pool at 643 Mapleton Avenue an individual landmark and contributing property in the Mapleton Hill historic district great and I'm sorry to interrupt this is probably my fault um I have on my uh mayor's script that this was a roll call on the consent agenda um so I'll turn to Tom Tom do we know which items were roll call supplement sorry the supplement supplement so okay so yeah great so so I think we need to do a roll call vote Alicia that's my mistake if you want to um call roll on the consent agenda I'll share that mistake with you sir this on my notes as well so and it's

[74:02] actually G and H both require roll calls thank you very good council member Brock friend I'm sorry council member friend yes Joseph yes wettick yes wallik yes Weaver I Yates yes young yes and Brocket I the consent agenda items except for item H have been approved except for item F I believe have been approved is it f yeah that's the mobile home you're right item F exactly very good and you have Ted us up on the callup so I will turn to council and see does anyone want to call up um for

[75:02] a great seeing none that will not be called up and Alicia you're up number five under the public hearings we have a amend the Boulder Valley comp plan land use map planning area map policy and text and extend the term of the Boulder Valley comprehensive development plan IGA as part of the 20 20 midterm update to the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan greaten for this item uh senior planner Jean gatsa from planning and development services is here uh along with a team from the city as well as the county to present this item right thank you Chris and good evening to Mayor and members of the city council I'll um pull up my slide okay I need to have um right can you enable me to share my screen there we

[76:01] go okay all right is that showing appropriately it's not in slideshow mode Jean so if you can switch to that okay that's what I thought I had done there we go now I think we unfortunately we're not seeing it on your screen screen there you go there it is okay are we good yes very good so good evening um we're here tonight to present the analysis and recommendations analysis and recommended changes to the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan as a part of the 2020 midterm update these include land use map planning area map policy and text changes this is one of four public hearings to consider and approve changes to the plan with the city and count approval bodies I'd like to acknowledge as Chris mentioned the city and county interdepartmental teams that

[77:01] collaborated on the shared recommendations presented for consideration um I know my County colleague um Hannah hippy will um be attending the meeting to in case there are questions um from a county perspective the agenda for this item I'm going to do a brief overview of the proposed changes we have a public hearing and then time for Council deliberation and consideration of the Motions the planning board held a public hearing and approved all of the recommended changes on December 3rd as noted in the materials the planning board made um two additional recommendations which I will go over after the brief overview of um all of the other recommended changes the purposes of the midterm update are quite Limited in scope providing an opportunity for members of the community to request changes the staff initiated changes aim to implement adopted policy Direction area plans and priorities that were identified in the most recent major update the policy and

[78:01] text changes are also Limited in scope and reflect Direction adopted since the last major update the planning board and city council um completed that screening process in June recommending that um three public request land use changes move forward for further analysis and consideration in this process this screening process also includes six other areas where staff identified proposed changes to implement that current plan and adopted plans I'm going to do a quick refresher on um bbcp terms so um the bbcp land use and planning areas one two3 Maps Define that desired land use pattern for the Boulder Valley regarding location type and intensity of Development Area one is the area within the city limits that has urban facilities area two is the area now under County jurisdiction where annexation to the city can be considered consistent with um the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan policies and area

[79:01] three is the remaining area in the Boulder Valley generally under County jurisdiction and the Rural Preservation area is where the city and county intend to preserve existing rural land uses in character the process outlined in the comp plan is that plan is the city planning board and city council approve land use changes in area one and two and on the western edge of the city changes in area three are approved by all four bodies some of the policy and text changes are two body only and some are four and uh four body approval as outlined in the report the criteria for land use and pl planning area changes um are outlined in the comp plan these include consistency with the overall um Direction and policies of the comp plan potential impacts um on um neighboring areas and uh city services and a potential effect on growth projections or the CIP I'm going to quickly run through um

[80:03] the land use changes proposed so item a includes proposed land use changes for the 30th Street Valmont area this change is from mixed use industrial to and service commercial to mixed use business to implement the recommended land use changes from the 2007 Transit Village area plan uh for this Phase 2 way of the plan the intent is for the west side of 30th to transform similarly to the east side with mixed use and housing on the left side of the screen um you can see the uh different phases outlined in the plan so phase one of tvap is that Center area that is mostly um Redevelopment here is most mostly complete phase 2A this little area on the west side of 30th Street is moving ahead um and and you'll know I'll note that the uh relocation uh for Fire Station 3 is also in this area we've

[81:01] been working on um the design for a Bluff Street connection which is allowing this to move forward at this time uh phase 2B if you recall during the screening process we had a public application for uh furthering this the land use changes in this area you'll see on the um the the um right side map these are the recommend of land use plan from tvap the phase 2B um we did not feel we did not have the capacity to do the next work of analysis that would be around um assessing the public improvements uh utilities and transportation and such that would be um needed to be needed to put in place to um further these land use changes but um noted that that would be considered in a potential future work plan item Item B is changes to um the city-owned properties at Alpine Balsam and this

[82:00] reflects the changes um outlined in the adopted area plan that was approved last year it's just the city-owned properties and it's for the sections um that were are not intended for City facilities so these changes are from public to high density residential and mixed use business I will note that um in the area plan we have a much finer grained level of detail Within These land uses these are the they're they're per se more colors on the map with a lot more definition um outlined in the plan that will inform the next steps of zoning we have completed the initial analysis analysis to determine the ne the best path best path forward for zoning and we're recommending moving ahead with development of form-based codee for this area to craft the more specific Urban Design regulatory tools we're expecting this process to start next year and

[83:00] including Community engagement to identify um preferences item C is the public request for changes at 1345 South Broadway this is the Mount Hope Church um right at the corner of Greenbrier and Broadway um we did conduct uh Community engagement and heard from quite a few neighbors we reached out to the Fairview High and Southern Hills Middle School uh populations uh working with growing up Boulder to hear what people thought about potential changes in this area we were considering um both affordable housing um or mixed use um ideas of land use that would support that 15minute neighborhood um what we we heard a lot from folks and I hope I hope that the council members had a chance to take a look at the results of beard Boulder feedback that were included in the

[84:00] packet there was a wide range of um ideas and thoughts about what this a lot of support for changes but then also a lot of concern for some of the traffic impacts um and the transportation issues that are in the area so that's a photo of the Mount Hope site with part of the church and part of the vacant area and then the intersection there at um green bar and Broadway that was the um subject of a lot of the concern while there was a lot of support for various changes we feel like that um it needs further exploration and um a change could be supportable at a future time there are a couple different options we see for this um especially around the neighborhood serving retail uses that could be furthered through the 15minute neighborhood um code changes that are anticipated next year or a more specific development application um for land use resoning and

[85:00] a concept plan that would um provide a little more Assurance to the neighborhood about what would be changing and um be able to give people um more Assurance with a level a traffic study and more details about development item D is uh recommended land juice change from mixed juice industrial to high density residential at 6500 Odell place that's up in Gunbarrel um this is included in the area that's the gun barrel Community Center plan that describes a mix of Housing and light industrial for this area we think that residential uses at the this location would be compatible with the surrounding land use designation and uses particularly the high density residential to the north this is a photo of the site that's currently vacant and adjacent to the hide end City housing it's also um walkable to the neighborhoods retail Center just to the

[86:00] South we want to note that um while the gun barel uh Community Center plan identified this area as mixed juice industrial um the mix of Housing and Industrial is playing out a little differently now than was envisioned at that point mixed juice in one building works really well for housing and Retail um or business type of housing as we um down in the Boulder Junction area the mix of um what we're seeing um to be more effective in gaining housing in these areas is that housing needs to be in a separate building or we have more of the horizontal mix of Housing and Industrial in some of these areas so in order to realize the housing in this area we recommend this change to high high density residential okay moving on item e is a change from medium

[87:01] density residential to transition business at um the corner of 47th Street and Foothills Parkway the change re reflects really the existing professional office and and personal service uses that have historically been in this location and intend to remain item f is really some correction of of map ch es um in the Hillside Road areas to remove the public designation from the private Parcels that are fully developed as single family homes and indicate um the low density residential where appropriate item G is uh recommendation for uh planning area changes from Area 3 to area 2 for Western Edge properties that are now below the Blue Line the location of the Blue Line determines which properties are eligible eligible

[88:00] to receive City water in 2016 the city proposed and voters approved a ballot measure amending the location of the Blue Line This was aimed at clarifying the location of the boundary and also to allow provision of water service to existing developed properties I will note that in conjunction with the changes to the planning area we're also proposing a policy Amendment for um bbcp policy 1.6 1.16 annexation to describe the intent of the ordinance that changed the the location of the blue line to clarify that effective properties shall be considered substantially developed and no additional dwelling units may be added we've heard some concerns um that changing that these changes implementing the Blue Line will contribute to opening this area for additional development or might encourage renovation or expansion

[89:00] in some way and I just want to be clear the purpose of the blue line was spe the Blue Line changes in the ballot measure in 2016 were really just to clarify that location allow the provision of water services to existing developed properties and to reinforce the protection of the Foothills open space and Mountain backdrop for and the properties designated for open space um from new development and expansion so even though the these properties have been in area three um especially these ones along Fifth Street um some of them have most of them already have City Water some have city sewer um some have sewer service but most don't really the only change here um to area two changes the ability to access city services these would still be regulated um by Boulder County under their forestry zoning it's staff's assessment that the intent of the Blue Line change and the subsequent

[90:01] area uh planning area changes do not create incentive for um Redevelopment in these areas Beyond allowing City Water and Sewer provision which is really a positive for health and safety and supported by our other comp plant policies so there were those properties on Fifth Street that were included in this blue line change and also a few properties here at um Hawthorne and Second Street for these properties at Hawthorne and Second Street they did not have a um land use assigned to them in the comp plan so we're proposing the uh land use uh assignment of low density residential for these okay couple more here um the item H is um recommended planning area changes for open space and for City owned open space and Mountains mountain properties that are now above the blue line so some of these were area 2 some

[91:01] of them were area one so we're just recommending changing each changing these um appropriately from area two to area three or to Area one to Area 3 Annex to indicate that they are city-owned open space and Mountain par properties and intended to remain in Rural Preservation and then item J is uh to reflect C land use changes for recently acquired Open Space Mountain open space and Mountain Park Properties to um open space acquired or open space development rights appropriately and okay coming in to the last policy and text changes so again the with the limited scope of the midterm update we are this is not the time to be um adopting or changing policy considering changes to policy directions we're really just amending our plan or policies to reflect um changes that have been adopted since the last

[92:00] update there's a list here um this intergovernmental cooperation with regarding regarding consultation with indigenous people and cultural resources isn't new since the last update but it was identified in the uh work of the mount open space and Mountain Parks master plan that this was um not a policy that we had in the comp plan that we should so we've included a draft policy to reflect that um the U memorandums of of of um agreement and the intent through open space and Mountain Parks as I mentioned we have an amendment to the annexation policy to reflect the intent of the Blue Line changes there are changes in um several Transportation policies to um refine and reflect that policy direction from the Transportation master plan that was adopted in 2009 19 there emphasis on the vision zero and low stress Network goals we have the house housing policies

[93:02] um to reflect the new affordable housing goal of 15% of all Residential Properties affordable to low and moderate um and middle inome households um new policies also to um reflect the direction um from the regional homelessness plans and then also um changes to the to the text for the subcommunity and area plan area planning section that H um were uh based on the direction from planning board and Council in early 2019 our planning board actions um the planning board approved all of the REM staff recommended land use planning area policy and text changes they also um made a couple more uh motions so so the first is a change to policy 2.21 light

[94:00] industrial and um another to prioritize a study around the industrial areas so the Pol recommended policy change around light industrial areas came up um rather spontaneously at the meeting the board members recommended this in order to express that the city supports all Industrial areas and not just the light industrial they really expressed concern about the city's ability to be a resilient and fullservice Community with sufficient space for the range of industrial uses um and really that all industrial uses all industrial uses should be part of the conversation when considering some competing needs since the planning board action on on the thir we've had more time to look at the policy and really consider the impl implications and we're not recommending this move forward we don't think it

[95:00] really achieves what the plan what the board members were trying to achieve um crafting this on at the moment on uh during the meeting first um to explain the policy 2.21 in the comp plan is in the section that's really about locations for mixed use and as as several of you were remember um in the last major update this was a a key Focus area for that update is to identify areas to add housing or to add mixed use um we the light industrial was really the focus on that as is reflected in both the land use designation definition and in this policy and The Guiding principles that go with this policy we don't really think that this is um intended to be that mixed use and housing were tended to be considered in the um General industrial or the um more um

[96:00] Community industrial or um Service Industrial types of areas um let's see um and then lastly we really think that um the concerns about this policy change um without you know kind of at that approval hearing uh without the time for analysis and um public notification is not really the best practice for this we'd like better to be able to consider the planning board's intent on this in conjunction with the work that we're doing in the East Boulder subcommunity planning process as we're looking at um all of the industrial uses out there and the potential for changes within the light industrial areas and similarly the board also made a motion to um recognize izing that there were changes uh proposed about industrial they are asking to prioritize

[97:02] a study of some of the recent and future status and Trends in the city-wide industrial zoning inventory um I think it's again that I'm trying to understand really what is the state of our of our industrial areas before we make a lot of changes and um we think that this work can be informed by uh some of the inventory that's already been done through through the East Boulder subc Community planning process and the work that we will be doing to um formulate the recommendations in those areas so next steps within the midterm update is um we have the handful of items that are for body approval that will be considered by the Boulder County Planning Commission and the Boulder County um Board of County Commissioners in January and then we'll be back to you with the um the final ordinance of of adoption that has the um final text and maps of the

[98:00] comprehensive plan and with that um we have three proposed motions the first two are um for the approval of the changes that I've described and the last is um as outlined in the agreement of the intergovernmental agree agreement between the city and county um a a term to be extended Ed an additional five years at each midterm and um major update and so we've included language for that and a uh amendment in the attachment so with that I will stop and um answer any questions okay so thank you so much Jean um the process here will be questions from Council and then we'll open the public hearing and then we'll return to council for discussion and any other questions so um Council this is your first shot Aaron and then Mark would you

[99:02] like me to stop sharing or should I leave this up I think leaving the motion language up is helpful okay great Jean thank you for comprehensive and very well put together presentation as always appreciate it uh just this is just a clarifying question because I I don't think um so the planning board has already taken action right so that as a two-body process we need to agree with the planning board or rather any place where we don't agree with them that means that that no action will be taken or something will be turned down I didn't say that very well maybe you could explain it better for us Jean that's correct um so the planning board has um approved the the recommended changes um for most of these they are two body and so if the council takes action on them they are approved but if the council doesn't then they are then they are not so um in in years past Ain as you know we've made some changes and and done that ping

[100:00] pong thing and gone back to the planning board but I the the changes here are not um are well I suppose we could do that there there's just not that um many of them to uh that I would anticipate that action but again if the council approves something different it would have to go back to the planning board yeah I'm not saying I expect that to happen I just wanted to get that out out there so people understand where we are thank you Aon can I cqu on that real quick um so so we have the staff recommendation which is to not take the policy change for policy 2.21 by the planning board so if we pass the Motions tonight as they're suggested I assume that that means that we will not accept the planning board motion on policy 2.21 so will that specific item go back to planning board for reconsideration um or we can just consider it um not

[101:04] approved can I Chim back in Sam because I think they they did two separate motions right they approved the text and then they made a separate motion to amend some language I think we could either agree with that a second motion or we could not agree and and if we don't agree then the rest of the text changes pass anyway right so right the the planning board's recommendation is not included in the attachment J at this point I just included that in the memo okay so perfect so so if we go forward with the Motions which we have in front of us on the screen it will not approve the planning board suggestion for 2.21 and they will then need to react to that as they choose to is that correct that's correct and I think that um we can continue to have that conversation with them I think we're looking forward to um fur furthering further understanding and talking about their

[102:00] concerns but not in this way very good thank you next eron do you have anything else sorry no okay next we have Mark Mary and Adam Mark Jean could you talk a little bit about the properties that are abing the uh the Blue Line are these mostly um are these fully developed properties are they mostly small um underdeveloped Properties by making the change are we leaving things and in a status quo or we kind of inviting a um a gold rush for building mega mansions that's a good question mark um they are a mix I mean they're they're all developed um some of them are developed in small historic homes and some are larger homes there's a mix of some that already have City Water and Sewer some that don't um and so really this change

[103:01] that uh reflects the the new location of the Blue Line only affects their ability to apply for annexation now um and an ability to apply to receive City Water um it doesn't change anything else and of course um the annexation negotiation would include um the potential for um development restrictions or um conditions to to ensure that uh the intent of that blue line change to not uh spur additional development potential is um included within those um agreements thank you Gan that that fully answers my question thank you so much great very good next we have Mary and Adam Mary thank you for the presentation Gan I just have a clarifying question um in

[104:00] item F the hillside neighborhood I was a little confused by the map so if we could go back to that I just want to make sure that I understand what the change is Yep they're a little hard to see so um the current land use um you can see here um you it's hard to see the parcel lines but several of these of the parcels are have split public and lowdensity residential land use when you see this corrected over here so this little Bluetooth is um University of Colorado um this now like these Parcels are now as the private Parcels are all low density residential as they should be um and not public and so there's a little bit over here also that was the school district's property that had low density residential and that should all be

[105:01] public so it's you know we think this was probably one of those um handdrawn maps to digitized Maps errors but we wanted to make them you know just clarify them okay I'm clear now thank you uhuh that's all I had very good Adam and then I will jump in thanks for the presentation Jean um my question is about 6,500 Odell I remember this came before Council and it was sort of like a rushed process in order to get it through now there's another change as far as uh the usage and can you explain a little bit more um I know you explained a little bit but I found it a little bit hard to follow in that amount of time um why that change is necessary for uh from mixed use to high density residential So Adam I think that some of the clarification before was around the screening process and this is actually a

[106:01] staff recommended change to help support our Housing Authority or BHP who has an interest in this property they are looking to do um an affordable housing project that under the current uh mixed use industrial and and Industrial General zoning um since it's an only an acre property um they're not eligible to do the residential and Industrial um as would be allowed in in the IG zoning um but they're too it's a too small of a property so we they we took a look at this and thought that um with the intent of the gun barel Community Center plan and the recommendation for housing in this area um that this was an appropriate change to high density residential to support that goal got it thank you for that yeah that that's that super helpful okay

[107:00] thanks great and so I have one question and that's on item H and this is really just clarification um the planning area changes the second one is area one to area 3- Annex could you explain what that is I mean I knew these are open space properties but I don't I'm not familiar with Area 3 Annex yeah that's um I forget exactly where in the comp plan that we have that discussed but with but essentially for the map it is to um designate areas that are within the city limits that have been annexed um but are for the purposes of um Rural Preservation that we want that we want to make sure that it's a it's a open space or um the intent for Rural Preservation um even though it is within the city limits okay um I I guess so help me help me follow that it

[108:02] becomes Area 3 Annex why not just area three um is it's already within the city limits okay so so all right I see area three annexed within the city limits got it okay I see thank you um I see no other hands up so I guess now we can turn to the public hearing um we have 10 people signed up for the public hearing so everyone will have three minutes a piece we have some folks who are pooling so when we get to the pooled folks I'm going to ask each of them to speak I believe that they're all in the same line um and just a reminder that this is a public hearing on this topic only so comments need to be focused on the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan and the staff proposed changes that we're addressing tonight so with that um we'll turn to the public hearing our first should I

[109:02] take my screen down at this point or keep it up I I think you can keep it up unless you want to bring it down because no we we have no video of the speakers so okay up to you okay Gan I know some speakers do like to to see Council when they're speaking so maybe we could bring it down and then bring it back up that sounds F thank okay very good so we will start with Greg Cass at three minutes Donna George is pooling with two which will be five minutes and then Alexia Parks um will be next so starting with Greg to speak on the bowler Valley comprehensive plan hi thanks for acknowledging me unfortunately I AC ly signed up to speak at the wrong time and I asked Ryan if I could make General comments instead of commenting here but he said that I was

[110:00] not allowed to I don't want to derail uh the conversation that's going on but I would like to make a general comment so how do you suggest I proceed and to also note that my comment is time sensitive so I prefer not to wait another month um what would you like me to do why don't you speak briefly about your comment and you can follow up with detail in an email to council at bouldercolorado.gov which will go to all council members as well as about 60 or so staff members so why don't you just tell us the subject so we have it flagged and we will look for your email followup sure uh you might be you might be relieved to know that I'm not a neighbor of the boulder Reservoir although uh I do have experience with this restaurant owner I became aware of the project because the restaurant owner Terr was terrorizing the neighbors of his other restaurant and to be brief um four years later the planning board found that he violated his use agreement this was recently and

[111:00] the liquor board is currently conducting a show cause hearing uh regarding a liquor violation he also par a trailer on top of ADA accessible parking spot so to be brief um I'll follow up in an email but I really just wanted to reiterate my concerns about the lack of process and how the parks and wreck department is see to basically expand their fom in the dead of night without soliciting any input from the neighbors that built their dream houses in this area and I'll follow up with an email thanks for your time perfect yeah and we just so you know that we've we've asked staff for more followup on this subject as well so there will be more um Council consideration of the entire subject as well as your particular comments but we'll look for your email thank you okay next we have Donna George Donna I'm I think you're familiar with this process um if you could have Mark George and Sarah George each speak up and say

[112:00] that they're here that'd be great hi I'm Sarah and this is Mark George perfect thank you very much Donna you have five minutes hi my name is Donna George I live at 4661 T hle Court the boulder Val comprehensive plan should have been delayed due to the Corona virus especially these important votes during an extremely busy Bus holiday time of year and a large uptick in Corona vir virus cases my request has been delayed even though it was basically a cleanup to make sure the land use map is accurate the land use change request submitted by tag for a change to open space has been kicked down the road for the next five years and yet a proposal by Boulder housing Partners through staff that was not submitted by the deadline is being recommended to be approved the 1345 South Broadway and South Boulder request was REM recommended not to have um any change the community surrounding this property had a survey conducted there were 48

[113:00] responses they ask questions such as would they want to support a land use change let us know your future thoughts for this site would you want more retail commercial or housing or a combination of those no such survey was conducted in gumb barrel for those residents why wasn't Growing Up Older consulted for the Odell Place property like it was for that one also in their analysis staff says that the mixed use industrial to high density residential would support the city's housing goals in align with the Gunbarrel Community Center planed vision for the area as characterized by a mix of residential and compatible light industrial uses is intended to provide a transition between the more intense commercial areas and the established residential areas is to the Northeast and IMS zoning will do this what they would be doing here is just going straight from high density residential

[114:01] to a commercial business area it is in the plan you're supposed to be following the plan in making decisions planning board and city council are supposed to follow the area and sub Community plans in place the gun barrel Community Center plan specifically designates the area that is in industrial mixed use designation Boulder housing Partners can still build units there they just have to follow the revised code for the development staff and Council are presently working on the East Boulder subc Community Plan if the gumb barel community center plan is not going to be followed then why have any plans at all why go through all the time and expense in creating an area plan only to disregard it so easily you request to change the land use designation at 650 Adele Place from industrial mix use to high it should be denied how can you approve this when false information was given to the public by staff and the

[115:01] Odell place did not get the community engagement in the feedback that was given to 1345 South Broadway I sent you all the information regarding all the tables and how IMS zoning can be done at this site in nyatt they are um planning on doing something in their downtown area where they're going to have commercial area underneath and they're going to have some small like 570 square foot housing units up above the same thing could be done here so I expect that the citizens should get accurate and truthful analysis by staff parking is a concern here and all the the people that rode in that was one of the concerns I also want to note that one of the persons wrote I am a resident of gunbar North and I wholeheartedly support the proposed land use change from industrial to residential especially for affordable housing well this person because of what the staff

[116:00] wrote wasn't aware that they could have both they could have commercial and residential at this thing so it wasn't presented so how can you make a decision when this public has been given false information the um the analysis is they they they're not giving the same consideration to the residents as they did for 13 45 South Broadway and they're not even following the gun barrel Community Center plan you're supposed to be following the plan but instead what's happening is they want to build as many units as they can build if they have to go through um mixed use they have to they have to put in more open space requirements which we seem to be lacking we have no parks there in the center of town in fact our heart's community plan has basically been disregarded for a very long time so so what is Gun Barrel to to you all is it going to be treated the same as places um west of Broadway

[117:00] in other areas or we just consider that area over there that it just doesn't matter the rules apply differently to one area than they apply to gun barel so these are the things that you have to consider when making this decision you have to consider what the facts are and the facts are is that that staff gave false information to the public thank thank you Donna next we have Alexia Parks Laura shine bomb and kit Fuller Alexia okay great can you hear me we can okay good um I'm Alexia parks and I've lived at 973 fth Street for 51 years my children and grandchildren all live within walking distance of my family home like my family most residents of this area are long-term residents who act as stewards of this forestry land and its numerous Wildlife as currently zoned this unincorporate unincorporated

[118:02] County land with his historic homes and Cottages offers the look and feel of open space land at zero cost to the city of Boulder our long-standing stewardship of the land without the need to sanitize or landscape it helps it retain the wild nature of this overlooked preservation area how this is the risk we face and I will mention that I've had uh conversations with Jean gatsa uh your senior planner planner at the city of Boulder and uh I welcome the information she gave me and I agree with some of the ideas that she um passed along to me but I did remind her that the risk that we Face uh is this and this is a little background in 1993 the historic home uh directly north of my property which was owned by Ken penfold and his family was reduced to a single Cornerstone and the home was quote remodeled into a 15,000 square foot mansion just north of that is the

[119:00] Glass House that reflects the morning sun back on the city it's a three-story Glass House obscuring a view of the scenic mount mountain backdrop at night the dark night skies are pierced by this privately owned Lighthouse just below Panorama point on Flagstaff Mountain that's the risk we face to the north of my property 973 fth street because those have been [Music] mansionization that was attempted to be built a mansion uh that was denied by the Boulder County Commissioners to their great credit so it's my request with Jean uh gatsa in mind to request

[120:03] both the city planning board and all relevant city and county involved staff that any decision on a change from area three to area two as an exhibit G1 this would be exhibit G1 the uh properties located uh just north and west of Fifth and Aurora ensure that the protection of this historic and open space nature of this land be protected in per perpetuity and that means forever because money money does talk and money will influence uh and money will buy lobbyists and seek to pressure uh future um annexation of the city and then opening it up to multiple family homes in this area which would be right now it is protected as if it is open space even though it is privately owned by uh about eight different owners thank you Alexia next we have Laura shinal kit Fuller and Julie Dy

[121:01] Laura uh good evening city council I'm Laura Shin bam I'm director of real estate development for Boulder housing Partners thanks for having me this evening I'm here to support the staff recommendations for the midterm comp plan review um as Jee mentioned and particular BHP is under contract to purchase the 6,500 Odell parcel um that's vacant land um if there is a land use change that allows for zoning to support multif family housing we do intend to move forward with the purchase for the sole purpose of building 100% affordable housing at some point in the future um this would be a land bank opportunity for BHP we do believe it's a great location for affordable housing um it's a vacant parcel that's fully developed by um or fully surrounded by developed land um so it's really truly infill um we did identify this so at the start of the pandemic uh we did research with our consultant team regarding the location and suitability for affordable housing with the comp plan and the gun barrel

[122:01] Town Center plan came to the conclusion that we do think affordable housing would be a good use here given its consistency with those two um documents um there's good access to you know for affordable housing in terms of access to commercial transportation um there's also adjacency to market rate multif family um to the West we've long been looking for affordable opportunities in Gun Barrel as there is no affordable housing in the Gun Barrel City um Center owned by the city of Boulder there is a a small complex owned by the county um outside the city limits at the time we went under contract we um were able to confirm at that time with planning staff that um because the parcel was less than two acres and in an IG Zone we did need a land use change to support the zoning um to allow for residential um uses the rules around residential in an industrial zone are are a little challenging I will admit um so we in order for this site though to be viable as affordable housing and for us to be

[123:00] able to get a reasonable number of units um on the site we believe it needs to have an underlying residential land use so that an appropriate residential Zone can eventually be assigned um as you know land for 100% affordable projects is rare um and we do believe we need to be able to use it efficiently um just anecdotally we know that demand for affordable housing extraordinary in Boulder um we just opened the 30 Pearl waiting list uh last week for three days and we were um received 210 applications for the first 40 units that will come online in February of 2021 so um we have also leased up several properties or two properties in in 2020 and the the lease up rate was extraordinary for us um at both SEO and the canopy properties um so with and just finally as with all of the BHP projects once we start a process to develop we will run a robust Community engagement process um we'll get and seek neighborhood um input

[124:02] as we do um with everything so thank you to Gan and planning staff and thank you of course to city council um and your ongoing service to Boulder thanks thank you Laura next we have K poer Julie die and we will close with ly seagull because it does not appear that Katie Walker is in the meeting so has withdrawn I'm sorry um kit thank you very much uh can you hear me all right yep excellent um I live at 4600 Cloud Court I'm a resident of the city of Boulder in gun barel and I appreciate the opportunity to speak very much and I also appreciate very much hearing from Laura Shin Bon because uh my concern is also with the Odell place um proposal uh I was very concerned about the irregularities in how the this um happened to manage to slip into the um the bbcp midterm update I think that uh it sets a very bad precedent I think

[125:03] it's unfortunate that it's being considered under these circumstances um and that's even despite the fact that I do agree that this is a very good location for um high density residential I proof of the fact that it's 100% affordable housing uh that's being proposed um I think there's a lot of good behind the intent here I just think that it's unfortunate that the way it has be um in come into consideration in the process um I would repeat that uh these types of irregular irregularities should should really not be considered um however here we are um I want to just propose a few things for uh this when it um when it comes to being considered further um as I expect it will uh I

[126:03] would um request that there be no exception to the height limits in this area I would request that there be no exception to the density and uh parking and open space requirements um I know that this will be a challenge to uh you know enable the developer to put in as many units as they would like but I think the the fact that gun barrel has no affordable housing in its Center is not the fault of gun barrel it's the fault of whoever is approving these developments and letting the affordable housing component be bought off at the last minute so um there could have been plenty of affordable housing in the 550 units that were built only a few years back uh so I don't like to hear that being an excuse for for Housing Development even though this is a perfect place for it um let me also just mention in closing that um I

[127:01] support a moratorium on new construction right now because of the uh covid effects that we really do not know um the uh what the full effects of covid are going to be we're still struggling six months ago when I last spoke before you we thought that that was going to be well over with by now but um there's going to be a lot of repurposed uh commercial real estate there's lots of uh vacancy signs on the commercial real estate there's lots of vacancy signs on the um residential real estate in gun barel so thank you for the opportunity to speak and um good luck with your considerations Mr Fuller I have a quick question for you and I'd appreciate it if your answer could be brief and direct um you referenced irregularities could you say in a sentence or two what those are uh the irregularities as I understand them were that uh this proposal for Odell place came in from staff well after the deadlines were uh

[128:02] um in place for um Regular citizen proposals and other proposals to come into the um bbcp P midterm review process I I think that's what I think that's thanks very much thanks very much we'll turn to staff after testimony um next we have Julie Dy and Lyn seagull and I do not believe that Katie Walker is with us but we'll check one more time Julie hi can you hear me okay awesome my name is Julie dy I live in Gun Barrel and the city of Boulder I also sit on the board of the Gun Barrel Community Alliance the GCA and can speak to the gun barrel land use because that is my neighborhood um I am in support in general of this proposal for affordable housing at Odell place which is a good location for higher Den density housing Gun Barrel is the affordable housing part of Boulder and we Embrace thoughtful affordable housing however at the same time your documentation for

[129:01] this proposal referenced The Gun Barrel Community Center plan I find this a little ironic because in 2004 the city and county agreed in this plan that gun barrel would have a mini Pearl Street like Mall described as a pleasant pedestrian oriented Gathering area which would provide a rich and thriving commercial and residential Center for our community but then in 20 5 this designated Gun Barrel area was built over with dense apartment buildings the promises of this plan were not kept so it feels somewhat disingenuous to refer back to this same document to justify other projects when improving a plan I feel you can't Embrace certain parts and ignore others at will with the recent increased attention for development in Gun Barrel I would like to request that one you follow through on your vote to prioritize The Gun Barrel sub community plan to allow parcel by parcel to be chipped away without a more holistic approach to our sub Community defeats the intention of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan as Jee mentioned on the call tonight the needs of Gun Barrel

[130:00] have changed and what works here for mixed use has changed in the last 16 years since the plan was approved it's time for a a true subc Community Plan before we rubber stamp further development two as you as you have heard many times before our community is asking for your support by increasing funding and access to amenities and infrastructure in Gun Barrel it should not be for families within within the city of Boulder that our closest playground is a 48 minute walk across the diagonal to quote the comp plan the quality of parks libraries trails and other Community Resources directly shape Boulder's vibrancy functionality and livability and contribute to important parts of the City's community identity three we ask that all higher density housing be close to functional transportation and necessary amenities and adequate parking must be required please use realistic and not aspirational me metrics when calculating alternative transportation to determine needed parking spaces

[131:01] four lastly Gun Barrel look looking Gun Barrel is looking to those in positions of both power and trust and we use our voices to ask for consistency in the development process and an an adherence to regulation and code and like kit um we did notice some that Odell Place had some unregular process um I just want to re-emphasize that gun barrel is yimi with a plan and we all you and our community here want to create a livable inclusive vibrant resilient and healthy Gun Barrel thanks for your time thank you Julie next we have ly seagull first of all the public to high density Lynn we're having trouble hearing you on telling you now so that you can correct that thank you so much can you here now

[132:00] barely barely no that's a little better okay um let me know um downlad 30th um public to high density and 47th and P Hills trans I business to medium density residential these these two um from an aerial perspective here it seems like there's kind of a backwards way of doing land use in town we had these things planned and then we're now trying to accommodate them to the higher growth that's going on in B overall um I think that would 35,000 students can see you in a town with

[133:01] 107,000 population when see you has 66,000 students in a population total aside from Boulder of 4 million that we're taking an undue burden and that is costing us heavily in our property value and land value and B Boulder housing Partners is always going to be front and center um and the litech funds that the city of Boulder benefits from in getting this kind of affordable housing stimulates growth because we get a government subsidy it's not all that different from the opportunity Zone can you hear okay Sam yes okay um so my concern is that I agree with I really like the comments of

[134:02] the folks tonight especially Julie Dy and kit Fuller and the fact that we need to have a moratorium on growth period um considering this virus considering all the changes and the Boulder Valley comp plan needs to step forward and get changes that are Dynamic to what's going on in our community now because further growth as and I keep on telling people this but no one seems to respond back the more affordable housing you have is not it's it's not a Panacea because each affordable unit has service demands and those service demands are taken by growth by jobs and then you have this cycle going on and and so I suggest you stop and think

[135:01] and stop first thank you Lynn and for those of you keeping score about timing um I let Lynn go over based on her um difficulty with hearing so thank you um Ryan I assume you'll let me know if Katie is here um now would like to bring this back to council for questions and followup I have a question or two I'll start with other council members if you have any questions Adam I have a process question are we voting on these kind of one at a time or as a package with exclusions if we have exclusions type of deal how are we supposed to pass this I guess I would say that whoever makes the motion has the option of doing what they'd like in amendments can be offered so if there's a motion made to pass everything as a package amendments can be offered to remove things or alter

[136:01] things that make sense yep that's good thank you sir sure any other questions Rachel yeah I I just wanted to follow up with staff there's it seems like there's some allegations that there're sort of um preferential treatment going towards the BHP property and gun barrel and that like Outreach was different for um The Gun Barrel um property as opposed to the one um near Fairview so I just wanted to have staff clarify maybe what the engagement or Outreach was and and why it was maybe done differently for the two spots so in terms of including this recommendation we included it in the screening process as a staff initiated change um as you know we work our housing staff and our planning staff work closely with BHP to further opportunities for permanently affordable

[137:01] sites um both the planning board and the council agreed that this should be consider be included in the um analysis for um further consideration at that time um and that was really a it was a staff initiated um change to be able to support this this kind of um opportunity regarding the engagement opportunities so um we had uh information um qu uh question and answers and feedback opportunities on be her Boulder for all of the sites um throughout the month of October uh we did notification um by mailing for uh property owners uh residents and businesses within 600 feet of all of the sites um notifying of those opportunities we held office hour

[138:00] Virtual Office hours we held a meeting specific to um each well to this site and also for um the South Broadway one we notified um widely in each of those areas um through next door and through other email contacts um I will we you know we received some feedback we received some feedback about Odell um that's included in the staff report there were a number of questions uh asked about parking and other Transportation improvements um there were mixed comments around support for um more affordable housing and um not for a change in uh a change to this in in the um in that area again those um emails and comments are included in the staff report report Rachel is there any is there anything else that I can provide that would help well um that's helpful I I think that the it was mentioned I think you

[139:00] mentioned that there was growing up Boulder for the for the Fair View or the Broadway spot and and not the other maybe and I'm guessing maybe that's because there was a school right there but just any clarification on why there might have been differential treatment that was really specific to the um planning board recommendations about gaining feedback from the from the school communities since I mean and it is right there for the South Broadway site um and again like I know the I will give a lot of credit to the growing up Boulder folks they worked really hard to try to um get uh students to provide feedback on our survey as well as the um faculty and staff and in the virtual environment it was a it was a little more challenging than usually with their projects so I think that um should some change in that area move forward there there's probably more Outreach to be done with uh with that nearby School Community thanks um and then just one um

[140:03] one more question on the the history maybe of the Gun Barrel site and the the purchase by BHP and they did give some of the history but um it sounds like it was purchased you know under one land use code that wouldn't allow them to do what they what we now want them or they want and we supporting them wanting to do in terms of affordable housing there and I do have just a a concern you know about um I guess Equity of of whoever is buying property um expecting to follow the land use um the the land use designation that's in place so um is that I guess I'm just trying to figure out like why buy a place and then is it normal that we would have a a land use design ation change for BHP Properties or any properties is this um out of the ordinary any history like that that you could provide Rachel may I C with you

[141:01] for a moment yeah hopefully you can make more sense of my question than I I I'm glad that that you got something that you want to cqu on please this was uh I I was on the Board of Commissioners at the time that that this came up um it was a moment of opportunity and by the way the the transaction has not closed and knowing that the existing land use did not support um the number of units that they wanted to build or needed in order to make the project viable the contract had a contingency in it and it still does um until closing um that that permits them to get out if uh they don't get the the appropriate designation um this was simply a a a momentary um opportunity that they wanted to take advantage of because they did not have a prior presence in the gun barrel community and they thought it was ripe for some affordable housing they did build in an escape hatch um but they

[142:02] needed the land use change in order to make this a viable project and these things they come when they come and and they can't be held in stasis forever um so there were simply time limitations on their ability to get the needed language change thanks for that Mark that's simply the anything else Jean just in terms of of big picture changes like this yes um you know and I think and if if Jr Charles wants to jump in about um any like how how other sites work I would welcome that but I think what we have to also consider with this is this is a land use change it's not a development approval um so when we looked at this as a land change we looked at it in terms of is this appropriate place for housing um we you know hope and support that this becomes a permanently affordable project through BHP but should that not happen we still

[143:02] think it's an appropriate place for housing thanks that's all I had great Adam I still see your hand up is that left over or is it new it is new um so given if we didn't do the land use change uh then this property would probably still be for sale and it would probably still be mixed use um and you could do anything you wanted by right if you purchase that property correct you you would be able to do anything under the industrial gen um under the um industrial industrial General zoning let me make sure that's right speaking under the but under the existing zoning it would just be by right as per usual yep okay just want to verify that to be sure and one more clarification I remember this

[144:00] meeting that we had about this property pretty well there was an exception made sort of by Council in order to allow it to happen to even have it as an option for BHP to sort of move on it correct that that exception was made outside the the sort of deadline um um that the general public had correct yes um but it wasn't it was included as a staff initiated um recommendation in the screening process right okay thank you Mary Jean um could you one of the the um in the testimony one of the testimonies mentioned um the two acre threshold or maybe it was you during the presentation and um there's the two acre threshold for site review and this is under the

[145:01] two acre threshold is that correct there's a two acre threshold for residential uses in the industrial General zoning okay that's okay that's right and so um because this parcel is under 28 Acres it needed to um they they really they couldn't do the the um residential correct correct and so um are there any other Parcels in the surrounding area that are two acres where residential could happen offand I don't know that I know that within Odell the rest of the that area is um developed with with um more light industrial types of uses this is the only vacant one right in that area um but as far as size of of

[146:01] nearby Parcels I I I don't think I have that information right off okay um I was just trying to get a sense of what could happen in the future as far as housing in that surrounding area so this land use change is based on the um the area just to the I guess that would be to the east is that right where where the residential um has gone up around it yeah the other residential is um to the north okay to the north so that is in in the gun bar Town plan it is um when you look at the map it's I'm looking at it right now it's the yellow so it is almost adjacent to the residential but not quite it is it is adjacent adjacent it's

[147:00] AC cross spine no it's just down spine um it it's it actually abuts the property of the um Apex uh housing housing to the north yeah okay so so it's contiguous then it's contiguous to um residential okay great thank you I think there might be a little driveway that circles around to the parking but it's not an actual Road it's it's adjacent okay um and then the other question is when you say that it was brought forward as a um staff initiated is there are there certain ex exceptions in timing that are made to staff initiated um proposals um I I don't know that we've really had them before um and as Mark

[148:01] indicated this was an opportunity um that we thought was really worth including at least for consideration um at that screening process um to to see whether it had Merit to move forward um yeah I Mary I can't I can't I can't remember any other types of examples where where um usually in the major updates there's a lot more moving pieces um over a over a bigger time frame okay so I'll just go ahead Sam I was just GNA Cy um we have some open space um property changes in this update were those staff initiated mhm okay so staff initiation Is Not Unusual I think the question on this one would be um did the staff initiated change

[149:02] come later than the cut off would normally have been for public or other staff initiated changes I think what people are digging at here is how much of an exception was made for this in the normal course of business I'm trying to M and Jay you can help me um if you're available as far as timing I'm not sure we were aware of it um in the context of the of the timing of the um public applications and Gan this is Chris maybe I can um jump in here because I think typically in a comp plan update there are there are two two ways that uh any kind of map change or policy change can come forward either a public request or a staff initiated request and so there are there are staff proposals for changes to text Andor maps at each of the comp plan updates um and they kind

[150:02] of vary um in terms of I think the specific question around the timing of when did staff put that proposal for that change on kind of on the table quote unquote um versus the timing of when public requests I think if I'm hearing right that's really the question that that folks are getting at and so um uh and I don't know if we've necessarily kind of jumped into those details before but um Gan can expand further but there are typically um both kinds of uh ways that that changes for a comp plan update come forward either as staff initiated requests or um public requests thanks Chris I see Jay here Jay do you have any input yeah and perhaps it's helpful um so BHP didn't identify this site as a potential um purchase until after the deadline had passed for public um submissions and so we um staff intentionally raised this as an issue

[151:00] with Council and planning board during the screening process to ask should we explore this this paral further and although I think there was a lot of concern about well this seems unusual um and there's some irregularity we still feel it's important to pursue so it did proceed into the analysis phase and that's why it's before you tonight and and I just have one more Colley Mary and I'll come back I'm sorry um did the public Outreach for this site was that any different in timing than the public Outreach for the rest of the sites so it's one thing that we knew about it as Council and we gave approval um through the screening process but then the question is after the screening process as far as the public input um was there any difference in in public input um for 6500 Odell versus the other map changes now Sam when when we were um soliciting public feedback um it was

[152:03] about all of the changes together and that was over about a six six to eight week time frame that the be herd Boulder was available we did um multiple um as well one mailing multiple messaging um a a lot of messaging within the planning newsl e newsletters um and um direct Outreach to um interested folks super that's great so Mary I'll come back I'm sorry for the cqu no by all means um and then finally um this would be if if this met the 2re threshold to be able to put housing on it um what is is the um what would be the number of allowed units versus with this um potential land use

[153:02] change I'm gonna have to look to Charles on some of that thanks for the question Mary so if it were to develop um as residential and Industrial under the industrial General Zone District they'd be limited to a floor area ratio of five so we have to do do the calculation that um I'm sorry yeah the a floor of roughly 0 five for IG zoning okay and what what is it just to follow up what what will it be under high density what's the floor area ratio under high density residential so it depends on the Zone District that gets applied um Sam if it were an rh5 Zone like the apartments that are directly to the north of it um we would be looking at something like 20 to 35 units roughly out there at a maximum density of 27.2 dwelling units per acre I

[154:02] see it's an open space Zone it's not necessarily limited by floor area like the IG Zone got it okay so we're talking about a a potential of like 20 units 20 to 35 I think 20 to 35 okay um thank you and then just one final question um of the housing that has gotten built just to the north um have they put any of the units on site or have they all bought out yeah if memory serves me um that was back I think in 2011 and those were cash in Loop okay thank you that's all I have super I see no other hands up and uh staff has answered all my questions on the Odell property I just have one more um question so Alexia Park I

[155:03] believe Parks was referencing the properties on the west side of town probably on Fifth Street and she referenced some homes that were built super large homes that were built when it was I think um managed by the county as far as development rights go so would the change proposed um change the type or size of housing that would be allowed versus what's there now no the nothing about the zoning would change um it would still be regulated through the county um and I oh there's Hannah Hannah if you want to speak to I know that um you could speak to and the planning board had questions about this too as to how the county would look at potential development proposal in this area right um It's a combination of the zoning um and this our site plan review

[156:01] process um so any parcel out there today that exists that is a legal building lot could if the homeowner chooses uh redevelop at this point in time in accordance with our sort of site plan review regulations um the zoning on the site does allow for single family residential development so that could be um continued um but our site plan review criteria address visual impacts they address neighborhood compatibility in terms of the size of development obviously the zoning will provide the setback information and that sort of thing um it's designation from Area 3 to area 2 and really the change in the blue line have no impact at this point in time on the potential development um that could occur while

[157:00] it's in the county our rules don't change um because the blue line has changed or because these Parcels are now eligible for annexation to the city I see and if there were so this probably for for Jean and our planning staff if there were to be a proposal to Annex um our standard practice is that there would be a site plan as part of the annexation proposal and there would be time for the public to comment on that is that correct uh I might look to Charles on that too I just um I would specify that um if these were annexing since they're already fully developed um it might be just just to receive this the city water um and there might not be a site plan associated yeah that's that's correct Jean um the parcels out there likely wouldn't meet the minimum thresholds for site review

[158:00] and typically when we see annexations like that um they typically are for utilities so it likely wouldn't be accompanied by um a development plan but again annexation is a contractual agreement so there is an ability to um include regulations I think as part of the process okay great thanks that answers all my questions on that thanks Anna thank you um okay so as far as process goes I think we're done with questions and public hearing it's time for discussion or motion both Aaron I'd be happy to put some motions on the table to serve as the basis for discussion that's acceptable sure okay well I'll go ahead and move that we approve the land use map and planning areas map changes to the Boulder Valley comp plan as shown and described in the staff memo and attachments a through I there to I will

[159:02] also move that we approve the policy and text changes to the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan is shown and described in attachment J and finally move to amend the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan intergovernmental agreement between the city of Boulder and Boulder County to extend the term in additional 5 years to December 31st 24 two as shown in the amendment in attachment K I'll second that very good so we have Motion in the second so open discussion um hands would you might can I speak to the please yeah go ahead go forward great so I staff I want to really thank you for uh the um careful work that you've done in presenting these proposals to uh the community and talking it through with uh concerned residents and uh with the planning board I'll I'll just so it seems like a really good well-considered package um in general I just wanted to

[160:02] just reiterate same what you were getting at with your questions is that the the changes around uh related to the blue line and do not add development potential right so that uh we're not creating a situation where we would add the potential for larger homes in general right so those are already developed plot so that's I think it's it's a good cleanup and allows us to get um some water service to um properties that could benefit from it without increasing the development potential um and then just to speak to the Odell Place one um hear the concerns about process there um but this does seem like um a very reasonable or very positive opportunity uh for Boulder housing Partners in the community to realize a 100% affordable housing project right there and which I think if we approve this will will certainly almost be guaranteed to happen but as jeene said even if it didn't that's a it's a vacant parcel immediately

[161:00] adjacent to high density residential so it makes sense it's contiguous to other residential and seems like a good place to get uh housing rather than uh new jobs in a place that's uh accessible to to Transit and um and Commercial um opportunities for the services for the residents so that seems like a very reasonable proposal to move forward on regardless I'll just put it every time this comes up I'll mention that I really do think we need to provide more services to Gun Barrel that's not the script of tonight's conversation but I do understand that Eaton Park is on the to-do list in the next couple of years and it's much needed as well as hopefully a small library branch up there and then the last thing I'll just say is um this was it's a kind of clever thing to extend the IG every five years well in advance of the expiration um I know we had some interesting discussions based on the IG expiring a few years ago so it sounds like that won't happen again which is just fine so that's that's all my comments super and Bob you seconded you

[162:02] have any comments uh I couldn't say any better than Aaron just did so I won't super uh Adam thanks Sam um so I share a lot of the same sentiments that Ain does uh what interested me from the community engagement uh on this was they were more concerned about the process and everyone playing by the same rules and I think that's always important that we reinforce that whether that be City staff or anybody else um so even though you know we're we're looking to do a good thing by putting permanently affordable housing at the Odell property um and that's what I want to see there as well how you get there I think is also important for the public trust so um avoiding those situations whenever possible I understand things pop up and you got to jump on them but you know there's there's a balance there with the public trust for sure

[163:01] um and to Second Erin's comments we talk about this every time you know Gun Barrel sub Community deserves their own subc commmunity plan and I definitely agree that that should be the next subcommunity plan that comes up um because right now they are just sort of an albatross that hangs out there and doesn't seem to get their their day in the Sun so um I'm all for that as well um yeah that's that's all I have super thanks Adam we've got Rachel and Mary next Rachel yeah um I'm gonna plus one Adam and Aaron uh and I think maybe somebody else said it earlier too on the um giving Gun Barrel their day so hopefully at a retreat um that we will all remember that we've you know the majority of us have said we can't leave gun barel hanging out there without um looking at at those issues harder so

[164:00] would love to see us talk about that next month and um also agree with Adam on the the process issues and and concerns that you know at least the appearance of preferential treatment giving to you know that has been given maybe to BHP and we all support what's what's going to be done there but it's still um important to follow the process the reason I I'm going to uh vote Yes on aon's motion is because I think we already went over that in June and I don't think we need to relitigate it tonight so we we considered it and said move forward with it so I don't think it's right to relitigate it but it is a concern thanks Rachel Mary thanks for that Rachel and I agree um we did bring that up um are staff brought it up to us when we were considering what to move forward and we gave them the okay knowing full well that this came in after the deadline so it is on Council um we did that and it

[165:03] is not staff staff followed um they asked Council and Council said yes um on the matter of the Motions after considering I went through and I looked at the size of the parcel the parcel um 6500 Odell is about 1 acre um and then at 0.5 f um that's about 22,000 square feet so if you divide that by a th000 square feet that's about um roughly 22 units I mean this is all pretty rough 22 units um at 1,00 square feet each un unit that could be built and if there were smaller units you could probably build more so when you think about what could be built um what Charles said was between 20 and 35 so that at least 22 Falls within that roughly 20 to 35 units that could be

[166:01] built if the parcel would were two acres and had met the threshold um so um in terms of what could go in there and if you did not change the land use and what could go in there changing the land use if the threshold had been met with the IG it's really comparable in terms of the number of housing units that could go in there um so the main thing as um Adam and Rachel said was the process and um and that is on Council um so um I'm okay with moving forward with this particular land use change and as well as all of the other motions great Aon I just realized I didn't address uh planning board's uh other motions I just wanted to quickly say that I appreciate where they're going we want to make sure we're a resilient Community we have the

[167:00] light industrial uses um uses that our community needs but I think we're going to be addressing those issues as part of the East Boulder subc Community Plan so I'd like to see them looked at kind of holistically coming out of that subc community plan which which is why I'm not taking them up on their their recommended text change at this time Mark yeah I just want to support the prior speakers starting with Aaron and uh and Adam Rachel um I think uh um this is a wellth thought out set of proposals with respect to um the BHP site uh I agree with Mary that that to the extent that there are um any deviations from the normal process those are our responsibility um and I do point out once again that um sometimes government does not move at the same rate uh as business and the business considerations here were the

[168:00] ability to take this property under contract and hopefully to close it um soon um assuming that that we approve the uh the changes and I for one would not be um prepared to um lose those um affordable housing units and I think Boulder housing Partners estimates them more in the 30ish range than the 22 range um due to the the deviations from process that we have countenanced previously so um I'm going to be supportive super thanks and I see no more hands so I'll jump in here staff great work um getting this to us um and thank you for checking in on the 6500 Odell place far in advance so that we could resolve the procedural issue before we had done the substantial public Outreach a couple more comments on that site um it is true that the Apex 5510 Apartments which are

[169:02] to the north did not include their affordable housing on site as is typical with developers around here unfortunately however one thing that we've learned about um when um affordable housing is included on site is because of the way things are financed it's usually horizontally separated between the market rate units and the um affordable units which typically have to be in their own building because of the way the financing works so in the end if we move forward with this BHP closes and builds 30 plus units of affordable housing here it would look very much like um they had included their affordable housing on site at the Apex apartment so the money that went into the affordable housing fund for cash and L will be used um to support affordable units at the 6500 Odell Place site so in the end we will have landed where we would have roughly speaking if there had been on-site

[170:00] affordable which will provide economic diversity in the housing types which are there so I appreciate staff doing that and I do appreciate the concerns about Gun Barrel it will be an interesting conversation if we do raise it about um how how to address that concern I think there's other um parts of the city that are also asking for a subcommunity plan so it's it's a good problem to have that people want to have these done in their areas so that'll be something that we will address I agree with Aaron completely about the reason for not taking planning board up on their suggestion it is perfectly in the right spirit for what we're trying to do as far as um preserving uh light industrial as well as the industrial that we have um I think that we'll get what we need out of the East Boulder subc community plan we'll learn a lot about that and I also just want to um respond to the concerns about the the building on the west edge of town we heard that uh the

[171:03] the changes to the land use designation that we're talking about due to Blue Line will not increase development potential any future attempt to increase development potential there will either be adjudicated by the county or through annexation through negotiation so I'll close by saying this will be the first comp plan um update that will be completed in the year it will be named for so I think that's a great a great accomplishment on staff's part um so if we approve it tonight then the 2020 midterm update will be completed at the last meeting of 2020 so with that still have to get through the county in January so but through the city part so good right okay thank you for the clarification uh with that I think we have a motion a second discussions complete any further before we go ahead

[172:01] and vote I just want to compliment Mary on her quick map there that was that was nice you Mary um Alicia from my notes this is a show of hands is that correct that is correct correct sir okay um all in favor of approving the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan 2020 update raise your hand right that looks unanimous to me any opposed seeing none that passes unanimously thank you staff thank you very much okay any chance for a f minute break oh sure let's do that that's a good idea um take a 5 minute break and come back for our second public hearing thank you so we'll see you all at

[173:17] 8:56 e

[174:17] e e

[175:17] e e

[176:17] e e

[177:17] do e e

[178:30] as soon as Mark gets here I think we can get going again Mark are you here super awesome Alicia all right our next public hearing is Item B the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8403 amending section 13-14 brc1 1981 initiatives and referendums clarifying election procedures for

[179:01] direct legislation including initiatives referendums and recall and adding a new section 13-1-2 online petitions implementing the charter Provisions allowing for electronic signatures on petitions for initiatives referenda and recalls and setting forth details in relation there to and thank you Elicia I will be presenting on this uh Emily you're will you go ahead and put up the presentation I think you're in the process of doing that thank you so much and I will be controlling it so I'm requesting control right now uh before we start I wanted to just um take a second and talk a little bit about the Milestone that we're achieving tonight um the the City will have a functioning online petitioning system available to our community in January it has been a long and difficult road to get here and I know the voters passed the initiative

[180:00] to to amend the charter in dece in November of 2018 um we spent 2019 going through an RFP process we awarded the RFP to run back election services in September of 2019 we signed the contract December 7 17 2019 less than a year ago um runback has done an amazing job of of developing a one-of its kind first in the world program that is secure easy to use and helps and allows us to verify that the person using it is actually the registered voter who is registered with the the state of Colorado um this this they managed in the middle of a pandemic and from the staff side I was looking at the memo that we did in March the leadership on this PR project was city manager Jane Bram IT director uh Julia Richmond city clerk rette um and they're all gone um the

[181:03] staff that has been left behind to do this has managed to do it under these difficult circumstances runback actually had to shut down for a period um over the summer because they had a covid infection we didn't get access to the county data until the end of July and anybody who knows anything about programming will tell you that you can program only up to a point until you have the actual data format the data itself you really can't do much uh in terms of manipulating and protecting it moving around um runback has done an amazing job I demonstrated the program for you um I believe at the beginning of December I got to play with it some it is incredibly robust it's almost impossible to make a mistake and I'm hoping that our community comes to respect and uh enjoy using it as much as I did so I'm going to go on and just talk about this ordinance ordinance 8403 so it does it has two sections section one amends um section 1314 of

[182:02] the boulder revised code to clarify petitioning uh procedures and then section two adds a new section 1317 to implement online petitioning you will recall that the charter Amendment only authorized Council to adopt an ordinance implement online petitioning it did not itself it wasn't self-actuating it didn't authorize it we need Council needs to adopt this ordinance to uh authorize the staff to go ahead and do that under the charter Provisions so just an overview of section 1314 um it clarifies that state law governs the charter amendments and that Charter governs everything else it clarifies signature requirements and deadlines it basically imports from the charter the language and the deadlines for the number of signatures and in there um you received some comments from Steve paland suggesting that it was was was unnecessary um I disagree I think it's incredibly helpful for the

[183:00] community to have absolutely clear what these deadlines are uh to because of the confusion we had this year the Department's also noted that the charter has a provision that requires that all signatures be signed within 180 days of submitting the petition to the clerk Amendment c c in packet would um add a new subsection D that allows that uh Amendment B would uh delete sections a uh B and C which are the signature requirements and the deadlines that is if Council decides to take Mr palance's advice and not have those in the code uh section 1317 uh authorizes electronic petitioning it establishes all of the requirements it goes through it clarifies that the the system cannot be used for Charter amend M ments it also makes clear that um you cannot use both paper and electronic for the same petition um it basically sets the the standards under which the system can operate and the system will meet these

[184:03] standards so it it also requires that the system be available be accessible on publicly available computers um it it has to prevent a person from endorsing a petition one than once it has data security provisions and as I said it requires a a petition to choose either electronic or paper that's my presentation any Council questions very good great presentation Tom two thumbs up um Cel yeah I see no questions uh Aaron yeah thanks very much for that Tom uh it's it's exciting to be getting to this Milestone really looking forward to this happening next year um so my one thing is so we've talked over the uh combination of electronic and paper petitions and some of the logistical uh obstacles there are to that what I'm

[185:00] what I'm wondering is could we update the ordinance to not specify that you have to choose well um so that we could if we can figure out the logistics or make it a manageable workload um that we could uh not prevent that uh with this ordinance so that we could maybe leave it up to implementation rules rather than having it written into the ordinance and to be clear I'm not saying that this year we have the capacity to do that I'm just saying from an ordinance standpoint leaving that open well Aaron the problem with that is then someone could demand that we that we accept a paper petition on one that's being done electronically and we'd have nothing to rely on to say that we couldn't except that we can't do it right now with the the current system so the language in the ordinance is to clarify to the community that that's not possible at this point point I well I just wonder I mean aren't there a lot of other rules at the city that aren't written into the code but that are done through rules of implementation and and when people ask us to do them that that we refer to

[186:00] implementation rules rather than ordinance language yes and Aaron if you prefer that we could do that the ordinance specifically authorizes a city manager to adopt rules I I apologize I did not understand your question but yes we could do that we could have a city manager rule that that says that you paper El not electronic the paper and electronic can't be mixed and we could delete that language from the ordinance okay well I just like to put that out there for council's consideration when we come back to discussion thanks for those those answers to thank you Aron and I have a followup on that Aon that's a good question if we were to do that because this will only apply to everything but Charter amendments um would the city manager rules govern so if the city manager said well for 2021 if you choose electronic petitioning you can't do written is that is that sufficient to hold up in court yes so what we would do is submit is delete subsection L and renumber

[187:01] subsection M and subsection M says the city manager May issue rules necessary to implement this section so I think it's pretty clear that and and we have a provision that no person shall viol and violate a city manager rule okay perfect thank you any other Council question questions before we go to public comment okay seeing none I think we're ready for public comment we have 10 people signed up so comments will be three minutes and I believe that the seventh person Katy Walker um has withdrawn um so our first three commenters are Peter Meyer Steve pomat and jelle herfeld we'll start with Peter yes it's Peter mayor please sorry Peter Mr Mayor thank you I'll remember it that way yeah yeah good so uh you know I was a person who actually worked on a

[188:00] petition last year and I really would urge you to develop uh and approve a system that allows both online and paper petitioning simultaneously especially this first year when you have a new and un tested online system uh we need to have that that capacity to do both and frankly the removing the paper process is a complete suppression of of the the Democratic and petition process at this point you went to Great Lengths to figure out a way to put rank Choice voting on the ballot when it was obvious that it was not easy for that to work you need to go to at least that same length if not more to make sure that our petition process is fundamentally fair and reasonable in 2020 Tom Carr and the city's attorney's office made frankly a mockery of our petition process and the rights of citizens were trampled upon

[189:00] the problems were numerous and were well documented and I'm simply astonished that Mr Carr is still employed and that you're taking his advice given his record over the last 12 months alone let alone the previous nine years please do not perpetuate the mistakes of the past and create a petition process that forces citizens to choose between one method or the other particularly when one method is entirely unproven no matter what Mr Carr says that is a false choice just like the false choice between affordable housing and open space false choices are something that pists in Boulder specialize in and we citizens are sick of it we're tired of the divisiveness and the division we want something that works something that we've asked for for so long Boulder needs a clean clear understandable process for petitioning we in fact had such a process for many many years and petitions in Boulders ran very smoothly until Tom Carr arrived

[190:02] please do not pass ordinance 8403 Boulder needs a petition process that allows for both paper and online collecting petitions are already planned for 2021 please ensure that citizens rights and health are not carelessly disrespected in 2021 as they were in 2020 we can and we must do better much better thank you very much good night thank you Mr Mayor Steve pomerance jelle herzfeld and Lyn seagull Steve can you hear me now Sam we can thank you Steve pomeran 33517 Street I agree 100% with everything Peter said everything um just with regard to this whole process this has been going on now for a year and three quarters a year and three quarters that is pathetic that we

[191:00] don't have something already in place as to paper versus online the checking process if you have a paper petition a bunch of names and you have an online thing with a bunch of names somebody might have to do a minimal amount of work to check one against the other that's how easy it is it's complete nonsense that you can't have both at the same time with regard to 13-14 I sent you a bunch of comments on that fundamentally you're going to have now three places where the rules are listed one's in the charter one's in 1341 and those were of course as I pointed out to you missing parts and some parts are wrong and then you'll have the guidelines so now people will have to check three things once against the one against the other against the other that's insane you already saw what happened when the guidelines were wrong well now you're can have three things to check it just doesn't make any sense I

[192:01] told you I mean you guys ought to believe me on this stuff I've been the one that's been correcting everything and sending it to you not just on this but everything before this is very straightforward get rid of 1314 it has no value um and you have the rules in the charter and then if you need to have them somewhere else do a crib sheet like I sent you and then the petitioners can have that it's really pretty simple if you do it that way I mean so I don't really get this whole thing about adding more and more and more verbiage when you don't need it aside from the fact that it confuses Charter amendments and local you know initiated ordinances once again and just to point out one other thing here the changes that the elections working group made in 2018 had nothing to do with the problems in 2020 all the changes we made had to do with initiated

[193:02] ordinances those went totally smoothly if you note in spite of the change in the number requirements that was completely smooth all the problems had to do with the charter amendment process and all of them had to do with this manipulation that occurred over the rules you know the no special election that was that was failed to be dealt with the signature uh the 90day limit on Gatherings petitions uh signatures that was was ignored and so on Peter is right get somebody else to run this thing and as far as the credit card thing goes I guarantee you I could two weeks I can put together a program with that and I'll tell you it'll be more secure and more reliable and a few hundred, dollar cheaper than the system you've got thank you thank you thank you Steve all right next we have jelle herzfeld

[194:02] Lyn seagull and Evan rabitz justel hello can you hear me yep hi um my name is jelle herfeld and I'm speaking today on behalf of the Rocky Mountain peace and Justice Center thank you for hearing me today um having been politically involved in Colorado for many years now I have always bragged to my Out ofate friends at the strength of our opportunities for democracy since I was a teenager I helped to circulate petitions and initiatives in the Boulder County area and I was always excited at the opportunity to promote Progressive and forward-thinking policies that was back when you could run around in large crowds of people asking everyone you passed for a signature it took a lot of work and even with the opportunity to canvas large crowds at once it was still a challenge to get the needed numbers of signatures in time now we are heading up on a full year of the covid pandemic the pandemic has brought many challenges in society and particularly challenges to

[195:00] the world of Grassroots organizing working for two Grassroots nonprofit organizations I've seen how challenging it can be to organize and mobilize people and get strong policies on the table especially now that a lot of our lives have been moved to online given the challenges we face it is important that our leadership does everything in their power to support our opport opportunities for democracy as one of our greatest strengths in upholding the spirit of the Grassroots popular voice in the age of covid and Beyond it is important that we offer organizations the ability to circulate petitions both online and in person for a single campaign the way the ordinance is currently written forces the city council to choose one petition form or the other but the best way to uphold the Democratic voice in this city is to allow for both I urge the city Council to update this policy and allow both online and paper petitions for a single campaign and I thank council member Aaron Brockett for advocating this as well thank you so much thank you jelle next we have ly

[196:00] seagull Evan rabitz and Gary swing L yeah let me know if you can't hear um I can hear I think the problem here is a listening problem speaking of hearing because you've heard from the public I couldn't agree more with Tom and with Steve and with chazelle and this this city has got a deep fundamental problem and that is Tom Carr the first thing I'm going to do with this electronic vote is get out 2021 vote on municipalization again in and a legal challenge to what was done with us at this last election it's unconscionable and what Tom did with the bedrooms are for people petition was

[197:02] outstandingly incompetent he should have been fired many years ago just due to the municipalization effort and his lack of passion working towards that this is just not going to work for Boulder as long as he stays employed there are there's such a long list of his incompetency and you know I was walking down the street with you Tom when you came to town 10 years ago here's this guy from Seattle my hometown well Seattle was so lucky to get rid of Tom Carr and Boulder will be so lucky to get him out of our employee Tom you need to move on do something else in life because this is far too destructive for this

[198:00] community and it's been far too long and too many issues one after the other after the other um as far as the electronic petitions great but you know we can't have a fox in the chicken house and have this city working and operating properly it's just not going to happen it's so fundamental to everything that goes on in this community it's infectious it's like the worst kind of a virus and it just can't be continued done Len next uh let's see I'm checking my notes here next we have Evan rabbits and then Chelsea castiano and Eric Bud um that's because we've had Gary swing Katie Walker and Amy B withdraw so if

[199:03] one of you three Gary Katie or Amy are on and would like to speak please say so in the chat and with that Evan hi Evan rabbits North Boulder there is a crucial technical issue the memo confuses it doesn't explain that the Secretary of State and the county clerk still refuse to share identification data from the voter roles usually driver's license or four digits of your Social Security number the secretary also refuses to host our software on the state voter registration server which would be the simplest least expensive and most secure that's why we're deciding about what kind of two Factor authentication whether to send confirmation codes by phone or mail the

[200:01] county is merely providing for us a feed of the public data that anyone can buy on CD from the county clerk so we can't identify people the way 40 State online online voter registration systems and Arizona's onlite online candidate petitioning systems do which is by driver's license or Social Security instead we're doing it by sending a text phone call Postcard or letter with a one-time use confirmation code that you copy and paste into the city petitioning website in May the Boulder County Democrats passed a resolution asking the Secretary of State and the governor to share the data or host the software in August the Secretary of State on a zoom call with the Boulder County Democrats

[201:00] executive committee said very little about it except quote lawyers are talking unquote I guess they're still talking because we don't have the data when I asked Jared pus to ask the Secretary of State to cooperate he emailed me quote the Secretary of State doesn't work for mequot so he won't use his infl influence to make our online petitioning work in spite of having offered us money for a state ballot initiative to get online petitioning on the state level in 2017 so as everyone has been emailing you please let us have paper as well as online petition at least while this new technology is phased in and allow us to have confirmation codes sent by postcard or letter as well as by phone or text map

[202:00] light will fix or replace the poorly designed software for free and please Lobby the state to share the ID data or host the software it's the small D Democratic thing to do thank you thank you Evan next we have Chelsea castiano and Eric but Chelsea hello um my name is Chelsea Castellano and I am both fortunately and unfortunately well versed in Boulders petitioning and signature Gathering process it is absolutely imperative that the proposed ordinance in front of you be amended to allow both forms of signature Gathering um in order to provide campaigns and the community with Equitable access to the Democratic process um as I mentioned in a previous open comment there are many people in our community who do not have access to computers or the internet or is simply

[203:00] not computer literate enough to complete the rather elaborate process of signing a petition electronically especially the one that's being presented here um thinking about your parents or grandparents trying to navigate the complex process um you know it it's it's just not feasible so on the other hand there are many people who are considered high risk for covid and would not be able to sign an in-person petition due to the potential health risks and the only way to provide both these groups with equal access to the Democratic process is to allow both online and in person Signature Collection and in the good the good news is that you have the authority and the opportunity to make that happen the City attorney states in the council memo that the main reason to not allow both methods of collection simultaneously is that it would that it wouldn't provide saving in staff time and respectfully the residents of Boulder did not vote to allow electronic signature Gathering to save staff time it was passed with huge margins because the residents of this community demanded more opportunities to engage and

[204:00] participate in the city's decision-making process this is increasing this is about increasing access and ease for Boulders residents not about cutting Quarters on our democracy if the additional workload is insurmountable then put the onus on the campaigns to do the heavy lifting and type up any in-person signatures collected um they could be D duplicated that way and we know this is feasible for um because we uh our volunteers typed up every one of the nearly 8,000 signatures we collected earlier this year if there is any time to allow for flexibility in using both signature Gathering processes it is for 2021 we are still in a pandemic the electronic system is completely untested and we have no idea how reliable it is or how easy it will be for the community to use I cannot imagine a campaign that would um knowingly use this electronic system without knowing that they had a backup option so by not allowing both you would essentially be rendering the electronic system useless and that would be a huge waste of time and money the city has

[205:00] invested in this so with so much uncertainty around the next several months um around what the next several months will look like and around if the new online Signature Collection process will work for the community it is essential that you prioritize equity and don't close door doors for participating in the Democratic process that you could easily keep open thank you thank you Chelsea and last we have Eric Bud uh hello Council um my name is Eric bud I'm campaign co-chair with bedrooms are for people with Chelsea Castellano who just spoke um I I want to reiterate a lot of the points but I I think that the biggest one that we've discussed that you've heard from virtually every speaker here is that it's it's critical in this time of transition to a new system which I I really appreciate the effort and I I'm thankful that Boulder has taken this on it it's critical to allow both systems to be used in parallel and really Chelsea highlighted

[206:00] a lot of the reasons for that but the the biggest ones are essentially that um while the system looks promising it's really it's untested we have no idea how well it's going to work in practice you know that's the difference between a unit test of something and an integration test and having collected personally you know hundreds of signatures this past year um as part of our campaign that collected almost 8,000 I can tell you that it was a learning experience and one that um was very apparent that if anything went wrong we took the brunt of it you know we had to personally sue you to try to make sure that Justice was done this year and you know what we weren't successful and that atmosphere has really shown us that there is absolutely no recourse for an average citizen who is just trying to undergo and participate in democracy here and so there's really no reason to trust this new system and the city needs

[207:00] to develop trust by showing that they're going to the extent to promote democracy and to allow people to participate and in doing so you need to have a good transition to a new system and prove that it works and not say well you take it or leave it you know use one or the other um so I I find myself in a strange position where I'm agreeing with plan Boulder and you know other folks here tonight um who I might not normally agree with so you're hearing it loud and clear from a lot of people in the community so please consider giving us that option in 2021 thank you thank you Eric and with that we will bring um public uh the public hearing to close and bring it back Council um council members discussion motion Adam Mark Adam yeah I have one follow-up question before we get to uh discussion um and

[208:04] that is Tom can you clarify just a little bit more uh I know it says in the memo that it's staff time and City funds essentially that are the thing that hold up um doing both online petitioning and paper petitions what what kind of Burden do we have that Quantified in anyway or yeah I'm just looking for a little more clarification on that sure I as you know Adam um this question first a rose a year ago and we started talking about it when we we disclosed this to the elections working group on December 19th 2019 or the 18th um and so we've been before Council several times and I've made this presentation several times including back in March um so we've designed a system that doesn't have an output that will come to the city clerk that's for security reasons the uh the data stays in a secure database that is the County voter registration and stays

[209:00] in a secure database at runback to allow us to to do paper to verify paper signatures or D duplicate we'd need an output from the system that would go to the clerk's office no such output exists and that's for security reasons uh both runback and as I recall maplight recommended that we not do that so that's why the system was designed as it was the clerk's office savings would be substantial you may recall this year we had five petitions uh all going at the same time um the the charter says for initiative petitions they have to submit them within 150 days of the election and the clerk's office has to verify the signatures within 10 days this year that took 13 people the clerk's office staff at that time was two people the the rest of the people were volunteers from around the office the city including six of mine so we we have not reinvigorated the clerk's office yet although Alicia is working on

[210:00] that so we are in a position where we would have to we expected what we would do if that ever happened was hire people but because of the budget considerations we couldn't do that so this year what we'd have to do is have people who could then go through a a database and compare the paper signatures to the ones that were taken electronically to dup um that's the challenge uh first of all we don't have the electronic capacity to get that data out of the system right now so we'd have to rewrite the system to do that my recommendation to council is let's see how it runs in 2021 if it is a true problem let's go back to runback and reorganize the clerk's office to be able to do this um but the way the system will work now should work work for most users and my expectation is that people will use the system once they get familiar with it is that helpful out yeah it's helpful one more point of clarification um when you say that we'd have to go rewrite to get that

[211:01] output um do we have any quantification of that is that a runback additional cost because right now you you said it was impossible but not necessarily impossible we certainly couldn't roll it out in January so the the the specs in the RFP did not require that output the specs in the RFP specifically said that the the the paper and electronic would be separate so we'd have to Respec the program go back to run back with a change order they would have to price that change order give us an estimate for how long it would take to implement the change okay that is helpful thank you thank you you Adam next we have Mark Aaron and Rachel Mark yeah this is this is really a a difficult one I'm very sympathetic to the comments made by uh Miss castalano um that having to pick one

[212:00] alternative or the other is likely to effectively disenfranchise certain people in terms of their participation um in these initiatives um and yes for those who don't have a computer or um are not as comfortable with the process they are likely not to participate and that is going to suppress what might otherwise be uh support for a particular initiative but I'm also Tom I'm I'm I'm impressed by by your articulation of the difficulties and the costs and this is not the moment to be bringing on 20 people uh at unknown expense simply to you know verify um consistency between two methodologies is there any way to bridge this Gap that you can think of so so my recommendation Mark is so so and I appreciate your comments the the way we

[213:00] designed the system was how do we do it in the most cost-effective way it may be I mean and I respect the folks who've done this and the people who spoke tonight but it may be that when people find out how easy this is to use they're not interested in using paper at all if we had spent money to design a system that would do both and then people abandon paper that money would be wasted so we have a system that just that that that's that's unique that that only handles electronic systems if that works well and there's no demand we've saved a lot of money and effort for the city and if it doesn't we can then in the next iteration add it so my hope is that people are as enthusiastic about this as I am and that it actually works you talked about suppressing uh the out the turnout if you think about the difference between signing a petition because you pass somebody in the library parking lot or being able to send an email to 20,000 people that you know or that or on Facebook that you you ask them to sign and have them do it it

[214:00] seems to me that that's going to be very popular and I I think that that one of the challenges is people don't trust new technology once they get a chance to use it they adapt it um I had never used Zoom before this year and I doubt you had either now it was I've never heard of Zoom yeah so I I I think that this is a world where people do adapt fairly quickly and I and we are cognizant of the fact that people um don't all have computers or don't aren't all computer literate hopefully when we can get the library back up and running we will have all sorts of assistance for folks to be able to do this to walk them through it when they want to and hopefully that'll be about the time people are signing signatures or signing petitions in in March or April um but I I I I can't tell you how proud I am of the team that did this and one of the things I want to mention is you heard a lot of bad things said about me I particularly take the lead on these things because this group particularly tends to attack staff and you may have

[215:01] noticed I only gave the names of Staff members who' left and that's to protect the innocent um it's it's really unfortunate that we have to do that but there are some wonderful people who've worked really hard on this whose names I'm not saying I we Julia Richmond went to the December meeting of the elections working group and Evan ravit spent the next three months calling her a liar and she wasn't uh that's it's just not fair so I I accept the fact that people are going to be mad at me and I take it I will tell you I didn't develop this I didn't write the RFP I don't really know a lot about the program but I'm here to speak talk about it because somebody needs to take the Heat and there's always a lot of heat in this area so um I appreciate the fact that Council here listening and that this is a tough decision I think this the staff has done an amazing job and I I'm not talking about me because I didn't do it and I think people will love the system once it gets implemented I appreciate the role you're playing here thank you Tom you mark uh Aaron and Rachel aarin well I I I was going to lead off

[216:00] actually by addressing those those comments I you know I thought there were there were some uh unfortunate um ad homm attacks on on Tom Carr and um while it's perfectly fine to disagree uh with his opinions and and his actions I thought that kind of personal attack was unfortunate un necessary so just want to get that on the record um thanks for your hard work on this Tom as well as your whole office um so there's that but then uh just substance wise um I guess what I had to advocate for would be what I was getting at in U my questioning before the public hearing would be to change the ordinance language to not uh specifically rule out doing both paper and electronic and from what I'm hearing from Tom my understanding is that doing both in 2021 um is not a practical achievement u based on how the system is designed right now so I I would not try to force the city clerk's office underst staffed during covid with a new system to try to do both and we hadn't anticipated it from from the from the

[217:00] get-go but I would like to go ahead and start that process of reaching out to a runback and say you know what would it take uh to set up a system where we could accept both where you could output the information information that would be necessary for us to compare it against paper signatures um and then see what that change order looks like what the scope of it is how things go in 2021 um whether we're able to hire back people in the city's clerk's office and then consider accepting both in 2022 or some future year so that that's my recommendation thank you Erin we've got Rachel and then Adam again Rachel couldn't hear that first thing could you no but you can hear me now okay um couple points first um I think maybe a light one on um Evan rabitz mentioned um it would be helpful if the city if the city lobbied the state um to

[218:02] achieve uh some different outcomes is that something that's already covered in our legislative agenda I don't question are we already lobbying for that or or did we want to authorize that I'll have to check legislative agenda I don't recall Rachel I mean if it's helpful for go ahead sorry I was just going to say we're going to touch our legislative agenda again either the end of January or first meeting of February so we have the opportunity to do that here pretty quickly okay is that something Tom that you can or or Carl if you're out there listening somebody can just or members of that subcommittee um flag and make sure that we touch to make sure if we want to add it specifically that we do happy to flag it all right thanks um so that was number one number two um I heard a lot of the community feedback is sort of speaking to a loss of trust in the city on um uh elections matters um and you know when

[219:02] the Eric Bud talked about the bedrooms um kind of debacle leaving them feeling like there's there's no recourse for the you know every man when it doesn't go right so my question is under Aaron's idea of putting this over in the city manager um umbrella rather than writing it into the ordinance could there be a plan B so like could we say Okay um you can only use online and then you know at the end of the first week get us your signatures and we'll vet and make sure it's working right and you can have some trust that it will work and if it doesn't will let you switch to paper or something like that where we could establish trust in this first year and um like Tom you said if people use it they will like it and it's going to work and nobody would want to use paper so is there a way to sort of baby step

[220:00] in it and give people an an exit ramp option well I I I think we could structure something where there was a plan B for folks um I mean we we have some Charter deadlines that we can't mess with with so right but we we could write into the rules that someone could cancel a petition and go ahead and and um and revert to paper orever go from paper but the but the signatures wouldn't be count the the Gathering sign wouldn't be counted um that's certainly something we could do then they could that's why I said A week because you could trial it and if it works and it you know the city can show you that it's working then maybe there's that trust so there a char that requires that all signatures be submitted in one packet but we could what we could do is is have something that says that they're not you're not actually submitting the signatures you're submitting a test to the city or something like that accomplishes that I believe Rachel

[221:02] awesome I if I'm not quite done with my questions but I I would wonder like could we hear from you know can I ask questions to any of the community members if they're still on the line to see like would that address that to Eric um so I'll put that out there for later consideration um and I do understand people's preference of having both I think that um for me personally knowing that we're still going to be in pandemic probably through the end of signature collections I'm I'm not all that motivated to make it um to encourage the paper route because I think that was the problem last year is people didn't want to go and and possibly um create super spreading events by collecting signatures so we can get the online working I think that's actually really a great thing for 2021 in particular because we are still going to be in pandemic so I just put that out there that for through my um pandemic health and safety lens I think that online's actually really going to be good for the

[222:00] community this year if we can get the trust and get it working um and then just a i flagged this in March I think but put it out there again um in the memo there was a just a community mentioned or kind of featured and it's I find it um a little inequitable when we give um any Community member more or wider or more focused audience than anyone else in the community so I'm just guarded against that um and then last I will Echo what Aon said um about the comments about Tom it's I thank you Tom for standing in the heat that can't be easy um to to listen to all those attacks and it's um hard for us to listen to I think at you and and we just reiterate what many people have said in recent weeks it doesn't seem to be very persuasive when we hear those so just putting that out there to the community that the attacks on staff are um I don't think terribly effective at at um at

[223:01] changing hearts and Minds that's all thanks thank you Rachel you Rachel Adam and then Mary Adam thanks Sam I I'll ask one more question and then I'll go to my comments real quick um Tom what are the actual uh what are going to be the number of signatures required for Charter amendments and code amendments this year in this election that is a is this a this is not a special election so no and uh so I don't remember off the top of my head I don't believe that the uh initiativ will change because it's the last two municipal it's the average of the last two Municipal elections and we haven't had another one so U and I don't recall about Charter but so I think that the I my my understanding is the initiatives is the same and if there's anybody on on the line who has those numbers on the top of their head I'd appreciate it okay and maybe someone can come back with those just so we know what numbers we're talking about in this first year of

[224:00] trying a new system so we can at least wrap our heads around how many electronic signatures people are going to end up trying to get um Adam do you mind if I call just briefly so we don't confuse people um Charter amendments still have to be done on paper and they're still governed by state law just didn't want to get misinformation out there so this is for referendums and recalls and initiatives but not specifically Charter amendments sorry thank you for calling that out it's it's better to clarify ahead of it so appreciate that um as far as my comments go um you know I think many of us have made ourselves pretty clear about what what we want in an Ideal World um versus what we're going to get right now now um you know I for a long time wanted to push for an open source system so that at least all of Colorado could sort of get around one system be constantly improving it open this up to the entire State rather than just one city doing

[225:00] one um system for their amendments um and along those lines I I also want to see paper petitions and um electronic signatures at the same time I understand that there are restrictions in that as a city employee I'm willing to come in and DD some um some names you know I'll come in on the weekends I'll I'll do what it takes I don't know if community members would love their council members doing that but we're City staff and you know we're we're able and willing I bet um so that option is always on the table but uh you know I really want a perfect system eventually I realize we're probably not going to get that right now um so I look at this as at as the very beginning of our online petitioning process uh just because we have the

[226:01] system in place it's going to need a lot more improvements and I really sort of see it as hey this is the foundation we need to build and improve upon the foundation so um it's it's not perfect it's not exactly what I want I share many of the exact same concerns as many community members and I still want it because it's better than what we have so um that's that's how I'm looking at it right now again there's a a brighter future forward ahead but uh this is this is what we can do in the moment especially with trying to protect people from interacting face Toof face still for the next several months so I look at it you know with a with a brighter future ahead thank you Adam Mary thank you Sam um so I just want to start up by saying that the Liberty that

[227:01] people are taking with ad homonym attacks is really disappointing and I hope that we can begin to unlearn that um soon because it is going to get to the point where um it makes it difficult for people to work for the city and um and so I'm I I hope that we can disagree in a um less personal attack manner um so there's that um like the comp plan that we just talked about a little while ago where we talked about about the Odell um property that we gave the direction to um do for staff to do what they did way way back and to change at the last minute

[228:01] was not feasible because that was on us and that was direction that we gave a long time ago so similarly is where we find ourselves with this matter where when the RFP presented to us we said okay um just the online version no paper and anybody who knows anything about projects and how you begin to design the architecture for a project you know that to change it in the end means kind of taking a lot of steps backwards so um this was a Monumental effort it's the first of its kind and I think it's really important to start out um with just one system and not try to um inject a process that was not meant to work with this particular system I did spend

[229:02] some time yesterday and today um thinking about and asking questions about a process for collecting paper signatures that I um spoke to staff with and um and it's just not feasible and I understand that now so um it was a pretty simple process it basically mimicked the way paper um petitions work and if anybody has questions I'm happy to talk to you about what it was but um very simple but it the system is just not designed for that for the reasons that I just um outlined and so um I also agree with Rachel that we're going to find ourselves pretty much in a CO kind of context um through most of the period um for which people are going to be collecting signatures so

[230:02] this year when people were having to go out there and collect with paper they were asking for online and now that people are going to get online they're asking for paper um and still we're in Co so that's that's a point that I don't understand so we should start out small um I do um I agree with Aaron about at least putting it out there and asking runbeck what it would take um and not necessarily starting to do it but understanding better what it would take MoneyWise and TimeWise and Personnel wise um so I I am going to support this ordinance and um starting with only online um it's the first of its kind and um I think we need to begin carefully and make sure that we get this part of it right that's all I have thank you

[231:01] thank you Mary um next we have Bob and Mark Bob yeah um a couple things I'm gonna agree with my colleagues that um the ad homonym attacks on City staff are um not helpful in two regards number one I just think you you do yourself harm if you're trying to Advocate to the nine of us to do something or not do something starting off by attacking our staff um is not helpful you've you've heard from several of us so far that we don't appreciate that and um we tend to discount or diminish whatever you say afterwards um and so um I think just in the case of good advocacy um you shouldn't waste part of your two minutes or three minutes beating up on our staff because it doesn't help your second on that lines um as Mary observed it makes it very difficult for us to retain good staff members um we are in the middle right now of recruiting for a new city manager the applications are open and I don't doubt there are several

[232:01] people around the country watching this right now as we speak trying to decide whether or not to apply to be Boulder's next city manager so hearing um community members beat up on staff members probably doesn't encourage them to apply and we very may very well lose an outstanding candidate simply because what they heard tonight so if you expect excellence in our staff don't beat up on them because you're going to um reduce the chance that we'll be able to recruit excellent staff members with respect to the um matter at hand I think that Aaron's solution is a good one um I think we all would like to see we'd like to be able to wave a magic wand and say yeah it would be really cool if we could have a system that um takes on both online and paper and someday we may have that but as Mary said that's not the RFP that was issued and that's not the system in front of us and so um we would risk delaying the launch of this for another GE which I know that

[233:01] would upset several people who have spoken with us tonight so I think we can't let the perfect be the end of the me of the good here I think that eron solution is a very good one which is let's launch this in 2021 online obviously if people prefer paper they can always elect for that um I suspect given covid people will prefer the online system and if it's as good as Tom and others say it is um I think they'll adopt it um and take it on board pretty readily um but I do like aon's suggestion or actually request that during the course of 2021 in parallel with the first year of online uh petitioning that we go back to the developer and see if there's a way that um in future Years starting with 2022 too um we can give petitioners the flexibility of doing paper and online uh at the same time and if that's something that can be achieved I think that's a pretty easy fix um so I'm going to support what eron recommended on that let's do online next next year but but

[234:00] work towards having a dual system for 2022 thank you Bob Mark yeah first I want to add my voice to to those of uh Mary and and and Bob with respect to these at homenum attacks um I've had disagreements with with Tom but they're not they should not be of a personal nature they should not be expressed in in that kind of abusive Manner and Bob is correct if anything I start to um move in the other direction when somebody does that because I find the behavior um you know fairly reprehensible and so if you want to be practical about your advocacy uh that kind of uh attack on staff is is is not a way not the way to go secondly um one of the interesting things about being a member of council is occasionally you find yourself persuaded in a way that you have not been previously and I want to uh Adam's

[235:03] comments um I I found very very compelling um the system is not perfect we want it to be perfect perhaps we will get it to be perfect at some point in time time but it's not an argument not to move forward now I am also supportive of of Aaron's uh suggestion um as to how we might move towards a greater perfectability in time um but I I don't think um starting over or trying to reinvent the wheel to accommodate what we cannot presently accommodate is going to be useful to us I think we need to launch this in 2021 um let's see how it goes uh if it's not up to our standards we will make the the proper adjustments um and perhaps it will be uh a much better than anticipated uh result um and and will be as Tom described it so I want to thank

[236:01] Adam for his comments because he kind of moved me um around the dial a little bit and I was persuaded by what he said so thank you for that um and so I too will be supporting thank you super well I see nowhere hands up so I'll jump in here and I'll be brief um the the worst part about the ad homm attacks in addition to their ineffectiveness is they're just plain inhumane um people are trying their best and people's best is different in different days and different you know parts of the year and based on what's going on in their life and if what we're trying to do is to bring more um understanding and a more peaceful world the very worst way to do that is by telling people that that they are insufficient for your needs and so I would just say that at the top of my list for why you shouldn't do it is because not only is it unproductive but it poisons the well and why would you

[237:01] want to do that um and it hurts people and why would you want to do that and so in the spirit of supporting what my Council colleagues have said I want to say thank you Tom I want to say thank you to all the people who have worked on this project because it's a first in the nation kind of project that we're working on yeah uses software so there a lot of things but it's to the end of Greater democracy and greater participation in our democracy and our staff has made it happen along with our contractor runbeck and um I think you know everyone in the community should be proud of what we're we're doing here is it perfect no is anything perfect no um and that's just the cost of doing business and being a is that there's imperfection you got to live with Adam is right and Aaron is right about the way forward we will get better if people want the Dual system will make it happen as we go forward and I pretty much agree with everything Aon said about changing the ordinates so that we let the city

[238:02] manager rules be what governs it going forward so REM moving the one Clause that that um Bob I'm sorry that Tom reference that would affect that I think that's the right way to go um and I also think that um we're going to learn a lot as we move through this and we're starting off a project that Adam you're right it's not open source but hopefully if we're successful people around the state will look to us and say can we get the Secretary of State to make changes that'll make it easier for people to implement elsewhere and can you know County clerks buy into that can we get more people brought along with this and then other states as well so I think you know starting here and perfecting it as we go forward is the way to go so I'll agree with my colleagues about I want to move forward with this in 2021 um and I want to make sure that we take all the input about how to improve it particularly after people have had a chance to use it and really experience

[239:01] what works and what doesn't work because there will be some things that don't work well we'll learn from them and we will will um get better as we go forward but like Adam said we should get going because it's better and what we have now and Improvement is always at least the arrow is pointed in the right direction so again thank you to staff for all the work you've done to bring this to us we did make the direction that we were going to separate for the first moment electronic from paper so that'll be how we probably move forward in 2021 depending on the the council vote goes um but I am happy that we're doing this and I'm happy that the citizens brought this to us so you know for all the citizen activists who were the ones who generated this idea um I'm sorry if it's not exactly what you envisioned when you started out but if it weren't for you we wouldn't have this progress being made um and hopefully it will be what you envisioned in a year or two um after we

[240:00] roll it out so with that I'm done and I will turn to Rachel and then I'll look to council for a motion Rachel thanks I just wanted to make sure that um before I vote I'm I'm positive that it what Tom said about an exit ramp and sort of a a trial run and a way to get off if the online's not working will happen so if we vote to do online only if I vote to do online only it can can I rest assured that there will be a way for people not to get trapped in online if it doesn't work because it seems like that's kind of what happened this year things didn't work and there was no remedy for it so I just want to make sure yeah I I promise you we will do a city manager rule that incorporates that thank the rule you have to separate so we'll we'll put them together super and I'll just turn to Chris as well Chris could you nod your head that that's the intention um as we go forward yeah I I'm supportive of that approach as well and

[241:00] I think we can we can craft a rule that um can make that process clear and Rachel as you described have a an opportunity that if the the the group circulating the petition is not comfortable with the electronic form format after they've tried it out and experienced it for whatever the right period of time is that they could they could switch to paper okay thank you sir and if I may Adam asked how many signatures were required for initiative petition last year it was 3,336 and and I believe it's the same this year because there wasn't a municipal election thank you Tom okay um Council motion Aaron I'm G I don't want to hog all the Motions tonight U but since I I was the one who started this off I can go ahead I'll go ahead and move that we adopt

[242:01] ordinance 8403 amending section 1314 BRC 1981 initiatives in referendum clarifying election procedures for direct legislation including initiatives referend recall adding a new section 13-1 Seven online petitions implementing the charter provision allowing for electronic signatures and petitions for initiatives referenda and recalls and setting forth details related there too with the one change um that 13.17 um L uh be removed and uh M be releted to L um and then uh further uh give the direction that that I had earlier to ask that the uh the city manager rules say for this year uh that all you have to pick electronic or paper but that we would then investigate with runck the feasibility of doing both for future years second could I could I ask Ain

[243:00] could you include attachment D which would make this an emergency ordinance so you could pass it tonight we don't have to bring it back in January absolutely thanks for pointing that out I'll add that that Amendment from attachment D so to make this an emergency ordinance Mary do you accept that Amendment yes I do super we have a motion and a second and from my notes I believe this is a roll call vote it is council member Joseph yes stick hi wallik hi Weaver hi Yates yes young yes Brocket hi and friend yes it passed unanimously sir very good

[244:01] thank you Alicia and thanks to everybody for their work on this thank you okay Alicia on to the last item last but not least sir madam from the mayor and members of council item a is a consideration of a motion to appoint two non-voting ex official members to the Cannabis licensing Advisory Board and we are expected to have a public hearing but Debbie has indicated that no one has signed up very good and these as I read from what we have in front of us and the materials these are both fiveyear terms through March 31st of 2025 um and I guess the way we'll do this is the way we normally do it we will have um nominations for um seat eight and then we'll do a vote and the way I recall our votes going is um setting

[245:02] aside the order if someone gets a majority they're seated um and then we pair it down if there's if we need to pair It Down based on um who the top vote Getters are so with that um unless I'm missing something Council please remind me if I am um I would think we would open nominations for the first seat seat 8 sorry I'm not looking at my hands give me a moment okay Bob I see your hand I would like to nominate Kate Thompson uh Rachel oh um nominate Allison Bailey anyone else very good I will nominate Stacy green anyone else going once twice okay

[246:03] let's begin a conversation about that so I believe Bob you nominated uh Kate Thompson also Katherine on our um list yeah um Katherine um was one of the leaders um in the marijuana advisory panel that we had in place for a couple of years and I think she was highly regarded by all of her colleagues on that um she was articulate she was smart she was creative um she um is peripherally involved in the marijuana business uh industry but um really on the software side of things um she's young and I think that we um often don't get young applicants to our boards and commissions and so um based upon the support that I'm hearing from her former colleagues on the marijuana advisory panel I think we would be well served by having Kate um serve on the um cannabis licensing Advisory Board very good thank you Bob and Dan

[247:02] Rachel yep um so Allison Bailey is um a Boulder County public health staff member who was a participant in the marijuana advisory panel as well um and I I think it's Paramount that we seat someone um who's from public health and we didn't have any applicants uh in the first round I think Allison interviewed the first time and was the only person who applied um for this ex officio position then um I think that it's again Paramount for Community Trust that we have public Health's voice at this table um so I would really like to see Allison um get get picked in this first SE um I I don't disagree with what Bob said about Kate but I think um our first priority is making sure that that perspective and lens um is available to this board thanks great and um juny and Aon I see your hands I'm going to go ahead and speak in favor of Stacy who I put in the

[248:01] nomination um Stacy is a physician a licensed um doctor and she does both um prescrib medical cannabis as well as um offer addiction treatment and so I think one of the things that we are likely to use go lose sorry going forward is um a person with experience in medical marijuana which is one of the applications um that kind of generated the legalization push and so I think it would be really important and useful to have somebody who um both understands its use in a medical context as well as the um concerns and it falls with potential addiction there um I also thought that her written application was quite good and She interviewed well so um that's my thoughts on Stacy uh then we have juny and eron juny thank you kid should I offer can I give a question and

[249:01] then make comments on the three people yes you certainly may and just a reminder we'll have a vote for the first seat and then whoever doesn't make it for the first seat will will probably be nominated again for the second seat so go for it juny um my question is I'm looking at my notes from last week's interview and Mary may remember um Katherine Thompson did she interview I don't have any information on her she did yes she did yes she did she works for the farm okay or worked for the farm I think it it was yeah thank you well I just wanted to say actually I do support Allison Bailey and the reasons why I do in my notes I have that you know she's concerned about the she talked about you know um informed decision and ensure that young people are protected and I

[250:01] thought that was something that is very important to community members ensuring you know the safety of young people especially with I guess the proliferation of um a lot of these different companies and high schools and young people using um canabas or marijuana um and I think that's very important to have that perspective and I think as well um when it comes to Stacy green I thought she mentioned she was a 23 years resident a mental health professional a consultant uh a leader in the state in the nation I put that in my notes so I think having someone with that type of uh expertise would be really useful also I think she talked about um integration of community perspective and I think to me as a member of council it's very important to have someone who Taps into the community and and just hearing that from her was um was very helpful so I I do support these two

[251:02] people and I'm sorry I didn't I don't have any information when it comes to um Katherine for some reason I didn't put anything down um but I do support these other two people thank you very good thank you juny give me just a moment then we've got Aaron and Mark Aon yeah I want to say we got some really excellent applicants I think we're we've got a lot of great choices here um and of the the the people who uh weren't nominated I wanted to give a couple shout outs to beia Campbell who I thought was very articulate um and and had some great positions and ideas and also Tim OA who who served on our library board very uh ay for uh five years and would also add a lot to to this board but I think from the the people who've been nominated um I want to uh mention particularly two of them Allison Bailey I think that public health perspective um would be very

[252:01] valuable for the board um to have on it um so I think she would be a great addition to to speak to those public health issues uh she's followed this issue carefully um from that perspective for a number of years um and then also uh Kate Thompson uh did a really wonderful job on the map during the three years that she served on that panel and so I was very impressed with her work there so I thought she had a really excellent application um she had very good answers um I also want to mention that the uh ex officio positions are an opportunity to tap the expertise of folks who don't live in town uh which is not the case I believe for the main board but the ex official members we can get some out of town expertise and and both Allison and Kate would represent I think some different perspectives but both very helpful ones from people who don't happen to live in the city of Boulder so I'm I'm gonna be voting for both of them by you know in the next couple votes thank you Aon

[253:00] Mark yeah uh frankly I I think you could throw darts at this list and come up with a good nominees for uh for the position in the end I'm going to support Allison um because I do think that that public health background is is critical for uh clab and and in in the performance of its duties and I I just think that's a a critical perspective and and that's the way I'm going to go at least for the first round super and let me check hands one more time uh I have Bob and Mary yeah I I um I also think that it's appropriate for us to um to recruit Alison for this board and that's why I'm going to ultimately support both Kate and Allison as a matter of fact I think they provide good compliment to each other Kate coming from industry and Allison coming from public health and so it doesn't matter to me who gets voted on for the first seat and who gets voted on for the second seat but I think as we

[254:01] think about these votes we should um I think that that that is a really outstanding combination I think Stacy green was excellent as well I think Allison maybe serves the purpose um and I also agree with Aaron that I thought both beia and Tim O'Shea were very impressive um and Tim lives in town he just came off the library commission and I believe we're going to have at least one spot open for a voting member come U and maybe two uh come uh this spring and so I would encourage um those who happen to be residents of Boulder who um don't get appointed tonight to reapply um literally I think the application's open next week um for our spring appointments and so um I would encourage folks who do live in Boulder to um to apply for those those spots here in the next month or two thank you Mary yeah um in this round I'm going to be supporting Allison Bailey and um I

[255:01] support mostly uh what juny said about Allison and um is very important but also um Allison made a comment about making balanced and informed decisions and um I think as um as a board that is just getting its feet off the ground here um it's real important to have someone that understands what the role of a governmental U body is and what kinds and uh of perspectives they need to take into consideration I like her Public Health um perspective but I think she will also try and as she said balance the opinions of um her colleagues and the public so I think that that she has the potential to bring some grounding to the board um and so I will be supporting Elis and I um agree with my colleagues

[256:01] that there were many great um choices here and um and I want to give a special shout out to um beia and Kate um and to um others as well and what Bob said um we're going to have some openings coming up and um applications opening up in a week or two so um that's all I have thank you Mary and with that I think we're probably ready to vote we'll start with seat eight and the one wrinkle here I seem to recall from doing this um is that we have to decide alphabetical or reverse alphabetical which is normally done by the city clerk with a coin toss so Alicia I don't know if you have a coin handy to toss or not if not I can certainly do it oh I can get a coin Sirah I can get a coin pretty quick just give me a second

[257:00] okay I'll give you a second um so the names we have are Bailey green and Thompson so we'll be deciding whether to do those in alphabetical or reverse alphabetical and that's who will be for the first seat all right do you want to see the coin to make sure it has the head and the okay I I'm gonna call tails and you can flip it and tals will be for uh alphabetical heads it is okay so reverse alphabetical so why don't you walk us through starting with Thompson we've got Catherine Thompson and then Stacy green and then Allison Bailey you do that order all right and we need to do a roll call with this vote no just we'll do hand raise so call out each of the names and we'll just count hands that are raised for each name perfect thank you for being so patient

[258:00] all right do you want to so sorry to interrupt here but do we want to hide the presentation so we can see people for the hand raise thanks Emily oh sure please let's do that great thank you Katherine Thompson we have no hands that I can see Stacy green no hand so it's Alice and Bailey by acclamation then okay very good and then I will assume that we have um Stacy green and Kate Thompson or seat 9 so if you want to walk us through those in alphabetical order starting with Stacy Stacy green so we have four yeses for Stacy okay hopefully we won't have a tie

[259:02] and for K Thompson one two three four so it is a tie so I I will just say I'm I'm willing to switch my vote from Stacy green to Katherine Thompson um because Stacy can apply for a seat um as a resident and so I I'll support Kate Thompson and uh move move us forward on that and I will say to Stacy and I would like for someone to reach out to her from staff just to tell her how things we're going to reach out to everyone and tell them how the votes turned out and let's state know particularly that she was put in nomination we encourage everyone to apply for um the Cannabis licensing Advisory Board going forward I guess technically we should take that last vote over again if you wouldn't mind um Alicia starting with Kate Thompson again

[260:00] we'll we'll formalize it and then we'll make the final speeches so okay this vote is for a recount for Kate Thompson Al yes there we have 1 two 3 4 five so five and Stacy green and that will be the remainder three very good well um thank you all for this thanks for everyone for applying and for those who are residents of the city please apply again for we'll do our next appointments in March do we need to make a motion Sam I can't remember how we do this I think we do I think we do now we need to make a motion and then open the public hearing I'll go ahead and make the motion I I I move that we nominate Allison Bailey and Kate Thompson as ex official non voting members of the Cannabis licensing Advisory board can I right said nominate I assume that you

[261:00] mean you move that we appoint them I appoint them thank you I appoint them thank you there second second okay we have motion and the second all in favor of appointments raise your hand we have a public hearing oh public hearing thank you I said that and I forgot yes let's open the public hearing do we have anyone who's emailed us wanting to testify no is that a no we do not thank you Debbie thank you Debbie okay so with that I will close the public hearing and uh let's vote on Bob's motion is there anyone opposed to Bob's motion I'll ask it that way I see none so that's an 80 unanimous vote to appoint Kate Thompson and Allison Bailey to the canis licensing Advisory Board and with that I think we are done with all the business on our agenda does anyone on Council have anything that

[262:01] they'd like to add any debrief eron I see your hand up then Mary just want to say sam that was generous of you to break the tie so thank you for that appreciate it you're welcome har happy holidays yes happy holidays everyone enjoy some peaceful downtime until uh CAC on January 4th and the meeting on the 5th thank you all PE have a good night we 1021 good night everyone good night [Music] hey can you hear me H tan it's even in Paris yes just looking at the market and it's pretty green across the main indexes there in Asia finishing positive on Wall Street