December 15, 2022 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] foreign [Music] foreign [Music]

[1:13] thank you foreign [Music]

[2:13] thank you foreign [Music] foreign

[3:09] [Music]

[4:01] foreign oh thank you oh my God

[5:16] I was just gonna say s foreign

[6:45] is so he'd see me in the audience [Music]

[7:17] foreign [Music] foreign [Music]

[8:23] foreign [Music] [Music] [Music]

[9:00] foreign [Music] foreign [Music] [Music]

[10:01] foreign [Music] foreign [Music]

[11:23] thank you [Music] foreign [Music]

[12:21] [Music] foreign [Music] [Music] [Music] foreign I'm going to start with the all-important opening dad joke of the evening turning to council member

[13:01] Benjamin I was gonna say It's the final one of 2022 so we got to go big here um on topic for tonight what is the tallest kind of building that a man or woman could build a library because it has the most stories there you go um and and with that uh with that we'll go on to our our announcement here about uh covid-19 testing and vaccinations so for covid-19 testing information and provider locations for free testing go to www.bocode.org covet testing the boulder site is located at 2445 stazio drive it's open seven days a week from 8 AM to 6 p.m and for vaccine information and

[14:00] provider locations go to www.bocode.org covid vaccine and with that I will go ahead and call us to order and turn to Elisha for the roll call all right thank you Sarah and good evening everyone we'll start tonight's roll call with council member Benjamin there it is try it again present yeah Brockett present councilmember Falcons virtually present council member friend here Joseph here spear here mayor Pro Tim Wallick here councilmember weiner present and council member Yates right here mayor we have our quorum thank you Elisha right and uh can we just confirm that the video is on for channel eight I just I had a comment from somebody Lauren is not sure that that it is on

[15:03] and at least in my zoom council chambers is dark there we go that looks better thank you thanks for calling now Lauren all right we're going to get started right now with a declaration for National homeless persons Memorial Day read by council member friend thank you mayor Brockett it is my honor to read this uh declaration the winter poses extreme hardship for our unhoused community members at the same time the spirit of the holiday season provides an opportunity for affirmation and renewal regarding our commitment to end homelessness December 21st has been designated national homeless persons Memorial Day by the National Coalition for the homeless and the National Health Care for the homeless Council and it is so recognized by cities Nationwide to safeguard and support our community is a year-round Duty and in this season of generosity and sharing we are all encouraged to commit ourselves to promoting compassion and

[16:01] concern for one another specifically including those who are unhoused in Remembering those who have died during or after and during a period of homelessness the cause of ending homelessness is kept urgent as is the city's commitment to preventing such deaths in the future we the city council of the city of Boulder Colorado declare December 21st 2022 as National homeless persons Memorial Day thank you for that Rachel and I'll note that there will be a vigil for this day on Tuesday December 20th at 3 30 pm at the band shell and all are welcome to attend okay next we're going to have a consideration of a motion to approve the election results and Elisha I'll turn to you to walk us through that please all right thank you sir and good evening to everyone Elisha Johnson City Clerk and tonight we are tasked with the approval of the November 8th 2022 special

[17:01] municipal election results I am here by joined by our election administrator John Morrison case Council has any questions about how that process with the election and the returns in the canvassing went the city council sits as the general canvassing and election board and I as the city clerk will serve as the Secretary of that board and as the designated election official for the city Emily if you would pull up my slides please this on the board we will see the steps we will follow as the as we move from the city council into the general canvassing and election board will ask for a motion to convene as the general canvassing and election board from the city council we will take a roll call of the board members and please note this year the entire council is considered the boar because we did not have candidate elections this year we will then present the oath of the board members

[18:01] then we will nominate a member to chair the board this is typically and historically our mayor but you are welcome to nominate any member then we will do a presentation of the election results which will show on your screen and as noted in your packet we included the public notice for the elections the approved ballot language and the statement of election results and the official summary of the votes then we will move for we will ask for a consideration of a motion to approve the election returns for the city of Boulder 2022 coordinated special municipal election that was held on November 8th and then we will ask again in that motion to adjourn from the general canvassing and election board and reconvene as the Boulder City Council any questions just want to make sure we don't have any rioters outside storming the building to try to prevent this process from taking place do we I took care of that service thank you just want to confirm you're

[19:00] welcome thank you all right so as I would like to wish to begin this process may I have a motion to convene as the general canvassing and election board for the November 8th 2022 city of Boulder coordinated special municipal election so moved second we will take now a roll call of the board oh I'm sorry we need to vote to to move from Council to the campus my apologies we'll start that vote with councilmember Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes councilmember folkerts yes friend yep Joseph yes spear yes mayor Pro Tim Wallach yes councilmember weiner yes and Yates yes we are now hereby in session for as the

[20:02] general canvassing and election board for the city of Boulder now we will take our official roll call of the board we'll start with council member Benjamin here mayor bronka here councilmember faulkers present friend here Joseph here spear present mayor Pro Tim Wallach present councilmember weiner here and Yates still here thank you we have our Quorum for the canvassing board now if you will all raise your right hand and please say I do once the oath is completed there is no need to repeat the oath we the undersigned do solemnly swear or affirm that we will perform the duties of the general canvassing and election board for the November 8 2022

[21:02] coordinated special municipal election held in the city of Boulder County of Boulder state of Colorado according to the law and to the best of my ability I do I do thank you now we will ask for a nomination for a person to serve as the board chair for this meeting I nominate Aaron Brockett to serve as our chair second by acclimation excuse me the mayor will serve as the board chair unless otherwise elected so he was therefore nominated and will serve thank you now you will now see the election returns on the screen next slide the city of Boulder has six issues on the 2022 coordinated specialist municipal election ballot we had two ballot issues and four ballot

[22:00] questions ballot issue 2A can concerned the climate tax which was a Tabor action that measured past yes Thirty One Thousand nine hundred and forty seven votes ballot issue 2B were the bonds to be paid from the climate tax which was also a taper measure that item passed with a yes vote of thirty thousand one hundred and fifty one votes ballot question 2C in relation to the repealing of the library commission and tax if the library district was created that item passed with a yes vote of 26 821 votes ballot question 2D which was in reference to the clarification of candidate issues that measure that question passed a yes vote of 33 079 votes valid question 2E concerning the change regular Municipal elections to even years that item passed with a vote of 26 138 votes and our last item that appeared on the ballot was ballot

[23:00] question 2f which was concerning the repeal of ordinance 8483 regarding the annexation of Cu South that item failed with a no vote of twenty two thousand five hundred and thirty nine votes all right thanks for that Alicia should I move the next one or are you going to I'm going next okay so just as a note for the 2022 Cydia Boulder voter count we had 65 394 active voters and we had 48 266 ballots that were counted please note again that the official results as well as historical information related to the election results are available on the Bode County elections website and at this time could I have a motion please to approve the election returns for the city of Boulder 2022 coordinated special municipal election held on November 8 2022 and to adjourn from the

[24:02] general canvassing and election board and reconvene as the Boulder City Council so moved second we will start this vote with councilmember Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes councilmember Falcons yes friend yes yes Joseph yes spear yes mayor Pro Tim Wallick yes Winer yes and Yates yes the election results are hereby certified by the general canvassing and election board for the election held on November 8th 2022. thank you and we are now back to being City Council thanks so much for leading through us through that ably Elisha and it's uh it's always a solemn duty to help with

[25:00] the workings of democracy like this so all right we're now going to move to open comment and I believe Ryan henchen will be presenting our public participation guidelines thank you Brian hanchen here uh I serve the people of Boulder as our community engagement manager and appreciate each of the speakers here this evening and we want to be sure that we're clear that the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive Civic conversations this Vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members staff and Council as well as democracy for people of all ages identities lived experiences and political perspectives there's more information on this Mission

[26:01] publicity's website and the next slide please and let me close this window here all right and the the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Border Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision and want to to make sure that all remarks and testimony should be limited to matters related to City business the no participants shall make threats or other intimidation against any other participants obscenity racial epiphats and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct this meeting are prohibited

[27:01] participants who are participating are joining by the name they're commonly known by and we ask that virtual participants share their their name before participating and will be on Audio Only and we do ask that folks uh refrain from expressing support or disagreement verbally options do include jsons here to show support finally in council chambers thank you thanks for that Ryan all right so we have seven people signed up to speak in person and seven people just signed up to speak virtually I'll call out three names at a time and if you're in Chambers if you wouldn't mind coming down to the front when you're coming your turn is coming due so we'll move through folks and our first three uh participants and you do have two minutes each are and say David Sue and Travis Cully

[28:07] [Music] hello I'm City Council Members thank you for your service and then listen to my comments this is regarding the annexation of BSD land what you're trying to approve tonight is not about affordable housing this issue is whether a Factory opening on a weekend should be adjacent to a residential area and open space Common Sense dictates that the answer is no the city's zoning code and the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan also says no imagine there's a developer and coming to ask you to change the zoning in a residential area so that they can build a factory we do allow that we do allow that without getting a specific condition in written from the Developers the IGA agreement did nothing of the things that this Council and the planning board had recommended there was no enforcement no specifics that guarantees the noise lights or traffic mitigations

[29:01] the only vague and highly interpretable languages I co-founded each IGA here deliveries to and from the factory via 63rd Street will be minimized to the greatest extent possible I do not understand what that means the way I interpret it is zero deliveries however mere bracket will interpret that as 12 trucks per month the the staff would tell me that's a smaller number than that if you are a person impacted by this would you accept this vague agreement with no teeth no enforcement lastly the city had told me that to talk to be because bvsd if we have concerns however there was no Good Neighbor policy in IGA nor was there sufficient effort to demonstrate that for example we have requested in writing that igab moved to uh to move off the consent agenda in bbsd meetings the request was ignored when we went to the meetings we were met with indifference

[30:01] there's no one else to help us except you the reason that City staff needs lengthy justification is that this is about building a factory at a place that Common Sense will dictate you not to we like to you to make decisions please do not set the precedent ability and Factory adjacent to residential areas and open space bvsd can do whatever they want to do for these particular reasons this issues only you can help us make the determination thank you next we have David Sue Travis culley and Evan ravitz good evening I'm also asking city council to reject the proposed annexation of 6500 Arapahoe Road because the annexation would allow manufacturing use in public zoning which is prohibited under city land use code there's a good reason why noise environmental issues and traffic are front and center with this annexation the land is next to open space it's in

[31:01] close proximity with several residential neighborhoods and it's on land with a public school manufacturing use is not compatible with these nearby land types the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan and its vision for the county recognized this the bvcp designated the property as public and not Industrial Boulder City code prohibits manufacturing and public zoning the bvcp was approved by the County Planning Commission County Commissioners city planning board and city council including two current council members the land should remained public zoning and not allow manufacturing use because that's what is consistent with bbcp and makes sense with the surrounding land types finally neither I nor my neighbors here tonight are nimby's we agree with affordable housing we are neighbors of the Columbine mobile home park I personally would welcome a mobile home park on bvsd property I would support

[32:00] Boulder allowing adus and multi-family dwellings in all residential zoning these would be high impact Market driven solutions to the affordable housing crisis but this annexation is not about affordable housing this annexation is about a factory that operates on weekends nearer homes and in environmentally sensitive area when city code explicitly prohibits such manufacturing use few people would want a factory operating on weekends adjacent to their neighborhood please reject this annexation thank you thank you David next we have Travis Cully Evan ravitz and Susan Lithgow good evening Council happy Hanukkah happy New Year it's my effort to make our conversations more comfortable and conversational um but two minutes is pretty brief I agree with Evan rabbits that we need to have

[33:01] three until the Marshall fire investigation is completed we should not have any construction on the Wildlife Refuge or the South ucu campus um the Marshall fire revealed weaknesses in our system and the October 25th facilitated learning analysis is not going to be the last word while the facilitated learning analysis rightly portrays the confusion that took place on December 30th two levels of analysis are missing for one there's no context about the history or proximity of Rocky Flats to the uh to the affected area slide second there's no intercom governmental examination that confronts why Boulder Jefferson Arvada Etc have each have different fire policies that are enforced from within the jurisdictions in which their separate laws are written there is no explaining why we have no State Fire Marshal slide

[34:01] I believe the rocky flat Stewardship Council ineffectively fills this Gap and this is beginning to represent a liability in our region in terms of communication and organizing the rocky flat Stewardship Council operates like a legislative doorstop a dead end giving the governments that share a border with the rocky flats wildlife refuge as we do um keeping them from developing an emergency response plan appropriate to the contamination the Rocky Flats Stewardship Council is what we suffer because we cannot have a radiological emergency plan bookmark this discussion is on page 201 a full body burden by Kristen Iverson thank you thank you Travis next we have Evan ravitz Susan Lithgow and Alex Cassidy good evening Evan rabbits North Boulder a few weeks ago former state representative Jonathan singer

[35:01] appeared here in his new job for the Chamber of Commerce saying the chamber wanted to work with the city for more affordable housing before posing as our pal the chamber should fix what it broke former city manager Jane brodigam admitted here at a 2020 council meeting that she worked behind councils back to obtain so-called opportunity Zone status for Eastern Boulder part of the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy this will speed gentrification and reduce affordable housing emails obtained through the Colorado open records act show that the chamber worked secretly with the city to make this happen chamber President John tare who participated directly in the incriminating emails was on kgnu radio on October 7th and I questioned him on this he pretended that the opportunity

[36:02] Zone would reduce housing costs this is laughable and City councils laudable effort to delay and mitigate the opportunity Zone damage proves it the chamber corrupted whatever Democratic process still happens here to increase investor profits at the expense of the rest of us and its president and CEO lied publicly about the intentions and effects it should apologize the only way to undo the opportunity Zone would be to get Congress to repeal the legislation that's what the chamber should be doing not gaslighting us to cover up and the new city manager shouldn't be partying with the chamber that corrupted the old city manager as the camera reported I think seven next we have a Susan Lithgow Alex Cassidy and Joe pritzio

[37:05] Rocket City Council I'm Susan Lithgow executive director of Flatirons Habitat for Humanity I've already outlined in an email to you the significant Community benefit that I believe this proposed manufacturing facility and partnership with the school district creates for our community tonight I'd like to just clarify a couple other points that I think will help in hopefully moving this very important project forward noise we have been um actively working to make sure that we minimize noise pollution coming from this Factory to the greatest extent possible we're in support of the language that you are proposing for that and we will do everything in our power to make sure that we are minimizing any noise that would come out of the factory we can make that commitment to the community deliveries we are actually not anticipating huge numbers of deliveries for this so we're also in support of the

[38:01] Lang in support of the language around deliveries and it's highly workable with what we are what we are proposing to do the other area I'd like to address is capacity some older documents before we really had an opportunity to work with Consultants indicated that the capacity of this Factory would be much larger than it actually is habitat is not interested in operating and creating a factory that runs fully staffed with 30 people 24 7 to pump out 50 to 80 homes a year we're Habitat for Humanity we build with volunteers that is the primary reason we are able to make our homes as affordable as they are if we were to change that model the cost of these homes would go up significantly we're not interested in doing that after working with the Consultants we think it's very reasonable that we can produce 12 to 15 units a year we have about a six-week timeline for each module

[39:01] and we can have multiple modules in process at once so we're anticipating 12 to 15 which quite frankly would be about triple to quadruple our production thank you thank you Susan uh now we have Alex Cassidy and Joe pritzio we're all friends now I'm here to talk about 6500 Arapahoe again before I get to that I just wanted to mention thank you so much for every all of you that spoke with me I really appreciate your time you were all very generous with your time actually speak into the mic please thank you for your time you were all very generous with your time those of you that I spoke with on the phone um so you've heard this before but I still have questions regarding this project why why was Community involvement limited to only one for information only

[40:00] public meeting in September why isn't there a good neighbor agreement why wasn't an environmental impact assessment completed why wasn't a traffic study completed that would include traffic construction traffic the I the IGA released last Friday has no teeth at all regarding traffic on 63rd in fact it leaves bvsd to decide where construction and Factory traffic will be routed with no monitoring or Consequences for funneling everything onto 63rd I recommend a trust but verify approach be negotiated with bvsd to protect the residents of Columbine mobile home park the sombrero Marsh critical wildlife habitat from excessive traffic there are many legitimate environmental concerns surrounding this project that have been marginalized by City staff most notably your open space director for example did you see Dana beau's

[41:01] guest opinion on the camera on Wednesday as knowledgeable thoughtful people like Dana who are dedicated to preserving the environment chime in a different story emerges so no doubt you and other council members are all under tremendous pressure to prove this annexation but there's no shame in putting on the brakes just long enough to get it right the factory will be there for a long tonight time tonight my call to action for counsel is simple please hold this project to the exact same standard as any other project in the city of Boulder thank you thank you Alex Joe pritzio then we'll go to Virtual 11 17 you postponed to proving the then IGA with the school district pending modifications to address traffic concerns on 63rd Street you have before you now the amended version council

[42:01] members I respectfully ask that as a minimum you send it back to staff unexecuted this is a matter of unacceptable work the amended IGA contains item H which concerns Factory deliveries to paraphrase it deliveries to and from the factory will occur on 65th Street when impacts are low the impacts fall into two categories one safety risks for students for employees for parents and for other members of the public using 65th and then two District Operations with that said deliveries to and from the factory via 63rd will be minimized to the greatest effect a greatest extent possible without objective criteria as to what constitute low impacts on school operations and safety item H is meaningless you know it's meaningless we know that you know it's meaningless you know that we know

[43:00] that you know it's meaningless has your staff asked the district for historical traffic patents on the times and durations when safety risk and District Operations typically are of low impact setting the stage for understanding the meaning of low impact despite our pointing out deficiency deficiencies in the IGA the school board on Tuesday approved it unanimously the district has incentive to want meaningless traffic provisions and you any resolution and any resolution offered tonight to correct deficiencies will be unilateral and thus not binding to the district for insights on how your negotiations with the district might play out please look at attachment K and the your 1117 packet thank you thank you Joe now we're going to go to our remote participants Kathy Taylor has withdrawn so we're going to go to Sammy

[44:01] Lawrence IV then Chuck Hardesty then Lynn Siegel Sammy hello can you hear me yes excellent hi everybody uh this is your friendly neighborhood Sammy you know well not in the neighborhood I first wanted to take a moment to tell you all thank you because I didn't say it before I have been going through a loss of a great friend that shared Thanksgiving with the streets it was rough that being said it has been difficult to stay away from you all do not speak up and to keep to myself in healing however I would be remiss uh like Iron Man in endgame but I did not say something my friend Zade Atkinson did not sacrifice

[45:02] and endure the horrors that he had that we as a community spoke up for for those that in my opinion harmed him to be in the way it is not the time for us to continue the path of the ancestors of this land the settlers and mistreating the people of this land and leaving them behind and forgotten I ask you to remember and reflect because it's a little scary thinking about coming back to Boulder to have children and that's just not for myself that's for worry that May potentially see the cycle go again and no one will have done anything

[46:02] that would be the greatest heartbreak I love you all and I hope you take care of yourselves miss you all keep being amazing thank you Sammy mayor bracket can I just uh respond please quickly uh although we usually do it after in case Sammy's gonna sign off because he's not in Boulder maybe later just nice to hear your voice Sammy and I hope that you do make your way back very good now uh we have Chuck Hardesty Lynn Siegel and Jennifer Rhodes hello are my slides up and can you hear me yes and yes uh this truck hard history after reading the latest Council packet regarding the factory it seems that things have gone from bad to worse please pause the bvsd site for the factory and have a serious site selection study We Now understand that

[47:01] there has not been one an alternate Factory location creates a win-win situation there would be no excess traffic for bbsd and 63rd no forever noise for schools and neighbors no dirt and noise for Martian open space no need or dollars to build the hill to put the factory on or take away old pavement no need to restrict construction or operation hours or trucks removing the restrictions would open the potential for more modular homes close places to consider are the area north of stasio ball fields unused power plant areas are part of the old Western Disposal Site these are near the bus barn for students that may come from around the district there are buses available for other possible sites further away next slide please the new IGA says bvsd can do what they want when they want with no penalty this

[48:00] needs revision with specifics we are asked to rely on good faith but still have no Good Neighbor policy after months the Mayor's Hotline proposal should include construction year limits not just Factory limits construction is the biggest disruption time removing language that requires deliveries during operating hours means we can't even have a peaceful dinner or sleep in a little please pause our next slide turn on yes but please pause the bvsd site have a serious multiple site selection study with documentation that we Now understand has not been done an alternate Factory is a win-win that solves a long list of problems thank you once again and please look elsewhere thank you Chuck next we have Lynn Siegel Jennifer Rhodes and Eric bud this IGA not only what folks have spoken tonight

[49:02] it has height no height variation restrictions this is goes far beyond this annexation goes far beyond what can be built there long term far beyond this modular home Factory now someone spoke from Habitat for Humanity it's wonderful that habitat is doing their own work and that it makes for less expensive housing well my brother is going homeless as of the first of the month and I wonder really what is actually going on here because with as Eric as um rabbits spoke about the opportunity zone is basically the fundamental policy of Boulder which is giving to Developers not accepting any impact fees to them

[50:00] and as a result having a major housing crisis and then using the manufactured housing as an excuse to use other public interests of these neighbors and I am not from this neighborhood I'm not from Sombrero March I'm from Central Boulder and this is just unacceptable that they should accept this burden and see you South and the growth and development here as Travis spoke about with the radioactivity from Rocky Flats that was experienced with this fire all of these are public impacts and CU South should not be built on as a result of this fire and other many other reasons but the growth and development here is beyond control and it's offered up with federal funds called lightec low-income tax credits

[51:02] these are not really lend your your time is up but thank you for your testimony now we have Jennifer Rhodes Eric Budd and Carol McCaslin hi can you hear me yes oh great thank you my name is Jennifer Rhodes and I'm a Boulder Community member psychiatrist and a bvsd parent I'm a part of a parent group advocating for safety of all children in our community as most of you know our group of parents believed that Lisa Sweeney Moran is unfit to serve in a position on the police oversight panel as she is both biased and has a clear conflict of interest both violations of the city ordinance outlining rules for the panel it is irrelevant that her name was recently removed from the lawsuit as a bargaining chip to get on the panel at a recent bvsd meeting and please watch the recording Lisa said and I quote I'm very proud of the lawsuit against Chief

[52:01] Harold in the city as a psychiatrist I can tell you people do not change overnight Miss Sweeney Moran has mocked parents and be included regularly on the on her Twitter feed parents who are standing up publicly to advocate for children's safety I've spoken to a handful of bvsd teachers who are afraid to speak up and ask that I use their personal email because of fear of Retribution by her Miss Sweeney Moran also frequently makes accusations against BPD and chief Harold before critical facts are gathered or known to the public all on her Twitter feed she was suing the city and chief Herald up until yesterday I believe a clear definition of conflict of interest Premier candidacy is proof of her absolute blindness to her ethical obligation in my opinion to the bvsd school board and now this panel Miss Sweeney Moran should not be in more leadership positions especially one that advises and weighs in on law enforcement I believe that she is a threat to Public Safety to my kids and is clearly biased and cannot serve

[53:02] legitimately or fairly on the police oversight panel thank you thank you Jennifer next we have Eric Budd Carol McCaslin and Bill Platz hi Karen Council Eric bot I live in Boulder I'm here to speak on council's action on the police oversight panel you know we need everyone in our community to feel safe and that includes people who are homeless or people of color among many other people winning police officers that are going to engage in what keeps people safe and we also need the oversights to protect people from violence from the police and it's hard not to watch the documentary about Boulder this is not who we are and not demand better police oversight after knowing what happened to Sammy Lawrence and Zade Atkinson I've been following the multiple articles now about the oversight panel and its challenges we need to appoint the six applicants

[54:00] chosen by the selection committee and work to revise the NDA process for the oversight panel for members to allow more public discussion about how we can make our Police Department more accountable to our whole community over at the request of councilman Mark Wallach and members of safer Boulder the applicants may not be confirmed tonight and for those who are unaware safer Boulder is a local group that wants to use the police as a tool against unhoused people and I'm asking Council to place faith in the independent oversight panel and selection committee which includes members of the nwacp and Amistad this group has affirmed and reaffirmed their decisions only last Thursday please accept the recommendations it's absolutely critical that we have people that are willing to spend their time in service of our community to make our community safe for everyone thank you so much

[55:01] thank you Eric now we have Carol McCaslin and Bill Platz hi Council thanks so much for inviting us to come speak to you tonight I'm representing Boulder County Audubon Society and I want to read our mission statement because I think it's very pertinent to this issue with the annexation of 6500 Arapahoe our mission statement is that we are a voice for birds and wildlife conservation through habitat protection and nature education so on tonight I'm going to advocate for Sombrero Marsh which I think is one of the most special places in Boulder County and it's by the way in case you don't know or if you don't remember and I'm a newbie to Boulder because I've only lived here 13 years that property was designated as a habitat Conservation Area and there's only nine of those in the

[56:01] county so gay for you for doing that it's very special place it's it's kind of weird because it's been around since before the Europeans settled here it was a dump for a while and the city and Open Space Mountain Parks actually restored it to a the wetlands that it is today it is truly a habitat Conservation Area in that a lot of migratory birds come through there a lot of Shorebirds come through there on their way to the breeding grounds in the north and in case you don't know what at least a third of the birds in North America have disappeared in the last 40 years if we don't conserve areas like this we're not helping conservation at all so I really want us to think about how we can conserve that area in a better way and I would urge the council to go back and look at the IGA and really be fat up make sure that you've got

[57:00] noise pollution under control I mean mitigated a light pollution under mitigation and let's look for a different place please I think that's the thing we could do the best is just to move it to a different place thank you very much thank you Carol our last testifier is Bill Platz can you hear me yes okay good uh I'm talking about the modular home Factory uh the bottom line for me is that if you try to design the worst possible location for a huge Factory this would be it it has Equity issues with the Columbine uh trailer park it's going within 10 feet of the uh the marsh it's directly adjacent to open space it would be violating all the city ordinances and open space weapons and Noise

[58:00] but the Boulder Valley school district has sovereign immunity so they do not have to comply with any city or county ordinances this would never be allowed by any private sector developer bbsd has also promised to hire a sound engineer once the factory is built so they can consider options for reducing the noise however the time to hire a sound engineer would be when the building is still in the planning phase not after it's completed for me the most frustrating thing is that there are other locations close by that are zoned for industrial use where the impact on the environment would be minimal a couple blocks north of the campus is the Belmont power plant which is permanently closed it's directly across from where the buses are located on thinking Excel Energy would be receptive to donating some of their unused land to a good cause and a better ESG score there are numerous other sites that could also be considered at the very least there should be due diligence

[59:01] and other sites considered before proceed with this I think this is being rushed through way too quickly you've got a lot of environmental groups concerned you got Equity issues you got neighborhoods where that are going to be losing their property values you're going to have a lot of people out there when you have these thousands of trucks coming up to bring in the fill dirt that are going to be out there protesting it's not going to be good option 6 and I think it would be best for the city and the school district to put this on hold thank you thank you Bill all right that brings us to the end of all of our commenters thanks to everyone who signed up and spoke and I'm going to turn now to City staff to see if there are any responses I do not do not see staff but they're certainly available here if there are additional questions great and I'll just uh note that we are going to have an item on the 6500 Arapahoe in just a few minutes and then

[60:00] um discuss it further there mark just a quick correction to uh to Mr bud my concerns with the consent agenda item 3E were not the product of uh consultations with any other group although it is rare I occasionally reach my own conclusions and I did so in this case thank you good any other comments from Council all right seeing none Alicia could you take us to our consent agenda please yes sir consent agenda is item number three on the agenda and it consists of items a through G yeah Teresa good evening Council earlier this evening or rather this afternoon mayor Pro tem Wallach sent out a hotline with information about the

[61:03] possibility of pulling an item from the consent agenda that item is 3E which has to do with the appointment approving the selection committee recommendation for members of the police oversight panel I did touch base with with mayor Pro tem Wallach regarding procedure but wanted to inform the whole Council of the procedure it's a little bit tricky here but um should Council choose or a council member choose to request a call up for this item I believe the proper procedure would be um to request a call up to take a vote on that call-up which would then schedule it for a public hearing another option of course is to to stay with um it as it is now council could have a discussion with respect to that item and finally council could pull that item from the consent agenda for a separate discussion per

[62:01] Robert's Rules of Order and take action on that item just after the consent agenda so a variety of different options there but wanted to make sure that you all were aware of the procedure okay thanks for specifying that Teresa okay well so we have the consent agenda in front of us a through G there's been some chatter about e any comments or thoughts questions yeah Bob well I was I like Teresa's last suggestion that we move the consent agenda except for item e and then come back to a discussion up that afterwards or people amenable to that I don't think there's any other controversy on anything other than any I do have a question a discussion when right now or like right afterwards sure so that would depend on on the motion on the table and what council decides so um in terms of having a discussion

[63:02] some options are to remove the item from the consent agenda and then have a conversation immediately following the consent agenda so that that sort of option number one another option is you could you could someone could make a motion to call this item up and and this is a little unclear because other items in our code with a call up option have a call up procedure attached to them this one does not so instead I look to the rest of the code to be informed about what the proper call-up procedure would be here my recommendation would be that there would be a motion to call the item up and then a vote again only only if council is so inclined but a vote that would take a majority to carry that if the item were called up the council rules of procedure provide that there would be a public Hearing in the future and I'm sorry Junior wasn't very clear

[64:01] in my suggestion I was I was suggesting we have a conversation immediately after the I was just going to try to get the consent agenda through except for e and then immediately roll into a discussion on me yeah Rachel I have thoughts potentially on how to handle this but what I want to just bring them up per Bob's suggestion right after we do the rest of this consent agenda I'm fine with that so I think the proposal is to just passed the rest of the consent to agenda and then we'll just decide what to do about e right after that that makes sense to me if we could do that so maybe a motion from someone so I'll go ahead and do that since I started this um I I move um consent agenda items a through G except e and i as part of my motion I would ask Council to have an immediate discussion which I turned to our colleague uh Rachel friend for uhe right after we assuming we passed the consenogenics of vitamin I have a second uh all in favor

[65:01] okay that passes unanimously and so now did that need to be a roll call though for the rest of the console thank you mayor Pro tem yes due to the minute you should do a roll call vote good calls almost no longer mayor Pro tem but I appreciate that you're right my fell backwards though thank you I'm adjusting I'm adjusting all right so thank you council member friend for that and I was going to say that and you beat me to the punch so thank you we do need a roll call sir please all right thank you we will start the roll call with council member spear yes mayor Pro Tim Wallick yes council member weiner yes Yates yes Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes council member folcrits yes

[66:02] friend yes and Joseph yes the consent agenda items a through G excluding e is hereby approved thanks so much all right so now we'll we'll chat about e and Rachel did you want to say something I'm happy to kick us off and I might have one question for Amy Kane if she's interested in rolling forward here she looks excited um I I want to preface my question in comments with a couple of thoughts first is I'm so grateful to all the community members who have applied to be on our police oversight panel it's mostly volunteer work and I'm grateful that we have such outstanding candidates in my in my view including those who are recommended um and I also want to say that we talked in 2020 early in my Council tenure about appointing this panel and that Council would have a a role in approving the

[67:02] nominations and I I advocated vigorously that we not have a role in improving because I was worried it would reflect uh politicization and that somebody would would inevitably be nominated that different factions of the community were strongly for against and I think that's unfortunately what's playing out and I hope that we will revisit that because I don't think that this is a good role for Council to be in nor a good use of our time and I think we have have created structures that we should be able to trust so with all that said um I wanted to know from Amy if we were to um Maybe in in response to my my colleague council member wallach's request if we were to say let's let's just um send this back to the nominating panel and and committee and have them just verify that they were they had all the information about all the applicants and

[68:01] they've verified that everyone or have them re-look at everyone's application and ensure that they meet you know the threshold criteria such as residency tethers and and minimum age if that's such a thing as well as bias and conflicts of interest and then bring that back to us if we were to ask for that to happen and come back in January will that set your the this panel and the Department's work back or is that an okay thing to to have a couple weeks delay while it goes back just to just for them to assure us that they have all the information and and maybe City attorney to to just make sure that they're considering the things that we're at being asked to consider sure I appreciate the question council member friend thank you so much um so my name is Amy Kane I'm the equity officer for the city of Boulder and my pronouns are she her and hers um it depends I know that's not the best answer it really depends on when we would be able to bring that back to back in January we have our we have two of

[69:02] our panel members who are leaving the panel on February 9th and we were anticipating getting this new slate of panel lists started on February 9th as well so it kind of depends on when we can really get that moving forward and how quickly we can also convene the sub committee the selection committee there's challenges obviously with the holidays coming up and people's travel and all that I hope that answers your question thanks it's helpful okay so I will just uh toss that out as a starting point for conversation that we that's one direction we could take Junior and Mark I didn't have a question that I was gonna wait but my finger was like this um I can come back to you so so I'm a little bit I feel a bit how do I put it that we are being put in a difficult space exactly as Rachel

[70:01] mentioned and the thing is we're talking about one member out of six and I don't want that particular person to feel how do I put it that we're picking on them right so I hope whatever process we decide we keep that in mind and I've read all the email that's been coming from community members and a lot of them is about the language somebody's using on Twitter and I understand they have constitutional rights but my question to you have you considered all the requirements because I was looking at them myself right as a member of the panel the requirements has that guideline been followed as part of that process because if it has been I don't know why we're talking about this one particular person sure thank you for that question council

[71:00] member Joseph so the subcommittee looked at the ordinance and defined the must-haves for that particular slate of candidates for this recruitment period similar to what they did the last recruitment period we can go back and have them affirm the list of candidates that is an option I believe um Council forever City attorney Tate that's an option for them to reaffirm that slate and that they have gone through that process but yeah I think the I think the concern is the definitions of what constitutes bias what you identified with First Amendment rights and those types of things the subcommittee did do a thorough look at the candidates and interviewed everybody individually so Mark and then Nicole I'll just hang out up here yeah I'm going I'm going to

[72:00] speak in support of uh mayor Pro tem Emeritus friends suggestion um I think it's a good one practical one and uh I support it cool and I think um for me kind of going back this again supporting Ann just want to tweak it a little bit for me I think that they just at their meeting last week affirmed the selections and I think what it feels like you know we in the community may be missing is just a little bit more information about the selection process what were the criteria that were used what you know how were folks evaluated against those criteria and what was the process for making this recommendation to us so I wonder if that can be something that they you know are giving back to us as well not just a yes we you know or we can give you some specific details I have a printout here so there were 57 applicants including one return

[73:02] applicant from 2021 the applications and supporting materials were provided to the selection Committee in October um via a single PDF of 100 Pages the Kennedy review sheets were made available as a Google form and then each selection Committee Member got that to their email they were grouped in separate groupings with total of six groups the committee members were instructed to score each candidate on three categories one was must have criteria contribution of lived experience and overall candidacy their overall score did not have to be a mathematical average of the two scores and then committee members could also enter comments for each applicant and leave comments or leave the comment section blank so the the review criteria must have criteria that were ranked was the candidates possess the following knowledge history of policing and how it affects policing in the 2020s history of local and

[74:01] National structures of sentencing law enforcement criminal justice awareness how the police oversight panel came to be formed also known as the Zade Atkinson catalyzing event awareness of the covert and overt racism in the context of policing or over policing in Boulder and Nationwide understanding of current events that main form the conversation around policing and police oversight awareness that the mission of the community LED police oversight panel is for police accountability another criteria was the candidate has tangible tangible connection to Boulder also just demonstrates being respectful of difference and understands the need for fully attentive communication within a group setting active participation in the decision-making process that may include challenging conversations and different opinions being able to take a stance with Integrity building trusting relationship with other panels including the need to have conversations offline

[75:00] accountability to one another they should not possess lived experience that shows affinity for or engagement in Grassroots organizing social justice work anti-racism practice um should they not possess the lived experience I mentioned above they should have an affinity for and there's one more candidate would be willing to engage in regular training and meet on a regular basis yes thank you for that yes Theresa so when I hear that I don't hear all the criteria reflected that are in the code and I hear criteria reflected that are not in the code so I'll I'll call on myself because I thought um well Rachel's initial suggestion had Merit and I thought Nicole's um ideas were a good additional ones because I think you know uh hearing more from the panel you know about their both their thinking process but also how they applied the code criteria I think would be really helpful and getting a

[76:02] little time for them to look at that and come back to it and finish in January in time to make sure that people get seated for that February 9th start date sounds good to me so I think we're on a good trip can I ask a Clare find question oh I'll wait till you all get to thank you you go you're the council member that's virtually meaningless please if you for clarifying go for it oh I was asking a clarifying question if you're wanting us to go back to the panelists uh the sex selection committee um if that's an expectation to do in person perfect thank you thank you uh so I'll just uh I guess my question it's a question sort of perspective a little I guess um I'm a little confused as to how well let me just start this Mark's uh Mark's email uh when it's sent out based on the practice of for as long as I've been watching or participating in

[77:00] Council meetings was that that was a that foreclosed really any need to have continued conversation because historically single members of council were able to yank stuff off consent as far as I remember I don't know if that's a mismemory of it but that was how I recalled it in which case I'd then sort of foreclosed some later conversations realizing that once that happens it's going to get moved without anybody else so I think in light of maybe how I assume that if we were to discuss it tonight I was missing out on some conversations that I probably needed for some clarity so I feel a little bit like I didn't get that finalized prep in for this thinking that we weren't going to have this conversation based on Mark's uh thing so I would all that means is I would support where Rachel's going um to buy a little time and get a little bit more clarity on those pieces but a part of me is just curious what mechanism if I am remembering correctly or if not then that's on me but if there was a mechanism for which that process was happening I'm wondering how that occurred and why we're at a different state perhaps now sure I'm happy to address that again

[78:01] council member Benjamin so this is a call-up procedure and that's provided in the ordinance and um and that was called to council's attention and um a collet procedure is not the same as simply removing something from the consent agenda so you are right that typically we can remove something from the consent agenda it has been this council's practice to do that without a vote that can certainly happen um but a call-up is a different is a different animal and if I might just kind of qualically with with Teresa's point is uh because I reviewed some of the code Provisions with her this afternoon that there is a unique bit in the code about the appointment of the police oversight panel members that designates it a little differently from essentially any other action that we're taking so I think that's the part of why this is being treated a little differently than

[79:01] than other consent removal items Nicole yeah and I just had a clarifying question does this you know if we are asking for a little bit of additional information before we make a decision on it does that necessitate it being a call-up later I mean is that just a kind of where well you know we would like a little more additional information you know please bring it back to us with that information is that a yeah I believe I understand your your question council member spear um so so the council could vote the council has already voted to remove this item from the consent agenda and discuss it separately the council could make a motion with respect to an action for example referring it back to the selection committee um to call up the item would require its own vote and so doing there they are not um taking one action doesn't necessitate

[80:01] the other if I can guide us then the so then Rachel or someone else could make a motion to Rachel's Point earlier to refer it and ask it to be brought back and that would only do that it would not also call it up yes mayor that's right and it would bring it back to the consent agenda because the code specifies that this selection process is brought on the consent agenda and then may be called up by council members and so either could or could not be called up according to the wealth council at that time yes sir that's accurate okay okay so so I wonder with that well Bob yeah um Amy think thanks for reading off the things that we're looked at and as Teresa pointed out there are some other criteria right and some of them are are negative criteria there shall not be you know bias or Prejudice and I think there's a list list of things that there shall not be and it sounded like from your description and maybe from what Rachel was asking for

[81:00] um that there was a a request to go back to the selection committee and have them look at the Four Corners of the application but um we've seen um some things have been sent to us from the community that are outside the Four Corners right they're they're um social media posts and so on and so forth and um those could be evidence one way or the other with respect to some of the criteria that that Teresa mentioned and so I guess my question is probably more for Rachel would your motion include looking at those other materials are you limiting the selection committees examination to the four corners of the application is going to be to um send this back to the selection committee to apply the criteria that the City attorney has indicated need to be looked at for panelists so however they apply those criteria I don't I I don't know whether that would be the four corners of the agreement looks like Teresa may have advice I would love if we clarified that that's

[82:00] the criteria and the code I have no personal opinion with respect to the criteria this is simply the law that Council passed I consider the code to be your criteria like you are you are my code I'm giving you a lot of credit maybe I can ask a question then I mean I my since some of the criteria are negative criteria right and obviously it's difficult to to look at an applicant's application and know that those things don't exist and and some people have brought things forward that that would indicate that they do exist or at least they've asserted that they do exist so I guess I would be disappointed um if if you came back to us in January and say yeah the selection committee looked at that and some of us said well what did they look at you said they looked at the application and that was it and so then I would feel that that the the direction that we're sounds like we're about to give would would not have been fulfilled so I would I would hope that you'd be also be able to bring back what exactly the selection the selection committee looked at or didn't look at as the case may be so if you tell us what they looked at that'd be great um and if it was just the application

[83:01] and that I would consider that a failure but if they looked at all things that were brought to their attention that would be helpful they did do interviews as well with each candidate yeah okay you're saying specifically applications I just want to Applications right but again that doesn't improve the negative right yeah I I'm hoping to move this forward so I wonder if we could get to the motion but Judy did you want to add something here yes because it's very tricky even I am confused about what we're asking her to go back and do are we asking her I'm looking at the qualification and appointments right based on the code are you asking her to go back to ensure that for instance as part of the application process which is already she's already been through it and six people have already brought forward I just don't know what is the expectation that she went back and

[84:00] looked at the code all 16 it seems there is one through 16 parts to it have they applied all 16 parts to each applicant and will they be able to meet that criteria that we've not fully expressed to her to go back and look at so I'm just not sure what is it that we're asking her to do what we'll be asking her do is what is in the motion because we've had a discussion so far but I think our specific direction will be what's in the motion and we can offer to amend the motion if we think it's missing things I'm ready to take a stab if you'd like to hear it councilmember Joseph yeah sure okay so I would make a motion that we refer consent agenda item 3E back to the selection committee to relook at all applicants or all recommended panelists under code criteria that are required to be appointed and eligible for this panel with guidance from the city attorney's office and with explanations or

[85:00] certifications explaining the steps that were taken does that meet yours in writing I'm going to second that so that would be what we would be asking uh uh so yes Amy no never mind I'm good okay I have a question is there feedback from the city manager City attorney or from Amy Kane I appreciate that I I believe we're getting Clarity to go back to the selection committee and for all candidates not just the singular one um that we reaffirm that they have that we have looked at the code and all the criteria and the code has been looked at and um and applied to all the candidates and get an affirmation on the Slate of candidates that is moving forward we believe that we can probably do that and bring that to the January 19th meeting and we'll try to do so expeditiously

[86:02] we're good and yes I don't know maybe I'll call for a vote after you and I just wanted to make uh one comment that I want to make sure the police oversight panel and selection committee doesn't feel like we don't trust them or you know we're trying to micromanage or anything like that um I think it's it's really for me at least just about providing a little bit more documentation for kind of the public to understand what the process wasn't and what went into it I just I want to be clear on that where I'm coming from thank you council members here great actually Lauren has her hand up as well Lauren thanks I just wanted to clarify that we're asking the selection committee to look at all applicants or just these six that are proposed um my motion were recommended my motion had an or so it was to relook at all applicants or all recommended panelists

[87:01] and I thought we could just maybe leave that to their discretion I'm okay with leaving that to their discretion thank you very good well so then I'll I'll go ahead and call for a vote and Elise would this be a show of hands for this kind of emotion so all in favor of the motion on the table that looks like everybody thank you very good thanks Amy uh thanks everybody for working through that I want to to Echo the the Rachel how Rachel started with this uh with a huge thanks to the selection committee for all the hard work that they've done and appreciate their hopefully their willingness to uh work through a little bit more uh to collaborate with Council on this as well as to all the applicants who are participating in the process and with that I believe we can move to our call check-ins yes sir our caller check-ins are item number four on tonight's agenda 4A is the landmark alteration certificate

[88:00] application to add new storefront window openings exterior patios awnings and paint at 1346 Pearl Street any interest in calling this up not seeing any item 4B is our three-year extension of development approval for site and use review application numbers lur 2016-00051 and lur2016052 for redevelopment of the site located at 4750 Independence Road formally addressed as 3365 diagonal Highway with a 138 room three-story 35 foot tall Holiday Inn Express Hotel any interest in calling this one up all right not seeing any so I think we can move to our item 5A then our continued public hearing all right sir thank you item 5A as noted

[89:01] is our continued consideration of the following items related to a petition to Annex a property generally located at 6 500 Arapahoe Road that is with an additional zoning of public lur 2021-00032 we have five items under this matter first item refers to the annexation of the Westerly portion there is a motion to adopt resolution 1317 setting for findings of facts and conclusions the second item for the Western portion is item number two the second reading and motion to adopt ordinance 8550 which is annexing the Westerly 19.097 acre portion of the property and if 85 80 8550 is adopted we have the second part of this action which is the annexation of the easterly portion that first item is the motion to adopt resolution 1322 which is setting forth

[90:01] the findings and facts and conclusions and the second item is the second reading and Adoption of ordinance 8553 which is annexing the easterly 28.882 acre portion of the property and if both ordinances 85 50 and 8553 are adopted we have the last item which is the consideration of a motion to approve an intergovernmental agreement between the city of Boulder and the boli Valley School District area that was a mouthful thank you Alicia I'm gonna go straight to um our planning and development services Rockstar shamnam Vista for this and Shannon before you get started just to outline I think tonight if you weren't going to say so we're going to hear from you we'll have an opportunity to ask you questions we've already had the public hearing the public testimony on this item so after we ask you questions we'll then go to our deliberations that's correct great

[91:01] thanks take it away okay good evening council members my name is shabnam bista senior planner for planning and development services um today I'll just walk walk you all quickly through the annexation an initial Zoning for 6500 Arapahoe Road um and just to note this is a continuation of the the second reading and public hearing that was held on November 17th just as a refresher the site is located south of Arapahoe Road East of the current Boulder City Limits and north of Sombrero Marsh um to go through the process to date and where we are now the annexation negotiations have been ongoing since 2018. um and then application was filed in July of 2021. and the notice for That Was Then

[92:00] consistent with the land use code sending written notification to Property Owners within 600 feet and then on September 6 2022 planning board held the public hearing for the annexation and they recommended adding two conditions regarding the height limits as well as a form of Good Neighbor agreement there was um another there was a neighborhood meeting held at the bvsd campus on September 29th 2022 and the notice for that went out to Property Owners within a thousand feet of the subject site and then a first reading was held on October 6 2022 at Council during the first readings the council supported modifying the agreement to include the compliance with the city height limit prior to this second reading and public hearing the amended annexation agreement was then sent to the school board and

[93:03] they agreed to comply with the condition um complying with the city's Charter height limit on November 17th the second reading and public hearing was held at city council in that meeting staff presented the amended annexation agreement and the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Boulder and the Boulder Valley School District um as well as information on the operations of the affordable housing modular Factory during that discussion Council proposed to bbsd that they modify the annexation intergovernmental agreement to require the access to the site be taken from 65th Street instead of 63rd Street this would avoid excessive truck traffic on 63rd um and could have that could have negative impacts on the Columbine Home Park the other nearby residents as well as

[94:02] Sombrero Marsh foreign so the item was then continued to a date certain which is today so that the school board had time to modify the intergovernmental agreement and approve the condition that's kind of where we are today so the annexation terms from the annexation agreement haven't changed and this was the same kind of conditions that I presented on November 17th in terms of the intergovernmental agreement as of December 13th the bvsd board um agreed and approved the modified intergovernmental agreement that incr includes conditions regarding the deliveries to and from the factoring occurring mostly on 65th Street when traffic impacts on bbsc operations are limited and then also

[95:02] excuse me minimizing the access on 63rd to the greatest extent possible so staff recommends approval of the annexation with the motion as shown on the screen and that concludes the presentation and please let me know if you have any questions for me we also have human housing and human services staff as well as a representative from the school district I appreciate the the brisk and concise presentation questions I got Nicole and the mark and the map from interior appreciate of the revisiting of all this information because our last one was a while back I just had a couple of questions to clarify after hearing you know some of the comments from folks and some of the emails we've been getting so my understanding is that once this annexation goes through bvsd anything they do on that property the

[96:00] entire property will be held to our light pollution standards is that is that correct or am I misunderstanding so like they they can't go and and do something very different from what the rest of the city is doing likewise and that would be their entire property not just this Factory that's correct the entire property would then need to comply with the current light light outdoor light ordinance okay thank you and is that true for the the noise as well is there anything with regard to like noise ordinances or anything that they are held to once they kind of become part of the city proper Jay would you um be able to respond to that question thank you good evening Council Jay stagnet with housing and Human Services so yes the the IGA does affirm that this that the factory will abide by city and county noise regulations it doesn't specify the district other

[97:00] District Operations but um I would assume that they would also comply that okay so I mean I'm thinking of like the noise up for the hill you know that's that's kind of what we're talking about here or is it a different uh it well it's not going to be specific to the health that the city is right yeah yeah okay okay those limitations time of day yeah yeah okay so basically the same the same as any other property in the city boundaries in terms of noise thank you okay um and then the other question that I had was just around the The Good Neighbor agreement and um I you know I understand some some groups were looking for one um it seems like it there was not really a requirement that it was put in place and I was just wondering if you could explain a little bit about why um yeah sure okay Jay did you wanna

[98:01] good evening council members uh glenster grew uh Boulder Valley Schools uh the Good Neighbor agreement uh was something that the school district decided it couldn't agree to uh based on our own sovereignty and our own ability to deal directly with the public ourselves I think we thought it would be improper to have the city have that imposition on us okay is that I mean is that something the district can set up directly with the neighborhoods or sure is that yeah okay is that something that you all would consider yeah and yeah we've had several meetings with neighbors and yeah that could be done okay and um with that um I mean one oh thank you I think that's that's the only question I have for the district um this is just another question coming back to um City staff I think what role do our staff play after you know this agreement goes through after the annexation so for example will osmp

[99:01] staff play a role in the construction and monitoring anything after um if you know things go through do they still have a a part to play I'm going to defer that question to Jay segment as well so again Jay segment housing and Human Services um so there isn't a formal regulatory role however there is a structure in place or there will be a structure in place where the school district housing and Human Services as well as habitat will meet at least quarterly to discuss Factory operations and that's sort of that that's a perfect venue to discuss how are things going what are the neighbors saying how can we address those how can we change our operations to be more sensitive so as I said no formal regulatory role but we can always bring in parks and open space

[100:01] as we do that so does that help yeah no it does thank you um and Jay I don't this next question may be a little bit for you as well or shabnam so maybe hang out for a second um I mean I think you know one of the things that I'm hearing from community members is just a concern that this goes through and then they never have a voice at all again in anything that's going on over there and you know I think that sometimes especially with kind of council changing every two years there there maybe is perceived a lack of kind of follow-through or consistency in in people's voices being heard so I'm just wondering if there's anything at a city level outside of the you know the IGA and bvsd what can we do as a city to kind of commit to you know all the things that we're sort of assuming are going to go in here that they're actually happening once once things get started over there and are there can we as a city commit to some checkpoints with residents can we you know look at um with osbt or osmp whether impact on

[101:02] Wildlife or anything after you know this this kind of goes through just so it's not we're not sort of sending it through and then not seeing anything you know not not checking in to see if there are any impacts yeah absolutely um I I would assume that would happen regardless so neighbors are always welcome to come to city council you could share those concerns directly with staff staff will be involved in in the ongoing operations of the factory because uh so Jay you know we talked a few days ago right and I put together some a potential motion that I will talk about a little bit later could could we add to that something to request the city like it say at the one year point do a check-in with the factory operations and you know make sure that they're complying with the noise lighting Etc like absolutely with Council or with the neighbors or both or both maybe with so maybe we could do

[102:02] something like that to get to that point so consider okay thanks anything else okay we got um Mark next a couple of technical questions first I was not here for the November 17 meeting so if anything I ask has been covered just kind of wave and I'll I'll move on to the next um back in 2021 we received the number of comments from the County's Department of planning and permitting um did we respond to and satisfy those those requests or did we have any obligation to do so or have we already discussed that foreign yeah I've I've spoken to the the County's planning um staff member and we kind of went over the questions and I believe Jay you also met with Hannah hippley um to kind of cover any of their other concerns if um if bvsd terminates for convenience as is provided in the in the IGA I

[103:02] assume we'll have to return the grant funds and the and the Hud loan that we're taking out on this property is that correct I'll defer that to J segment uh yes correct okay um will those payments have to be made immediately or over time because under the terms of the IGA bvsd has five years to repay those to to repay um I guess it's almost a damage payment for our inconvenience but they do that over five years without interest I assume we will not have a similar luxury in repaying our obligations under the grants and and the Hud loan sir I would say there there might be a distinction as long as we fulfill our promise to build the factory um then then I would say our grant funding is secured okay whether or not

[104:00] that operation continues I think is a separate question um and was the LOI with habitat part of our package I didn't see that and if so I apologize for missing it um I'm trying to think what was in the yeah so there was an original partnership agreement a memorandum of understanding which is sort of a precursor to the IGA habitat was a party to that they have been involved in the development of the aiga so they're very well aware of all the provisions I'm just asking have we seen that I I don't recall it so there will be a lease so the way the IGA is structured currently is that um the lease could be between the city and the school district and then we would sublease to Habitat and do we know those terms yet so we have a funding agreement with habitat and that's not something that typically comes before Council okay but if one is

[105:00] interested might one see it absolutely okay um and lastly um and this was triggered for me by mayor brockett's hotline is it not the case that we are both funding construction constructing and through habitat essentially operating this facility correct so many of the community members have looked for changes to the IGA cannot most of their concerns as mayor Brockett pointed out in his hotline be satisfied by us alone in other words rather than having to negotiate something new with bvsd if we want to commit to something we can commit to something we're the operator we're the Builder we're responsible yes I would say to a certain extent unless it requires the school district okay um because I think there's opportunity there for us to address Community concerns

[106:00] um because for the most part the school district is not going to be involved in the issues that we want to deal with and resolve on behalf of community interest am I off base on that I guess I would push back a little bit I mean I believe that the school board does have public meetings the community can come and testify and share their concerns well just directly with their school board just to give you an example and then I'll let my colleagues ask their questions if the school board says it's not convenient for us to allow you to use 65th Street under certain terms conditions or hours we have the option of Simply doing deliveries at a different time do we not it's not that we need to to negotiate something with bvsd we have to Simply Be Prepared to commit to the community what we're doing am I wrong no you're not wrong okay that opens complexity to the operation of the factory that's all okay and that opens the door for a community a conversation

[107:00] among ourselves and what we want to do and provide to the community as opposed to trying to go back to bvsd and relitigating the re unlitigatable okay thank you Mark then uh Matt then Tara then Jenny it's all good my dad was my dad's name's Mark yeah appreciate it flattery um uh so so Mark I well I just want to say great questions um and I think spot on on trying to find a place to alleviate some of the stress points so I'd really appreciate uh what you brought up and clarified I think in uh this conversation so I just want to draw light to that awesome um my question centers specifically around I think the the piece that was changed what we changed to bring us to tonight which was regarding six the the change for as as Bob pointed out we're changing one digit or at least we were hoping to change one digit um maybe less successfully than we had hoped um but the language says sort of you know to the extent of deliveries to and from the factory via 63rd will be

[108:00] minimized to the greatest extent possible I don't even know what that means um and I get why that's there um my my and I and I understand some need for flexibility given that there could be constraints on when deliveries can happen based on Staffing or or operator issues with those bringing materials so I get there could be constraints and so needing a safety valve is important I get that but really where my question is going to come from is if we're the operator can't we monitor that traffic and into some extent make sure we set some guard rails for ourselves because we own if I'm not mistaken part of 63rd so we can throttle that to our content if I'm not mistaken and so I just want to make sure that even though in here there's ambiguity we can remove that based on our actions and how we run this facility so I just in the specific specificity of the issue that brought us to tonight I just wanted to sort of get that Clarity that we can

[109:01] control that for ourselves and the ambiguity is really Irrelevant in the IGA to that extent is that a good way to say that I see people searching yes awesome Okay cool so those that was a yes gotcha okay JJ's legs are exhausted at this point coming right up to the diet so thank you Jay appreciate that right Tara Juni Rachel well before I talk about my main question I just a quick question Aaron when you said 12 I I'm particularly thinking about the implications for wildlife on 63rd Street and couldn't it be less than do you know how in the hotline you mentioned 12 could it be six five three so that was done in conjunction with a city staff so maybe we could ask is is there flexibility because I I certainly would be happy with a lower number if that is feasible so maybe Jay or someone else you can address whether it could work within a smaller number hey there uh Jason again housing in

[110:01] human services so yes the the 12 is really to try to provide operational flexibility um you know again it's 12 each month and I my understanding of the intent of that was to be clear we're not talking about 10 to 12 trips a day we're talking about 10 to 12 a month um we could go lower um but it's really difficult to predict without having a factory that's up and running not understanding you know what issues we might have with supply chain in the future um so yes it's possible and we would do our best to to adhere to that but I guess our our request would to try to keep it as as high as possible well I think I read that if it was a paved Road it would have less impact than dust and dirt and so is there an economic was there any discussion on does 12 actually have impact where is the impact when does it

[111:00] happen uh well just to be clear so environmentally is currently paved oh the storm water is not treated I do not I cannot tell you what the impact the difference between 6 and 12 a month would be okay questions yeah so I can go back to my main subject which is not actually this yes because I just because we're talking about this I had some questions on this too um I think Aaron's hotline posed and I don't know if this came from Stafford from Aaron said 12 on average so that's really 144 a year so you could have you could have one in January and 143 in December right I mean that's what it said it says on average right so could you live with whatever an X is going to be because we're going to come back to that in a second um per month not per month on average could you live with that yes okay so are you okay that Aaron thinking about the average part okay I want to come back I'm going to turn it back over to Tara I

[112:00] want to come back to the number two so okay so I you can that's okay Jay this isn't for you unless you're a bird expert I was really moved by so many of the letters the Audubon Society the Eagles and I learned more about December or March than we have all haven't we all in the past month that we ever knew I can say I have for sure um I was specifically moved by the fact that this is a Flyway for migrating birds and so what I would like to see is is there a way to know to come for for whoever is there a way that we're going to monitor whether we do affect the birds or not we have a lot of stress on birds right now we have airplanes and we have climate change and so I don't want to just hope for the best when it comes to well hopefully the factory won't affect the birds I I really do want to know will it affect the migratory

[113:00] um the migratory behavior of the birds can we come back as well and I really like what Nicole said thanks Nicole about coming back to us and I would like that study as well because I feel like a lot of the community really hit it spot on when they said this is this is an unusual space and I would really like to see protection for the Wildlife and the birds in a specific matter not just we're going to try so I'm hoping that we could come we can study it and maybe we can study it while we're doing it and then come back and say Well it did work out or it didn't work out and if I was living there what I would want it if I I guess what I would want to know is if it doesn't work out and it does affect the birds then what's our plan B so I don't I just don't want to leave a chance when it comes to that open space and I'm hoping that we can do something a specific for the avian community

[114:00] is there a question or just first can we that's my question can we are there any bird experts here tonight councilmember I am not a bird actor let me make that clear um uh I know that we have our director of open space in Mountain Parks I don't know if at this moment we know that for sure but we can certainly take that back if uh if that is not known to staff looks like we got Dan Burke popping up Dan would you like to speak sure Dan Burke director open space and Mountain Parks just in terms of monitoring impacts I just want to point out it's certainly something that our department staff does uh throughout the year on a number of different uh species in a number of different areas but I would just like to caution that one year data does not necessarily mean a trend for instance there's a lot of reasons why you might see a fluctuation in

[115:00] certain numbers in a certain location in a given year and it may or may not have something to do with a very specific uh attribute such as the new Factory or something like that but our staff would be more than willing to uh help in any sort of monitoring or any sort of uh Trend analysis over time uh in this area it is an important area for us and willing to play a helping hand winning if needed thanks for that Dan is that it Tara okay got Junior and Rachel that's why I love Tara so much because she's so she has such a big heart talking about the birds and um and thank you for bringing that up because that was part of my question or my thought because as I was reading the packet it talked about um the Environmental Education Center with bvsd and in relations to some of

[116:00] community concerns with sombrero Marsh so and also talking about osmp so I'm thinking well there must be some type of work already being done there or at least there's some level of care am I correct to think that way that you know yes we're concerned about this but nonetheless there is already some type of um because of the center there is some kind of already monitoring process going on with that would you know or anybody knows that's right set a question for Dan again Junie what's the question is do we do specific monitoring at Sombrero Marsh or even with bvsd because the thing is one of the question or at least the thought that I had with whether it's with the traffic with sombrero March and I understand you will be doing some type of monitoring but I'm wondering how can

[117:02] we offload some of that process to bvsd since for instance they already have this Center that they mentioned about the Environmental Education Center and the um the ecological Institute and osmp so I'm wondering is there a way of offloading that instead of us taking on that role ourselves yeah certainly citizen science could uh could play a role over time and and monitoring this area and what I mean by that is we often have a number of volunteers volunteer groups individuals that are out on our system monitoring for instance our Raptor monitoring program is done primarily through volunteers um it is a very popular program for people wanting to get involved in this type of thing so monitoring uh very much uh could rely on non-staff Personnel that is Guided by parameters that staff sets up so that's certainly a possibility yeah

[118:00] thank you for that and I think my next question is about the traffic we were talking about the 12 months 12 12 at least or at most on average 12 a month again I'm wondering who's going to be doing the monitoring because my hope is that at the end of this process we will not be doing any type of monitoring because again I'm wondering what type of Staff time will be utilized for that as opposed to let's just have a process or at least put it into the IGA that it's going to be 12. that's it in whatever other process bvsd will do it because again why should it be us doing the extra money monitoring taking stuff's the time well we do it in time for the next update in a year or have them submit a report to us that yes we did these are how do I put it exact

[119:00] criterias and you will follow them thank you so do was there did you want to get a question addressed there or just no that was just a thought that as opposed to having monitoring processes just have clear guidelines to be vsd to follow thank you thank you my question was answered so I will hold for comments okay Bob foreign I very much appreciate Aaron you um you I'm submitting those clarifying points and I think that the noise one in particular is very very helpful so thanks for that um but I am still concerned about the number um I voted in favor of this in the first reading in Reliance upon staff saying there would be one or two deliveries per week inbound and one or two removals per month outbound if you add up those numbers that comes out between 5 and 10. so it was obviously a little concerned when staff says oh no more than 12.

[120:00] um and so I don't know where 12 comes from it seems to me like it should be a number that be well below the maximum number of deliveries that you anticipated which was 10 per month and so I'm not understanding how we're at 10 or 12 if that's supposed to be a maximum because that's that's all the deliveries and there's language here as Matt points out it's a little ambiguous but I thought the school district did a pretty good job of saying that that they would would permit deliveries on 65th Street as long as it didn't interfere with their operations and I appreciate that so that's great and so um this is this would seem to be with within our country because it's us and habitats from the factory not the school district let's just be honest about that right it's us and habitat and and these are you know the best problems are problems that are fixable with money because those are the easiest problems to fix right and so we're going to control deliveries we'll be able to control those I get the fact there's supply chain issues and so on so forth but with enough money a delivery company will deliver anytime you want day or night right and so why do you need 10.

[121:01] or 12. and that's the most you told us you'd ever have again just operational flexibility so I mean if it's council's desire to have something less and that that is your prerogative um but yeah and and as I tried to State before too I think there is willingness on this part of the school district to utilize 65th of the greatest extent practical um but we can't predict the future perfectly so that's what I'm saying a lower number is fine I just wouldn't go so low as one to two a month and so you want to reserve the right to have all of the deliveries on 63rd I I think well it's still more so just to be clear what what we did say was one to two trips of small trucks a week right large trucks one to two a month right and then every 14 to 16 weeks or 18 weeks was

[122:01] um the the modules would be removed right yeah but that doesn't it I mean that's when you're saying 10 to 12 that's that's all those numbers added together so this is all of them you're asking for for the flexibility so I'm not supported I'm not supporting that I gotta tell you you're kind of blown this up before me okay I'll say that for comments but I'm not liking your answers yeah yeah I just want to colloquy just with kind of a clarifying question we're talking like when when we say 10 trips or 12 trips a month like we're talking about one vehicle kind of coming down 63rd to that property is that correct and do we have a sense of how many vehicles are kind of already doing that trip because like I look at 63rd there is the manufactured home community that looks like it's got a few dozen maybe homes there I believe the access was on 63rd so that's kind of a car coming down there's the storage facility

[123:00] that has quite a few units I don't know sort of how many vehicles are coming in for that and then there's Thorn there's kind of the bvsd access so you know when I think about the difference between 10 or 12 a month with all the the car trips that sort of seemed to be already happening there it really feels like it's a bit of a drop in the bucket and I feel like I'm misunderstanding something about what we're talking about with regard to trips because that's it's I'm just kind of confused on the difference between 10 and 12 when we've already got cars and vehicles moving through here I mean is the concern about trucks is the concern I I just I feel like I'm missing something no so I don't know if that's maybe just some clarification no I I really appreciate your question because um yeah so my understanding is the for the Central Kitchen there are about four to five semi trucks that access the side

[124:01] via 63rd every day um there's also about 60 maintenance vehicles on the school district campus about half leave 63rd half through 65th um and then that doesn't even include all the um all the all the vehicles accessing Thorne so there is quite a bit of traffic um that's why you know we just wanted to try to set that ceiling to say you know we're not talking about hundreds of trips or dozens of trips every day we're just talking about one to two but it again it's council's prerogative if you want to set that ceiling lower we will follow it absolutely yeah thanks for that uh maybe are we done with questions move on to comments some more okay I can't stop myself um hang on uh the city is responsible for utility upgrades for the project

[125:02] do we have an estimate of the cost on that and is that cost within the 8.5 million yes okay so I have the cost I don't know it off the top of my head I'd have to dig through it but it's within the 8.5 yes okay that's good enough if I'll go and don't go anywhere um as we construct these modular homes in the event that there are construction defects who Bears the liability and the expense of remedying those defects it happens it's Construction just like any other habitat build it would be habitat okay good and lastly I I hope we will adopt mayor brockett's suggestion with respect to the the noise consultant but my question is when does

[126:01] that factor in is it before Construction will it have any impact on the plans and specs for the for the facility I I would obviously not like it to be after it's built because then you're stuck so do you have a sense of when that would be integrated I do I know exactly when it's going to happen so uh the week of January 9th the acoustical engineer will set up a noise monitoring equipment on School District property and they'll also set up equipment uh in a another modular Factory in Denver and then they'll be able to compare those two so we have purposely um not finalized the construction documents until we have the results of that um the acoustical Engineers work and recommendations thank you that's the perfect answer change you have one more I do have a question we can before you go I would I would maybe just to clarify not confuse all the way as I was reading it

[127:03] says that the modular homes the homes would be for CD residents and I was wondering okay well this is a bvsd project or will it be for teachers specifically or no it's no I can so it's Habitat so basically they're taking their habitat model and moving it indoors that's the easiest way to think about it so everything that habitat currently does they're going to continue to do so they serve the entire Boulder County roughly but the first units that come out of the factory will be dedicated to the city in particularly Ponderosa so we're replacing those aging mobile homes with fixed Foundation super energy efficient Fix Foundation modular homes um after Ponderosa there are other opportunities we talked about that last time other sites within Boulder but Boulder will be prioritized for a while but if we don't have opportunities in Boulder we're going to look outside yeah yeah

[128:00] thank you I was just thinking about teachers thank you great okay maybe we can move on to comments and if people don't mind if I call on myself just to Daylight the the hotline post that I put out for people who didn't see that just I was suggesting that since the operations of the the factory are within the city's purview along with the lease to Habitat that we could add some additional conditions on our own operations separate in that comply with the IGA but but go further than the IGA and specifically as we've been talking about to uh to put a maximum on the number of factory deliveries on 63rd Street and also to say that we will implement the noise reduction recommendations by the acoustical engineer to the extent reasonably feasible and um and then I was now thinking about adding in the one-year check-in that we were talking about from before as well so just wanted to get that that out there as part of the discussion and

[129:00] um so because so I and and I'll just start with that but then people can add additional thoughts but I'm hoping to be part of what we consider tonight and the way we would do that is that we would pass all the Motions that were put up on before and this would be a separate motion to then you know give direction to City staff about how this is operated okay with that on the table I got I saw Matt first and then Nicole and then Tara this yes oh go ahead then my clarifying question is just around whether some of this also applies to construction or if we're just talking about after the factory is completed then so the deliveries would be about operations rather than construction the um the acoustical engineer is um yeah so it's about how it's built before things are built yeah but we're still the city's still controlling the construction as well correct okay thank you okay and nugget so Matt Tara and I got Lauren as well Rachel and then thanks Aaron and uh again thanks for your hotline I think this helps Focus us

[130:01] and I do think given that we are the funder Builder operator uh we can take on some added responsibility um to better the environment and hopefully meet some of the needs of the neighbors and the surrounding Community um I think we can take some of that out so I'm glad that we're we're approaching that um a couple pieces that I would like to add to that is I'd like to be clearer um with regards to 63rd versus 65th I I I see where Bob's going and I would like to you know if we can go further say we just want you 63rd I mean if we get to schedule this and say there's constraints on when bbsd is in session and school starts school lets out the rest of that timing is fair game and if we need to bring in some deliveries at at five or six a.m to avoid 63rd then I think it's on us to try to do that I would try to keep 63rd just off the table to minimize impacts to Columbine and Sombrero March so if we can take on that onus we control the entry point of

[131:00] 63rd I'd love to see if we could put that in there that'd be something I'd like to see um the other one is I'd love to take Dan Burke up on thinking about how we can use this opportunity for a citizen science project and or a long-term study of impacts I'm a wildlife photographer I'm not a bird expert but I am a proud birder and so I go to that area to photograph all the time so it would be nice just for my own professional photography perspective to know the impacts and whether or not my trotting around is causing impacts or if it's noise from further away kind of ingest a little bit my impacts but but I'm saying I would like to take that opportunity to study that environment um and I think it would be good for us as a whole and I think that would be worthwhile thing so I think we could take that on ourselves so those are two places I'd like to see us take on the third I I toss out is we may be making modifications to our lighting ordinance when we fold in the street lights as we will have to do with regards to our lighting ordinance if we approve the street street light acquisition from

[132:00] Excel and as a result of that if we make modifications here in the next few months long before we build anything maybe we take it on ourselves to build that facility won't impact the rest of bvsd but we build that facility with perhaps the lighting ordinance that gets modified if there's any changes there that's something we could take on ourselves if we change perhaps the brightness temperature or change our shielding requirements perhaps that's something we could do there as well so I think there's a few instances that we could take a little greater onus to um make this a little better okay I think so Terry good morning I have a lot of confidence in this city that we can simultaneously do a great project with Habitat for Humanity and also take care of our Marsh I really think we can do both so I want to start out with that when I went to that a Columbine school who went there you did so Lauren did the kids were so excited about about flood mitigation and environmental impacts it

[133:00] was it was stunning and so I'm going to combine Lauren everybody's ideas of from the McCalls and duties and mats and I have this thought that I wonder if it's possible if we can and this is probably for Susan can we combine what habitat is doing with the children with the kids right with the kids and ask them to also do their own environmental impacts and noise and and add no how the noise whether or not the noise in the lighting is affecting the marshes well can't the that be part of the educational process I mean because I think that these students would care about that environmental aspects the most out of everybody that's my personal opinion seeing that these Columbine Elementary Schools students were outstanding in it was touching the way they cared about uh the world so that's my question also my comment that I think we can do both

[134:01] chair I got Lauren thank you I appreciated Aaron your hotline and other council members and kind of thinking about how as the owner and operator we have there's a significant amount of not but as the Builder operator um we have significant control over what happens on this property um I appreciate the IGA includes height limit constraints that it requires the entire not just this property but the entire campus to meet our quite strict lighting regulations are city-wide noise ordinances and then you know the missing piece like is that traffic piece and I think that as the operator that is within our control

[135:00] instead of focusing so much on exactly how many trips per month um we're seeing what I would really like to see is this being an iterative process so you know one of the things that was brought up um was sort of how is the community able to bring forth issues that they have once this project is built and I think that we should be facilitating that that once a year check-in I would appreciate if that included um reaching out to the neighbors to understand what their experience is of this and how we can um address any concerns that come up in the operation of this as well as reaching out to Thorne and osmp and finding out what they have learned so that not only can we do the right things in terms of taking into account the sound engineers

[136:03] um recommendations but also continue to improve because a lot of noise mitigation and things like that does have to do with use and not just with how exactly the building is built thanks Lauren I got Rachel and then Juni no Rachel then Mark thank you mayor um I want to just step back maybe a little bit and compliment Kurt and Jay and our I guess bbsd for a pretty cool project I remember Kurt we were sitting in a coffee shop like I would say maybe two I don't know it was a long time ago with with Sam Weaver when you were really excited talking about um how cool it would be that we could um create the space right where bbsd students are where they could um you know go right out the door into this Factory where they could learn these skills and we would get affordable housing like it's a I guess I just don't want us to lose sight of this is a really awesome thing that's going to

[137:01] bring us affordable housing and and uh help our our students to have good good life skills that they can turn into careers in in careers that are highly needed so um just just want to say thank you for all the work and thank you to bbsd for considering all the Amendments that we have asked for um in terms of the you know what we're talking about around sort of Good Neighbor agreements and stuff I'm I am worried that we are um saying things that that don't have teeth like we're committing to things that are not necessarily enforceable and potentially tying our own hands so I understand Bob's concern that you know it could be one trip and then 130 a different month and and that we could you know try and make some differences but I don't know like from from what I heard from habitat like if if you know Matt suggested well we'll deliver at 5am I'm not sure there's going to be volunteers that want to be there to receive it at 5am under their plan so I edit and I'm not sure that the

[138:01] neighbors would like deliveries at 5am um so you know I I guess I'm a little bit concerned about us trying to get in the weeds in ways that I I don't do I don't run a a workshop or manufacturing facility and if if there are supply chain issues or something that we're into the 13th delivery of a month and we can't then figure out a way to get it there and then we don't get you know a whole unit of housing built that like I I I'm and we can't use the other street because bvsd won't you know won't but I don't know just doesn't work out like I think that I'm concerned about us um getting in the weeds when we have staff who have worked on this for for well over a year I think and and it is a I think it's a project that we support so just concerned about committing to things that are unenforceable and then thinking that we're wed to that I think that we should be considerate and we should be we should be good neighbors without having to be asked on something

[139:01] these things and yet I think as an operator of a something that's supposed to be a community good and you know if we go offline I don't know if these students are then relegated to I don't know what for that day that they're supposed to be in there working on stuff so I I just want us to to be mindful of Ripple effects of the things that we're talking about thanks thanks Rachel mark you know I think we've taken um a lot of steps to try to address Community concerns I'm not that concerned about um a good neighbor agreement as I am about are making the appropriate commitments to our neighbors in terms of enforceability the community is always welcome to enforce it against us in November and I I you know but I think we're doing things here trying to address legitimate concerns and I'm not unhappy that we're

[140:00] doing it I think you know Aaron's suggestions about the noise consultant are spot on um I would be in agreement with Matt if we control the traffic we'll find a way we just won't use 63rd Street it's not that there won't be any other traffic on there but it's a community concern it doesn't cost us anything to try to be a good neighbor in that fashion and if for some reason there's a real problem down the road we can revisit it but I'm happy to make a commitment or to have the the city maker commitment to not use 65th Street because I think it goes not entirely uh all the way in what the community wants which is probably don't build it but I think it's a good project and to the extent that we can um address those concerns I'm happy for us to go beyond the letter of the IGA which is really an agreement between us

[141:00] and and bvsd and it's not relevant for most of the things we're trying to address this evening because bvsd doesn't control the traffic doesn't control the construction is not going to operate the facility so I I think if we want to in effect keep Faith with the community and if not addressed every concern do it as best we can I think there are things we we can do here and I'm I'm happy to have us make those commitments um I agree with with Tara and others who've spoken about some kind of monitoring process I don't necessarily care if it's staff or if we authorize osbt to stand up a committee put on some students put on the Audubon Society just to take a look at this and make sure that a year from now we're not causing damage I think that's a a an easy commitment to

[142:00] fulfill I think it will address some specific problems that people have had with this proposal and will let us move on and and get this thing going so great thanks Mark so call nope up and then I'll call on myself yeah I'm going to agree with what I think Matt and Mark both said it with reason and actually Rachel too but about um ongoing commitments um because I don't I really I don't think we should try to make ongoing commitments that are very difficult for us to measure and enforce um I I think the the noise thing is a one-time thing let's just go out there have have an acoustical engineer tell us what we need to do and we do it and then we're done with that right and same with maybe the annual report you know whether it's around Birds whether it's around other impacts that's a that's a one-time thing you know maybe it's annual but it's not frequent um I would I would suggest that we take out all the respect our the the bit about traffic altogether because I'm afraid that whatever number gets slotted in there whether it's 12 or 10 or some other number that then becomes the

[143:00] delivery number and I don't want a delivery number I want I want the delivery number to be zero the school board was I thought I'm generous and giving us what we wanted what I thought we wanted and I feel like we're kind of backsliding a little bit by saying but yeah but but we we the city reserves the right to have a bunch of deliveries there and I don't want us to reserve that right I wanna I want the school board School District controls 65th Street so I get why they have constraints there and and what they what they've written is fine with me um but I don't want us to then go and say but but we reserve the right to do a bunch of deliveries on 63rd Street whether it's 10 or 12 or whatever the number is I would just eliminate that part of Aaron's suggestion um and then and then um we have the nice thing about this is we're trying to we're trying to to get traffic off of 63rd Street for two principal reasons one it could adversely affect our open space and next it could adversely affect residents we have there at the mobile home park well the good news is you guys are in the human services department so you have some sensitivity around the mobile home park and I'm pretty sure the Dan's going to be in and the open space

[144:00] board is going to be kind of watching uh if there's a lot of traffic going by that open space so this is all really internal and I don't think we need to write to Rachel's point I don't think we need to write this down I don't want to put a number in it because that because then becomes the number so I would just eliminate that my suggestion Aaron would we eliminate that part of Aaron's uh hotline post everything else I think is just fine and that's kind of what what uh what would earn my vote and I can't agree with you do you mind if I go first because there's a sort of address so uh Bob I hear you so uh but the reason why I put that in there is that I've heard from concerned neighbors and people concerned about the the health of the marsh that well the the language in the IGA strives to to minimize um traffic on 63rd that we could potentially have a lot of traffic on 63rd right so um and so I'm trying to provide uh some assurance that no there will not be a lot of traffic on 63rd because language in the IJ is not super specific so what

[145:01] what I would suggest is rather than eliminating that language entirely is to add something to the effective say that we shall strive to eliminate all traffic along 63rd Street but ensure that no more than um sure that factory deliveries will be limited to no more than say 10 a month so we get language and then that's showing that hey we're number one we're starting to go to zero but in no case will it be more than a certain amount and then people know okay but they're in no case will we ever put 100 trucks you know a day or a month along that that road so I think people did have concerns there that's my I agree I think that's a great alternate formulation we go with that do I change you have someone I think I was just going to ask you I mean if my fellow council members are in agreement with that I was just going to ask you where did you put that and I'm sorry if I didn't hear it how did you come about the 12 because

[146:02] I did see a Community member did send an email about how there were there was a previous conversation about 10 and then you came up with 12. it was in consultation with City staff to preserve operational flexibility and then what we've heard from them tonight is say well we could reduce that a little bit but if we go too far then you know there may be some case where we're going to inhibit the operation of the factory and be unable to provide the volunteers with the supplies that they need thank you and I think my other question to Bob's point I hear him and I hear you as well and yours was on consultation with staff and staff who has already been in consultation with bvsd so I'm more inclined to follow your position but my question um is if we were to go where Bob is going would we have to go back to bvsd because we've already been there

[147:00] so I'm wondering would we have no it's our own yes okay thank you hey Nicole yeah I just wanted to offer a few comments um first of all I think you know with this project it it is really helpful for me just kind of hearing this reiteration that the city has control over the operations as well as the construction right that we really have some control there I you know I hear that there was kind of one meeting with bvsd that you know maybe the neighbors did not not all neighbors walked away feeling satisfactory about that meeting um I have just personal experience with how great the city can be with regard to engagement on bigger projects just from all the work that City staff did around CU South and my neighborhood that about sea of South and so you know as I'm thinking about this what Lauren was saying about having an iterative process going forward building some relationships with some of the nearby community members organizations you know

[148:01] with Thorne that I know we already have some of those really just kind of giving people a point person that they can go to with questions with concerns things like that I feel like that's part of that relationship building that becomes really helpful as a neighbor next to where a big big project is being talked about I think you know it's good the entire property is going to be subject to our city noise and light ordinances that to me feels like it's addressing a lot of concerns there um and uh just to the to some of these discussions about making 63rd off limits I would really like to preserve a little bit of flexibility there for folks with regard to deliveries and things like that as somebody who nothing nearly this big but having gone through some bigger construction projects in my work it can really make a difference when a delivery happens and when it is not allowed to happen if you're waiting on one key piece of equipment that requires a large truck or something oftentimes it's coming from out of state or from a different area and having a constraint

[149:02] can sometimes delay a project for not just you know a day or two but weeks which then adds a lot of cost to the project and things like that so I you know I do believe in our our city staff and being able to build some good relationships to use things judiciously recognizing that we have heard a lot of community concern here about the impacts of of this project on people living and studying in this area and some of the the organizations that are out there so um I I would just like us to offer some flexibility there in terms of letting staff bring in equipment and things as as is needed throughout the project and what I hear people saying is that's not likely to be more than 12 or so trips a month um so I I think for me given what I expect is the volume of other vehicles coming in there it's not 10 versus 12 and 12 is not it's not that

[150:00] that much relative to what's already going on so I would just like for us to offer some flexibility to expedite the process vehicle so maybe to get us to a conclusion here Teresa I'm going to look over to you here so there's we're having a lot of discussion about conditions to place here is it which is I think where the Crux of council's discussions coming and it would it be possible to make the motion about those constrictions before we've passed all the other emotions um so that we've established that that we will make these commitments and then if the other motions fail it all becomes irrelevant but because I feel like Council probably wants to get this done before we make all those other motions would be my guess um yes mayor that's certainly possible uh I I believe you would make it a motion conditioned upon the annexation um item passing very good so here here's what I if I could you know move forward on this so here's here's

[151:00] what I'm I'm hearing um in terms of potential uh conditions uh what I'm going to suggest is changing uh the traffic one to say that we will strive to eliminate all traffic on 63rd Street but ensure that factory deliveries on 63rd Street will in no case exceed 10 per month so that we have this driving but we also place a cap and it sounds like 10 we can still work within to the Bob's point about the total Math that we do the acoustic noise recommendation as previously stated to the extent reasonably feasible Implement noise reductions recommendations by the acoustical engineer and the design and operation the factory then two additional ones one is to work with the open space and Mountain parks department to have ongoing monitoring of potential impact on birds at Sombrero Marsh and I'm open to comments here I wouldn't limit it to just Birds I think birds are the known impacted species but I would just say took to Wildlife to impact on Wildlife thank you appreciate that very

[152:02] much okay very good and then the other one is is to have a check-in on operations at the facility one year after commencement of operations that includes neighborhood Outreach and so that's what I got I'm open to to comments or requested suggested changes two words um wildlife and pollution one of the concerns was pollution of Sombrero mark what are we quantifying here I'm not sure what we're what we'd be trying to measure because that like the waste like the runoff won't run off negative impacts of on the water quality of Wildlife and water quality yeah can I just ask Dan if that's her if that's except like can you work with that potential impact on wildlife and water quality uh you're muted yes excuse me Dan Burke

[153:00] Open Space Mountain Parks uh one of my my concerns with where we're going with this is that if you're asking us to monitor specifically due to the factory I mean like I said when we monitor uh different Trends in different years could point to a number of different situations a lot of these migratory birds come from out of the area and so climate and impacts in that area could impact the numbers that we're seeing that come to the marsh so I just want to be clear of what you're asking we certainly could do more enhanced monitoring of all these issues at Sombrero Marsh but I I would be concerned if it's tied specifically to trying to tie that back to whether or not the factory is causing these um causing these issues did I respond to that since I brought that up yeah thanks Aaron um and thanks Dan for bringing that up I agree with you completely there are a lot of variables that go into that I I'm very aware of those and so I would not be tying it to and then

[154:00] you know yes I would not tie it I just think we want to study those bass lines and maybe something is maybe something arises where it's clearly obvious it or obviously Factory or not but I think I wouldn't study it with a preconceived outcome that we would be judging the study against the factory specifically uh so I I would I would agree with your assessment that just enhanced study to understand what's going on and maybe something shows up maybe it doesn't but to but to just ignore that and not do it I think is maybe not in good the interests of trying to make sure that we're being good environmental stewards of that environment is that does that sound does that help you at ease if it's not if it's just we're going to study and not tied to an indictment of the factory so to speak I I think that it I think that uh does alleviate that concern and I would use the word enhance because obviously we have done studies uh out there and so it would be more of an enhancement beautiful so would you say to have ongoing enhanced monitoring is that what you're looking for okay and then I think if we just don't

[155:00] mention you know due to the factory specifically then you can your your department can just look at the status of things in general out there okay good any other comments there's Nicole and Rachel um yeah I was just wondering about this because some of the emails that we got were asking about environmental and environmental study or of something of the marsh there and I am just wondering if that's anything that could illuminate the kinds of things to be paying attention to if there were some sort of environmental study and I don't know if that's kind of all together in the same thing or if that's totally different so I guess I would look I think there have been we have done some environmental evaluation this would measure potential impacts there were specific requests for like an Eis I think environmental impact study which I think would have far-reaching implications if we did that but maybe I can look to Jay or Kurt to address that

[156:01] yes and I'll try to get it right this time because I think I butchered it last time so because we're receiving Federal funding there was a requirement to do an environmental assessment phase one and that is predominantly looking at cultural resources known contaminants it's not the full-blown environmental impact statement which is what the neighbors were really asking for um so the this environmental assessment phase one found basically findings of no significant impact so that basically allows us to progress forward so one of the neighbors did challenge this with the housing Urban Development we responded to HUD and HUD actually just I think it was yesterday um replied that there was no merit to that objection so I in our opinion we think we're good in terms of moving forward but just I think that the full Eis that's a long process is it not I mean like do we have a quantification this a

[157:00] year two years would I've never done one yeah I don't know do we have I saw some nodding heads over here so maybe have I'm afraid I don't know a timeline but what it would do is trigger additional obligations that we've been told are not necessary and are not required right because if the environmental assessment um they look at certain factors in the environmental assessment to determine whether an environmental impact study is required and here the determination has been made that that is not a required step any other yes Rachel can I go back to the deliveries real quick so if I'm hearing you it's 128 year Max right 10 a month so I would say you know for anybody who's ever had like a refrigerator even lined up to be delivered like that that stuff can get moved around and so let's say we're at we've had our 10th and it's supposed to come on the first but then something happens and it shows up on the 30th are we really not going to receive that that

[158:00] seems silly to tie her hands like that so I would at least if we're going to say 10 which I I probably would bump up say and up to 20 a month or like just give ourselves a buffer it's not going to be every month it's going to be 120 total a year but there could be one month where it's five trucks are lined up to come at one time and then you know I don't know something happens so that we don't disrupt the process and then a different month there would be ten or zero because we've used up that 10 from another month and it's still only one truck five days a week for that month that math is right you may not agree I've seen a lot of Shades right heads from your colleagues I the the informal straw poll is uh was it was a no-go on that but I appreciate appreciate the comment Rachel any any other comments no okay all right well so here's then I'll propose that I move forward with this

[159:01] contingent motion and then we we proceed from there um and then maybe I'll speak a couple words after I make the motion so I move uh to declare that it is council's desire that the city will mitigate potential impacts on neighboring properties and during the operation of the affordable housing modular Factory and will strive to eliminate all traffic along 63rd Street but ensure that Factory delivery is on 63rd Street will in no case exceed 10 per month to the extent reasonably feasible Implement noise reduction recommendations by the acoustical engineer in the design and operation of the factory work with the open space and Mountain parks department to have ongoing enhanced monitoring of potential impacts on wildlife and water quality at Sombrero Marsh and have a check-in on operations at the facility one year after commencement of operations that includes neighborhood Outreach this is contingent upon approval of the annexation well do I have a second second second

[160:04] and just to speak to it I you know I appreciate um you know all the concerns that have been registered and I think we've been trying to listen to to neighbors but also we've got an incredibly important uh program for the community to move forward and I think the residents of Ponderosa mobile home park will thank us all very much when they move into these energy efficient homes that were built at this facility we're going to be mitigating noise light runoff traffic Etc we're doing the best we can to make sure that it does not have a negative impact on the marsh or the neighbors so I feel like it's a it's a tough set of compromises but I feel like we're coming to the best outcome possible so there's my little speech uh call for a vote then and this is a show of hands right Alicia I'll all in favor of the motion on the table all right that looks like uh that looks like unanimous one uh thanks everybody now could we get the motion language for

[161:01] the rest of it and I'll let somebody else take over here how many words do we have to say to make this legal I don't know what Rachel's our official speed reader yes I'm only kidding you just did a great job on that last long one you crushed it so if if the if the motion is exactly as was published in the agenda you can move it as as stated in the agenda it's when we change it up that we have to read it into the record I moved to pass as stated in the agenda motion a second do you have a roll call on this one Alicia yes sir we do okay now Theresa just as a clarifying question are we voting on all five items as a group or do we need to vote on them individually because it's a Serial annexation let me

[162:03] actually let me see if hell is available hella with the serial annexation can we do can we do one vote since there's language in here that that the second annexation is contingent upon the first passing or would it be better um to take these motions one at a time you say if I would take them one at a time or at least um bunched together first the annexation of the Westerly portion and then after that passed the annexation of the Eastern limo portion because only the first annexation creates the contiguity for the second annexation thank you that's helpful thank you so I'd take them one at a time I'm sorry okay so uh Matt do you want to start over again with the first one I think you can just mention the resolution number

[163:03] I thought I had it easy you know okay let's see um I think I can just go from each one each number on down okay so I may I make a motion to approve as state of the agenda resolution 1317. [Music] second do you have a second a second motion a second do a roll call all right thank you council member wallet I'm sorry mayor Pro Tim wall Mark um yes councilmember wire yes Yates yes Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes volkerts yes friend yes Joseph yes and spear yes resolution 1317 is hereby approved unanimously

[164:03] next I'd like to make a motion to approve as stated in the agenda ordinance 85 50. second motion a second we'll start this roll call with councilmember Weiner yes yes Benjamin yes Brock mayor Bracken yes council member fogerts yes friend yes Joseph yes spear yes and mayor Pro Tim Wallace yes ordinance 8550 is here by adopted unanimously I'll keep going I make a motion to Pat Uh to pass as stated in the agenda um ordinance 85 53. I think we're at resolution 13 22. 13. oh I was just reading the ordinance 50 feet yeah sorry look redundant so sorry

[165:00] um all right I'll go back I make a motion to pass um as a as stated in the agenda resolution 1322. second motion is second we've got a roll call we'll start this road call with council member Yates yes Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes councilmember fogerts yes friend yes Joseph yes spear yes Mary Pro Tim Wallach yes and council member wine yes resolution 1322 is hereby approved unanimously all right continuing on I make a motion to pass as stated in the agenda ordinance 8553 second motion a second can we get a vote let's start with council member Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes councilmember fulcrates yes friend yes Joseph yes spear yes mayor

[166:04] Pro Tim Wallick yes councilmember weiner yes and councilmember Yates yes ordinance 8553 is here by adopt it unanimously and lastly I make a motion to approve as stated in the agenda and intergovernmental agreement between the city of Boulder and Boulder Valley School District number re2 second Motion in a second do a vote we'll start this roll call with mayor bracket yes councilmember falcon yes friend yes Joseph yes spear yes mayor Pro Tim Wallick yes councilmember weiner yes Yates yes and Benjamin yes the IG referenced in the uh the annexation agreement between the city of Boulder and the Boulder Valley School District is hereby improved unanimously

[167:00] all right well thanks to everyone who's worked so hard on this and I want to particular call it our partnership with the Boulder Valley School District appreciate all the hard work you've done and also to Habitat for Humanity and we look forward to working together on getting people in some great homes and teaching some students while we're at it with that we have one more public hearing item yes sir I was trying to catch my breath I know right our next item on tonight's agenda on the public hearings is item 5B it is the second reading and consideration of emotion to adopt Ordnance 8556 amending Title IX land use code BRC 1981 to update the use tables and use standards related to Industrial uses and districts and setting forth related details we're gonna go straight to the director of planning and development services Brad Miller thank you Nuria and uh good evening mayor and council members we are happy

[168:00] to bring forward this item to you this evening this is a project that has been five years in the making with an interruption because of covet but importantly I wanted to frame this just before we get into the details and there are a lot of details but just keeping in mind that the overarching goal in this is simplification of the code and that's something we know as a council value and one that we want to Advocate as well in terms of making the code accessible to the public and also practical for meeting the council's priorities there is a lot of detail and we even have some additional thoughts this evening on further simplification going back in just the last couple of weeks and augmenting the significant public input that's taking place over the five years regarding this so with those introductory comments I'm going to turn it over to Lisa Hood who's the project manager for this for the presentation thank you

[169:01] thanks Brad the planner and looking forward to a lengthy discussion or lengthy just getting you ready for some lengthy slides about these table and standards module 2 related to industrial areas we were last year in August at a study session and discussed this second module so I won't go too much into the background but for the overview of the presentation we'll do some background a few of those background slides talk about the public input that's been heard over the several years of this project as well as the last few months and then I there will be a fair amount of framing of the proposed changes in module two as well as the policy background so that is what is on a deck for tonight just a reminder that the use table was split into two phases and so phase one was adopted back in 2019 we're now undertaking phase two it's split into

[170:02] three different modules so the first module was the functional fixes the kind of technical updates that you all adopted back in June now we're in module 2 focused on industrial areas and then we have planned module 3 related to neighborhoods which would be coming next year the goals of the project since its outset back in 2018 have been to simplify and streamline this really important part of our land use code that's gotten very complex over time so trying to make it more predictable and certain for people that are using it as well as also trying to better align the use table with the Boulder Valley comp plan goals and policies and land use designations so really also part of it is identifying where there might be some gaps between what is desired in our comp plan and by our community and what our use table is currently allowing which businesses and types of Housing and things like that the project importantly does not include a few things so reassessing the

[171:00] comprehensive plan policies it's truly meant to be an implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan comprehensive plan is the result of many years of community conversations and elected official discussions and planning board meetings and things like that so not going back into what those comprehensive plans are plan policies are but rather the best way to implement those through the code also not this doesn't involve changes to things like the form and bulk standards like setbacks floor area ratio things like that or development standards like parking it really is focused on land uses and use standards just a reminder uh you have seen these slides several times we've talked about this project many times over the last few years so you saw it back in 2019 2020 June when you adopted the first module and then like I said we were here in late August with a study session where we talked about this for a while uh just a quick summary of the feedback that we've received from the council so far so when we talked about the

[172:00] industrial changes back in 2020 it was a bit more of a general discussion but there was support from the council for additional uses such as residential retail and restaurants in light industrial areas but also the council expressed a need to balance the protection of existing industrial uses while introducing new residential we got a little bit more specific in our more recent study session with you all back in August and the direction that was given from Council a few months ago was to was support for updating our current standards for residential development in industrial districts specifically if you remember we talked about the contiguity requirement getting rid of the continuity requirement and instead looking to sub community plan and comprehensive plan guidance on where residential would be appropriate council at that time did give the direction that they didn't think or you all didn't think it was appropriate for all industrial areas or sites to accommodate residential and that you'd like to see guard rails put in place to protect

[173:01] industrial uses in particular in is zones and then related to office uses the council gave direction that there was support to combine our professional office and Technical office designations but the that there still needed to be some restrictions on office in order to avoid displacing industrial uses and accelerating speculative office development I did want to go through the public input because this has been kind of a long-standing project nearly five years in the making so we've heard things back in 2019 and 2020 that continue to inform the discussion we had a questionnaire we also had this in pre-coveted times we even had open houses and booths and things like that where we discussed this project but also virtual questionnaires during the the height of the pandemic at that time the majority of respondents to

[174:00] these public engagement opportunities indicated that the city should consider allowing additional residential retail and restaurant uses in late industrial areas with the strongest support for restaurants than retail than residential we also had a planning board subcommittee that their detailed work continues to inform the changes in this use table project they met over 20 times the input continues to guide the project they developed areas of consideration for this project to include and they really did the the Deep work of line by line going through the use table and all of the columns to analyze what changes could be made to better align the use table with the comprehensive plan policies over the last year we've been doing additional public engagement as the project has kind of become more uh narrowed in spoke in scope specific in scope we actually decided to kind of re-envision that that planning board subcommittee into two different groups

[175:01] so we're meeting with the planning board a planning board liaison group so it's two members of the planning board where we can do that deep dive and we've met with them this Summer and also in October but because of the limitations of the planning board subcommittee it was fairly formal and the public couldn't directly interact we wanted a forum where there was much more opportunity for robust conversation from people with diverse perspectives so we we put together this use table and standards public working group so that's a group of about 20 different stakeholders residents business owners the Chamber of Commerce where we could discuss these changes for use tables both from the outset and then also as we would get more detail into drafting ordinances so we met with them in August and October of this year specifically talking about these proposed changes for the industrial areas we also had a virtual questionnaire on be heard Boulder that was in place from late August through mid-september I'll talk a

[176:01] bit about that more in later slides we've had regular updates to over 200 industrial business owners and other stakeholders where we've been keeping them apprised of the opportunities for public input and the process for adoption of this ordinance we have our planning and development services newsletter that goes out to over 5000 people which has had monthly updates the draft ordinance was released on October 12th because it goes to planning board before it comes to you all so at that point before the planning board public hearing then there was an updated draft that incorporated the planning boards minor changes related only to live work that was available on November 25th we've also had this promoted on social media the opportunity used for public hearings and things like that and then we as I mentioned we have the public hearing for planning board on October 18th so I mentioned I wanted to touch a little bit on the industrial areas questionnaire that the be heard Boulder

[177:00] questionnaire that we had in September we had 91 responses because we met for the study session before this questionnaire had been released that's why I want to do just a quick summary there's a much more detailed summary in your packet if you want to take a look at that I won't go through all the ways we promoted it but um very similar to what I said on the last slide uh so we asked people it's a pretty simple questionnaire we ask people how important is it to re to you to retain space for industrial uses in Boulder and uh it was pretty important it was a very important topic to respond in so about three quarters of people that responded to the questionnaire said it was either important or very important then we followed up with another question a question specifically about housing and we asked people if they agreed with the following statement that housing should be allowed in industrial areas the responses to this was much more mixed you can see there's about a little over half of people said that they would support or strongly or they agree or strongly agree and then about 35 percent said that they

[178:01] um are about about a third said that they disagreed or strongly disagreed so much more mixed results there we dug in a little bit more about housing and asked that if housing was allowed in industrial areas what would be the best way for the city to determine what areas or sites are appropriate for that and people said most people said close to supporting uses proximity to Transit case-by-case basis we got a lot of other really great additional feedback in that kind of other ideas section where people either supported supported or explained their disagreement for housing being allowed in industrial areas related to businesses in the industrial areas this one we threw out 25 different types of businesses and asked people what types of businesses do you think are appropriate in industrial areas so there's kind of two ways to look at this chart you can either look at the numbers above the bars and that's the number of

[179:01] people that said they thought it was appropriate but I think it's also helpful to kind of look at it in these different colored boxes because you can see that the the businesses that are in the green boxed over three quarters of people said they thought that that was appropriate in that middle at least half of people said that they thought those were appropriate in their opinion in industrial areas and then the gray box is kind of the lowest but still the lowest was more than a third so this was just really interesting and informative in what uh the the draft ordinance proposes so you can see in the green box the the most highly appropriate from the respondents includes research and development artist workshops manufacturing biotech Labs things like that then in that blue box that kind of midpoint retail stores physical therapists graphic design firms restaurants and then the kind of lower on the lower end are things like Law Offices hair salons and schools

[180:02] I mentioned the public working group that we've been meeting with and I did want to just highlight some of the discussions that we had once they reviewed the draft ordinance in October the discussion was really primarily focused on residential uses so some members of the working group expressed concerns about the proposal to prohibit residential in the is and IM zoning districts some even had concerns about requiring a use review requirement in IG so saying that it should just be allowed by right but then we also had the other side of several of the working group members also supported prohibiting residential uses in is and IM and requiring use review in IG so kind of mixed opinions there as well related to office we heard some concerns about the proposal to limit offices on the ground floor of buildings and then we had some good discussions about the best way to define art and craft Studios we heard some support for allowing

[181:02] private schools in industrial districts as well as live work units we've received public additional public feedback on the ordinance you all either receive those directly or through hotline before today there were also public comments that were attached to the memo if we got those before the point that that was published I won't go through these Point by point but just generally I would say that residential and office are the main topics that people either support or have concerns about um and and I did just want to highlight we got letters from the Chamber of Commerce as well as Holland and heart representing some Property Owners with concerns about residential and office and then finally related to public input on October 8th the planning board reviewed the proposed ordinance they unanimously passed their uh recommendation for Council to adopt the ordinance they did request some minor

[182:00] changes to the definition of live work units and where those were a lot how those were allowed and then also just some minor things about which policies are referenced in the memo so that's the public input um that we've heard so far look forward to hearing more tonight in the public hearing portion um I wanted to frame the proposed ordinance with a little bit of policy background we did go into this a bit during the study session but just as a reminder I wanted to highlight a few things so as you know there are generally three main areas where we have industrial zoning in Boulder so up in Gun Barrel in the East Boulder area and then there's a small area of industrial zoning in North Boulder on Broadway we have four industrial zoning districts is the Industrial Service District IG the industrial General I am industrial manufacturing and Industrial mix Services IMS

[183:00] um we did some additional analysis uh to try to understand what businesses are currently located are in industrial districts and it actually was very interesting um there's a lot more data attached to your memo if you want to dive in deeper but I just wanted to highlight the kind of three top these are the North American industry classification system codes so groupings for types of businesses but so these are the top three professional scientific and Technical Services manufacturing and wholesale trade so you can see some examples of those types of businesses our research and development computer systems design things like that in that first category in manufacturing there's pharmaceutical manufacturing navigational manufacturing and beverage manufacturing and yes beverage manufacturing does include beer um and then for wholesale trade that's things like bicycles climbing gear um things like that so this was just a way for us to understand what types of

[184:01] businesses are currently located in the industrial districts and then in regards to the policy so as I mentioned the one of the main goals of this project is to implement the comprehensive plan and make sure that it is aligned with what our use table is allowing so when we were looking at that we looked really specifically at this policy 2.21 related to light industrial areas and especially these three guiding principles in that green box so that's preserving established businesses and the opportunity for industrial businesses while also encouraging housing infill in appropriate places and offering a mix of uses so from the outset of undertaking this module to work we were looking at where the gaps might be in addition to everything we had heard through public input and as well as the public planning board subcommittee and everything we'd heard up to this point so when we're looking specifically at those those principles just some initial ideas for

[185:00] the gaps were that in regards to preserving established businesses and the opportunity for additional businesses we thought that the land use table could better support small-scale manufacturing arts and creative uses we noticed that there are some desired uses that have maybe an overly complex review process and then also the is the Industrial Service and I am industrial manufacturing districts currently allow residential use where the intent for them is really um uh probably more for service and Manufacturing and then for the encouraging housing infill and appropriate places as we talked about in the study session residential is only allowed with a use review and it's only in contiguous locations so in order for a parcel to be eligible for residential and Industrial or in the IG and IM at least they have to be contiguous to either residential zoning or residential uses or open space um so that does limit the parcels that are available and it kind of creates a scatter shot of which Parcels it's not a

[186:02] super logical approach um for that for determining eligibility um and then also again that the is and IM districts currently allow residential use where perhaps that might be a less appropriate zoning District finally offering a mix of uses this is a little more direct so retail is currently prohibited in all industrial districts restaurants are not permitted on major streets they require conditional use process similarly personal services are also prohibited so those are things like hair salons and bakeries and then mixed-use buildings have a higher level of review required than if it was just residential so we saw those as some pretty clear gaps to providing a mix of uses in industrial districts so thinking of all of that analysis that went into this as well as the public input we now have these proposed changes in ordinance 8556. we've uh written into

[187:00] the ordinance that this these changes would have an effective date of March 15th that's a bit longer timeline than we typically have for an ordinance to go into effect but we thought there needed to be a little bit more transition time for projects that are in process right now so that's the reasoning for that and I'm going to go through these proposed changes it's going to align pretty um closely with the summary handout that was provided in your packet but starting out with kind of the bigger topics and the topics that have been brought up through a lot of the public comment so I'm going to start and go through one by one so we'll start with residential just a reminder going back to that slide with that green box that policy 2.21 from the comprehensive plan related to light industrial it says that housing should occur in a logical pattern in proximity to existing and planned amenities it should be an area zoned industrial General IG not those zoned for manufacturing or service uses It also says that housing infill should

[188:01] be encouraged in appropriate places near other residential uses or Retail Services so in the proposed ordinance we have proposed prohibiting residential uses in the is and IM districts there is an exception that live work units would be allowed as a conditional use but all other residential uses would be prohibited and then in the IG District we would continue continue to require a use review for residential uses but would update the standard so these are very directly in line with the direction that was given in the August study session so removing that continuity requirement that we talked about in August and instead using the land use guidance from those adopted subcommunity or area plans to identify where the appropriate locations are for residential use uh while also removing some of the standards that exist currently so there's a minimum lot size of two acres and there's some unique form standards that overly complicate the residential development however we did recommend keeping the

[189:03] environmental assessment noise mitigation and a floor area exemption as well as continuing to require a declaration of use which is a legal document that essentially says that the owner and tenant have to acknowledge that they are a residential use in an industrial district so we think that with the proposed ordinance the result for residential is that housing is located in limited areas of IG zone property where it's determined appropriate through adopted plans and policies with those assurances retained for potential environmental and noise impacts I wanted to show just a little bit of how this would work based on the area plans and sub-community plans that we have adopted starting with the most recent the East Boulder sub-community plan so in the areas where the land use plan which each sub-community plan has identifies a land use that says that it's appropriate for residential any parcel that's zoned IG within those areas would be eligible for residential

[190:02] development so I've highlighted those in kind of the black dashed areas we do have some existing projects and mixed-use residential but I clarified in the hotline post that are already under development as well similarly Transit Village here's the land use plan from there so an example there's the office industrial kind of at that northeast corner it says specifically non-residential so Parcels within that would not be eligible for residential but these areas that have mixed use industrial or high density residential would be considered appropriate and therefore eligible for residential development The Gun Barrel Community Center plan also identifies areas for residential and Industrial mixed use and then in North Boulder there isn't actually IG zoning but I did just want to show that that also identifies residential and industrial areas so those are all the slides related to residential I will move next into office

[191:01] so the proposed changes for office uh really come out of the kind of code simplification intent of this project as well as implementing the part of that com the comprehensive plan policy that says to preserve industrial land for industrial uses so we talked about this at length in the study session the kind of Quirk that we have this professional office and Technical office and that's the way we've been implementing this policy over the last 25 years but that it's really challenging administratively from the city side and also property owners and business owners so this proposal is to establish a new strategy that can simplify that but also prevent the proliferation of offices in industrial districts since that was an issue that Council had raised and also planning board brought up as well since the change in combining them would make it more permissive for professional offices which are currently prohibited in industrial districts so the proposal is to limit the office size to 5000 square feet in is and IMS

[192:03] that's actually the current requirement for technical offices in the is District so expanding that to IMS and then in the IG and IM districts we're proposing to limit offices and I did want to clarify those are offices that are as a principal use so not an office that's accessory or part of a research and development use or industrial use but one that is purely office use so offices would be limited to only above the ground floor and only with a combined floor area maximum of 50 000 square feet on a lot acknowledging that there are many offices in the industrial districts we did include part of the ordinance that has flexibility for existing office space that would become non-conforming and this is a similar standard that we have actually in our business districts already right now just some explanation about where the those two uh ground floor and the maximum came from the East Boulder subcommunity plan identifies many Place

[193:01] types where office is appropriate above the ground floor so that was somewhere where that came from and then the combined size limit we did some floor area ratio analysis of the size of lots in industrial districts to understand how many would potentially be impacted and then we thought that the 50 000 square foot would ensure that larger sites in these industrial districts would need to preserve at least a portion of the site for industrial uses or research and development rather than entirely office so we think that the result with these changes to office would simplify a part of the code that is difficult to administer while still limiting the amount of any type of office allowed in industrial districts and keeping flexibility for existing offices Brad already mentioned that there we do think there are opportunities to further simplify that we can discuss as well related to research and development because it is another common use in our

[194:00] industrial districts but interestingly was not a defined use in our land use table we recommend updating a current medical laboratory definition to include more types of r d so it's not just specific about medical and that but use those same the same regulations that we have for those right now so allowing those in the same districts and limiting them in size in is and IMS instead of requiring a used review this is because there is significant comprehensive plan policy support for research and development uses it's it's actually part of the stated purpose of industrial districts it just was never identified as a line in the use table so the proposed definition for research and development specifically incorporates the offices that would be part of those research and development uses as well as warehousing and laboratory space some examples of r d could include industrial biotech Pharmaceuticals including that medical and medical and dental which is the

[195:02] current definition as well as computer or electronics and they would have to be engaging in product or process design prototyping things like that to be research and development so we think the result with these changes is that this common use is comprehensively defined in our land use code for the first time the language would better align with our comprehensive plan and the district but we would still be limiting the size in is to and IMS to preserve service industrial space promote pedestrian scale and then we would not have a size limit in IG and IM like we would for our office all right so those are kind of the big ones and then I still but I still want to highlight the other changes to different uses so I'll go a little bit more quickly through these so retail uses and personal services I mentioned that those are currently prohibited and we're really trying to encourage a mix of uses in these areas so we're recommending allowing these at a limited scale so they would have a maximum size of 2000 square feet they'd have to be in a building with other uses so because

[196:01] the intent is that they're serving other existing uses in the area similarly the restaurants would also be required to be in a building so it's not just kind of a standalone restaurant but it would be serving those other office users or residential use nearby for restaurants we're also recommending that they be allowed by right instead of needing a conditional use I mentioned there's complex standards with restaurants so simplifying those but still keeping some hours of operation and then giving an option for use review otherwise so some flexibility if they can't quite meet the standards they would be able to go through that process live work units that's a current use in our code but it was fairly restrictively defined so the rec the recommendation is to update the definition to include commercial uses as the work function instead of just industrial uses and then allow them in most of our mixed-use downtown business and high density residential districts in the industrial districts the

[197:01] recommendation is to make those conditional uses this was the the main point that I mentioned that planning board added to their recommendation so they would be require a conditional use in industrial districts and they would have to meet this requirement of 50 of the building would have to be devoted for non-residential floor area related to private schools we're recommending allowing private schools in igim and IMS with a use review and also allowing private colleges in IMS so kind of aligning the way that schools are allowed in the industrial districts indoor athletic facilities those are gyms we have a lot of gyms come in and need a use review because there's no there like any size gym has to get a use review so in order to support those small businesses that we know are located in industrial districts and simplify the process we're recommending allowing small facilities so those that are under 5 000 square feet to be

[198:00] allowed without a use review and there would be a use review option for larger gyms breweries Wineries and distilleries this one's just a simplifying and consolidating what now takes up probably three pages of code with all these just tiny differences between districts so the only substantive change in doing that consolidation is that the is would have a district limit um or a size limit of 15 000 square feet without a used review but really that was intended to simplify a overly complex part of the code finally we have updated definitions and names so uh the art or craft studio we've recommended renaming Art Studio or Workshop that is intended to reflect what that use is really um supposed to be like uh crafts people and things like that but the name didn't really show that that's what it was so I'm just trying to better reflect what that's intended to do similarly just updating and generalizing to Media production for that other the

[199:01] other facilities and then we're recommending changing manufacturing use and Manufacturing use with potential off-site impacts to light manufacturing and general Manufacturing um and then remove removing a few uses or definitions we have a use called an industrial service center which we've only had one property ever develop under that use type and the intent there is really to allow a mix of uses within a building so the other changes that we're we're proposing would actually allow those uses so we would no longer need that use classification as well as removing some unused definitions some other cleanup things so I made it through each step there are some additional changes there's an annotated version of the proposed ordinance if you had any other questions but those are kind of the the main changes to the specific business types and housing types um I do have this slide just with like a summary of all of the topics that I've gone over um I will just highlight that the residential uses and offices are the

[200:01] topics that have come up most in the public comment as you've probably seen and so the ones that we would probably recommend for additional discussion and then I can keep this up just as a reminder if that's helpful um but I've gotten to the end of my presentation and I'm happy to take any clarifying questions is comprehensive and well explained appreciate that and uh boy a huge amount of work has gone into this over many years for many people and just extremely appreciative for all of that so uh questions for staff and then we'll go to the public hearing I got Tara this is probably planning 101 so I apologize if I'm asking simplistic questions but my first question is is I do not remember I know there was a reason why we said no office space on bottom floors can you remind me what that was because that was a lot of the subject of the letters yeah so as I mentioned the East Boulder sub community plan does identify some areas where it's

[201:01] appropriate to only have office above the ground floor and so it's really coming out of that primarily but also the assurance that if there is space devoted for industrial use at least on the ground floor then we wouldn't be losing those industrial uses on those properties so that's the that's the reasoning behind the ground floor requirement what did that not make it easier for me well because I don't I don't know that we asked for that specifically I think this was designed in response to some more General feedback yeah I think I think it was um council member folkerts who brought it up as an example um so we looked into that during the after the discussion yeah okay I'll ask I'll call you later Eric just tell me why I'm sure there's a great reason but why can't there be a standalone restaurant in this in the industrial zones I think the intent and it's it's uh similar to the intent of

[202:00] some of the more complex standards for restaurants right now is that a restaurant is really not intended to be like a destination in the industrial districts for outside of the industrial districts it's meant to serve the uses that are within those industrial districts so in being Incorporated within those buildings with other uses um that better serves the uses because you're nearby other like industrial or office uses in the way the ordinance is drafted an applicant could request to be a standalone restaurant with a use review application right any other questions oh we got one for Mark um what is the thinking behind the processing of raw materials as a um differentiator between light and general manufacturing and this is something I've heard from some of the people in Flatiron Park they use raw materials but they're you know they're not heavy

[203:00] manufacturing operations they're basically Life Sciences research yeah I think so that's kind of a common practice in um like differentiating between light manufacturing and heavy or heavier manufacturing what we're calling General manufacturing uh to focus on those bad use of raw materials I think that we were trying to create some more specificity on what where that line is between light and general um to better support those light manufacturing uses because General manufacturing is very restricted in our city so it's prohibited in every District except ignim where it needs a use review and So currently we have manufacturing use and Manufacturing use for potential for off-site impact which is pretty ambiguous the potential for off-site impact and then you have to do a use review to determine what those impacts might be so we were trying to give an example of raw material so I think I put in the hotline post what we were thinking like Tire manufacturing leather tanning things like that that

[204:01] would inherently have a greater impact um so that's why we tried to use that specific example good well I just have a follow-up but when you're Miracle follow up so uh you the answer that you provided was was really helpful and so it's like Tire manufacturing clearly you know goes in that General but one thing I was wondering about is would there be people who did this at a very low level like occasionally combined raw materials to into dough to bake cookies that might be caught up in this is there like a minimum threshold the where you'd have to meet we haven't worked that there's not a minimum threshold it does say predominantly uses uh raw materials that food manufacturing is not the intent of we would not intend that food manufacturing would fall into General manufacturing that would be like manufacturing but don't they involve combining processing raw materials yeah I think the the term raw materials would be like directly from the Earth like the

[205:02] I don't know how time like gas to make tires things like that um leather tanning directly from an animal something like that if that makes sense okay thanks my my to follow that up my my question is that um it's not clear to me that the differentiator that you're proposing won't snare some some operations that cannot really be considered manufacturing or heavy manufacturing and again I'm looking at the a a drug company trying to develop a vaccine how are they going to be specifically assured that they're not part of the heavy manufacturing restrictions I know what the intent is and I agree with the intent but most people want to have fairly clear language to know that they're not non-compliant and so how will that drug company be assured that they are in

[206:02] compliance even though they are doing research with raw materials and that was something that we saw as kind of a best practice common practice around other communities in differentiating between light and general manufacturing so if there are other ways that we can support um drawing a clearer line between the two that is the intent so I'm not sure where the line ought to be but I I know this there's concern in the business Community about where the line is and and so yeah um I think Matt would like to chime in on that yeah could I just call a Quee on that you may call a queen thank you it kind of comes down to the I I'm wondering if the question is the differentiator rather than the input the output with regards to raw materials and I sort of think of could the output meaning be like are we dealing with harmful emission are we dealing with uh

[207:00] byproducts that are harmful versus the input of earth materials may not necessarily be harmful in any way like again to use Aaron's analogy you're using wheat which comes from the earth I.E flower so they could get caught in but the output is is of harmless it's steam so so my point is I wonder if we don't focus on the raw input but what the output is and what that be a differentiator of what kind of raw material really does transition to a different threshold versus what what isn't and I'm wondering if that helps us find a different differentiator so things that we don't want to get caught up won't because their outputs are intrinsically um harmless or or benign and so I'm just I'm just thinking of what could be a different temperature so I just want to know if that's a possibility to allow us to move in that direction without having to Scuttle the the raw material or this Pro where you're headed as a whole so I'm just sort of throw that out there as a offering yeah I think that could definitely be something that works that current def or the proposal uh specifies that light manufacturing results in a

[208:00] finished product so maybe that's something to build off of there related to the output yeah anyway just food for thought discussion to continue on the baking analogy um just two other quick questions um on page nine of the memo of the three characteristics that define Industrial General and Industrial Manufacturing two of them are identical and and so I'm I'm kind of questioning why we have two separate um categories when they're only differentiated in a very small way you're referring to the district purposes uh page nine of the memo I don't know if it's a purpose is uh uh it says industrial General professional scientific and Technical Services manufacturing and wholesale trade I think that's one of the primary

[209:00] differences between IG and IM is that IG tends to allow a broader array of uses than I am I am is more focused on where you might see more manufacturing versus other uses yeah and if I yeah if I could just add that part of the memo is actually talking about the North American industry classification system so it's saying which businesses are located in those districts so I was just trying to highlight that there are what which businesses are most common in which district and my last question is do you have an acreage account or breakdown of the various industrial districts how large is I am how large is IG how large is is I don't have it on me tonight but we can easily get those numbers how can you not have it on YouTube is that possible I have many numbers if you get a chance it would be interesting to know what we're looking at thank you thanks

[210:01] great any other questions not seeing any we can move to our club I have no questions oh Lauren sorry stranded over there on the virtual um so you mentioned a little bit the flexibility for um non-conformity in office space use um could you provide a little bit more detail about what kinds of flexibility um sorry I'm sick so I'm having depends keeping my train of thought um in terms of when you have a non-conforming office use what kind of flexibility does the city allow sure thanks for the opportunity to clarify that so in a typical non-conforming use anytime you swap out even a tenant you would have to go through a change of non-conforming use review with the city the flexibility that we've worked into this this ordinance is that changing minor things like that like changing out tenants or owners would not have to go through that

[211:00] non-conforming use review they would still be considered a non-conforming use but doing those minor changes within the existing floor area where there was office wouldn't have to go through that use review if they were to expand in any way then they would have to go through the non-conforming use review what if it wasn't an expansion but a modification to the space um would like for something that they were required to pull a permit for would they be able to get that permit they would so minor changes within existing floor area would not require the additional review thank you thanks you said it Lauren I won't I want to call it we um Lauren's comment a question um what about a company that leases a building and its uses change or your the Holland and heart letter was concerned with this

[212:00] um you manufacture a a vaccine and you've you've developed it you then do manufacturing elsewhere and you bring in a bunch of marketing people in that space and then you later bring in a bunch of attorneys to deal with patent issues I mean what was impressed upon me was that these are fluid situations and that landlords need some assurance that they're not suddenly going to be in violation of of city ordinances as they handle the space with that kind of fluidity where where you know it's a a chain of events and maybe it starts with one type of use evolves to another and there's a lot of concern about that understood and yeah that has been a um a common theme of several of the public comments and I think that it has been Illuminating the examples that they've

[213:00] given and the complexity of commercial Leasing and so that's why we did want to highlight that this is something we want to discuss further and that potentially what's proposed tonight might be um there might be simple simpler Solutions than what's proposed in the ordinance thank you great Lauren did you have anything else um no I'm okay for the moment thank you all right well now I think we can move to the public hearing then all right we've got uh three people signed up in person six people signed up virtually um everyone will have three minutes to speak and we are going to start with our former planning board chair Dave enzyme and then have Stephen Eckert and Jonathan singer well hello good evening members of city council and City staff um it's exciting to be here I'm Dave Ensign and for like Aaron said former uh planning board member and resident of Boulder and this is the first time addressing you since the completion of my five-year term and I'm excited to be

[214:00] here to talk to you about uh ordinance 8556 as Lisa covered really well there are the history of this goes back to 2018 and actually when Carl and I are the two people in the room who actually go way back to the beginning the insights from a group of detail-oriented I might even say geeky community members come in through use tables and standards is not only resulted in the module one uh functional fixes that were adopted but also informed other parallel initiatives that impact use standards such as addressing opportunity zones grappling with ground floor uses in neighborhood centers and of course developing the East Boulder sub community plan uh this ordinance that addresses module 2 reflects the achievement of an important milestone in the project hopefully you've had a chance to look at the email comments I sent to Council on December 5th I won't repeat all those comments but we'll try to highlight tweaks that you might want to consider to the ordinance

[215:01] regarding allowing residential in industrial zones happily I found out today because somehow I got removed from hotline but uh there was a message from mayor Brockett sent out on Tuesday prompting Lisa to offer up some options that directly address the concerns I outlined in my email I believe the options that Lisa provided satisfy the tweaks I would recommend so I'll just quickly cover them uh the first option is to preserve the current allowances for residential in is zones this makes sense to me since I don't really recall the use table sub community community identifying a pressing need to affect the current allowances NIS zoning areas that are covered by an existing sub-community plan it makes sense for guidance from the plan to drive the decision on whether residential is appropriate so for example the East Boulder subcommunity plan guidelines would apply to is sellings within its boundaries a dash in the table though would

[216:01] prohibit that possibility in the subcommunity plans the second option is to largely preserve the youth standards for both IG and IM zones that are located outside of the subcommunity plan boundaries and to apply the subcutane plan guidelines with when those zones are within the boundaries of a plan I think the option this option is the best way to assure that we don't inadvertently remove the possibility for needed residential inappropriate places if city council chooses to go forward with these options my assumption is that the table 6-1 would remain kind of as it is without replacing the A's and the U's in Brackets with dashes and the 9.6.3 would be enhanced so with that I will thank you for your support and look forward to module 3 work in 2023 Dave and thanks for all your great work on this over the years now Stephen Eckert and then Jonathan singer uh Stephen Eckert and I am

[217:02] down and I I used to be a former member of Boulder housing Partners so I just want to say thank you for this work and we said what you guys have done for five years this is great um it really is modernizing mixed-use development that you know Boulder can can do in my two hats of working in Boulder housing Partners opening up housing in the zone is going to be a game changer I mean it's it's going to provide so many more opportunities for for BHP and other housing developers to provide housing um and what that really envisions you know is a place where potentially people could live there they can walk out their door walk to bring their kids to an independent school not a private school um go to the independent school drop their kids off go to work at their high tech prototype company

[218:01] go out to lunch with colleagues go pick up their kids from the independent school and then go back to their housing all without getting in their car which is you know sort of a big intent in one of these you know in in this process so I'm very excited about that I think it's going to be really a game changer um the other hat I wear as an architect we've been doing a lot of work for Independent Schools and I want to encourage the council to take a look at one of the things in this provision which is requiring a use review still within this process currently Public Schools do not have to go through a use review in these zones so I want to know why we would require Independent Schools to do the same thing um being on a place where we're sure where the rubber hits the road in terms of costs for these schools it becomes a real barrier in terms of purchasing the

[219:01] property having to go through due diligence period which includes a used review and that adds a ton of time that a lot of these schools can't afford they can't hang on to a property for a year year and a half two years they gotta buy it and move in quickly so I encourage you to take a look at that and perhaps you know we can remove some of those restrictions and not have a use review and just let the current uh rules apply um and uh and take a look at the definition because a modern definition is independent school not private school so that's all I have to say thank you thanks Stephen Jonathan singers our last in-person commentator thank you mayor and city council my name is Jonathan singer I am the senior policy program director with the boulder Chamber of Commerce and uh you're gonna hear from some other folks tonight I know uh online but what I wanted to uh

[220:00] make is is a carpentry reference actually when we think about what we're doing here today building a better community we want to measure twice and cut once right and so we've built a great process thanks to the work that Carl Lisa Charles and Brad have done as well as the work that planning board has put forth but when Penn finally came to paper there were a few outstanding things that you've heard about today so I want to thank council member Wallach and Weiner and mayor Brockett for bringing up some of those concerns today the less or lessee concerns what's happening with definitions of raw materials the exclusion of affordable housing or housing for from certain land use designations all of those things can be resolved probably not tonight and so before you take final action I want you to measure twice on those issues at the same time I want to make sure we don't lose the forest through

[221:00] the trees because staff has done an exemplary job of committing to public Outreach and they've done an even better job over the last week and a half working with industrial property owners and manufacturers listening to those concerns understanding that all those details could not have been pounded out in the last week so um I won't repeat anything but I do want to bring up a couple of other specific options or specific items here um we've talked about the prohibition of office use on ground floor the removal of residential uses um but the other thing that I want to bring up is this is uh there's a lot of non-profits that can't afford to locate in places other than Industrial so when you think about this I don't want you to be thinking just about your major pharmaceutical companies your manufacturing but also our mom and pop and larger non-profits that are looking

[222:02] to do the right thing and save money for their donors and provide a community service um and locate within an area that's more affordable so with all those things being said I know that um you know last time I spoke about the city budget I said a budget is a moral document the use table is a table and so let's measure twice and make sure that table is on even footing and we look forward to working with staff and coming together before you take final action to do the right thing the whole way through thank you for your time and I look forward to the conversation thank you Jonathan all right now we're going to go to our virtual speakers I understand that the third uh speaker Jennifer Rhodes is not present but our so our next three speakers will be Lynn Siegel Kelsey Hunter and Rosie fivion oh you're in person well um in that case Jennifer I would just invite you to come up right now and finish out our in-person speakers and then we'll go to the virtual ones

[223:03] on the agenda so I'm actually speaking about 8430 again and um support of my my parent group uh to be clear could you pull the microphone down sorry uh is in favor of an oversight panel for the police department an unbiased panel under city ordinance 8430 the qualifications for serving on the police oversight panel include one an absence of any real or perceived bias Prejudice or conflict of interest and two an ability to build working relationships and communicate effectively with diverse groups we also believe in the First Amendment but free speech often contains bias but it's not but it's not only what is on Twitter Miss Sweeney Moran's participation in the lawsuit against the city and Harold is a blatant conflict of interest which would lead to the inability to address matters coming before BPD the oversight panel in an unbiased manner removing her name from the suit recently is mere proof of

[224:01] bias and does not change overnight through her position as bbsd board member Lisa has also shown that she is incapable of building relationships with groups that may have different viewpoints than her own her behavior has often in times in direct violation of bvsd code of conduct and several complaints have been filed with bvsd legal in response a decision to approve Lisa Sweeney Moran's nomination would be in direct contravention of city ordinance 8430 as well as Boulder's stated Community Values of respect integrity and collaboration it would also undermine Community Trust and confidence in the work of the police oversight panel as well as the decisions of this city council given the conflicts of interest personal Twitter account statements ethics concerns and questionable treatment of other community members we urge the selection committee to disqualify her as a candidate for the police oversight panel thank you Jennifer I mean we are

[225:00] currently on the use tables public hearing but your comments are duly noted um so back to potentially use table commentators we're going to our remotes now and they are first three ones are Lynn Siegel Kelsey Hunter and Rosie Vivian after the sombrero March Marsh discussion that you had tonight and your vote I have no confidence in any one of you I hope you are never elected again I I hate to say that but that was the same issue let's come in here now with use tables okay and the way it's connected is it's all about affordable housing now what's interesting is that Stephen

[226:00] the architect was describing how sorry I'm sick too Lauren um how the um the youth tables linear fading in and out I'm here I'm trying to to provide being sick and make my discussion too and that is that the architect said that the people that are going to be using this housing appear to be upper end techies

[227:01] that are going to take their kids to the independent school which I imagine is not a public school that is free and although it's not private it's some other entity that High income earners would be taking their kids to um I've listened to the east Boulder sub community issues of equity inclusion and the people that are minorities do not want to be in industrial zones this speaks to the fact that there aren't industrial Zone components in my neighborhood on the margin of Mapleton Hill or in most other Boulder besides Gun Barrel North Boulder and East Boulder sub-community and the the discussion that Jonathan had

[228:03] about non-profits the illusion that non-profits are a good thing for our economy the illusion that lie Tech funds are a good thing for the economy the illusion that opportunity zones are a good thing for the comedy for the for the um economy are not true that well they're good for the economy they're good for growth and that's the problem that we're now having to deal with Lynn your time is up thank you for your comments now we have Kelsey Hunter Rosie fivian and Mark painter foreign my name is Kelsey Hunter I'm director of development for biomed Realty here in Boulder biomed reality we exist to support the Innovation economy with real estate capital and operating expertise we help our customers Advance the next

[229:00] generation of drugs Technologies and Therapeutics and we operate in a space that is evolving rapidly as it creates the future blurring traditional boundaries between Tech and biotech chemistry and math Ai and medical devices we're very fortunate to be service providers to this wonderful Confluence of Industries and to have so many Dynamic engines of innovation here in the United States as well as here locally in Boulder we're relatively new to Boulder as of last year and sincerely appreciate appreciate the positive reception we've received from Council staff and the community here as well the proposed ordinance has a lot of Welcome change that will strengthen the industrial Zone and that we are supportive of such as the amenities with expanded possibilities this is a great addition to any Innovation district and we look forward to building on this immediately also a clearer definition of r d that will give our customers regulatory certainty and the confidence to invest in the future right here in Flatiron Park we would however like to bring to your

[230:01] attention a few unanticipated side effects with this ordinance these are further articulated in two letters dated November 30th and December 13th that have been sent to council primarily accessory use needs accessory use needs to be construed broadly as it relates to r d users so they can evolve and change the way they operate over time without failing without falling out of compliance with the zoning ordinance many of these r d companies are focused on confidentiality and keeping their Trade Secrets and if the ordinance is written in a way that requires users to disclose disclose their internal operations we worry that users will elect to go elsewhere we do believe our goals here are aligned on this issue but wording of the ordinance needs further refinement to achieve the shared goal in addition while we do appreciate the non-r D office use restrictions and are appreciative of the efforts to strike the balance between historical uses and the future desire to preserve industrial uses the first the first floor

[231:01] prohibition seems to be overly restrictive given that many buildings in the affected areas only have a single floor with the majority of others having two floors Max so this restriction will create challenges that we believe we do believe can be alleviated while still achieving the city's goals here we believe that further discussion is critical before passage of these changes in order to ensure that the changes fully addressed and balance the goals of the city and the needs of the research and development Community we're very fortunate to be in this industry and sit at the cost of innovation here in Boulder and we sincerely appreciate the ongoing engagement we have had with city council thank you very much for the opportunity to speak tonight thank you thank you Kelsey now we have Rosie Vivian Mark painter and Jordan bunch

[232:09] let's see where's the iceberg microphone is open you'll just need to unmute I'm sorry uh good evening my name is Rosie fivian I agree with David ensigned I know that he's been involved working through the details of this project for years I'm also on the use table working group but speaking for myself tonight I believe it's important now and for Boulder's future to keep our housing options open in the industrial zones we're in a housing crisis earlier I emailed emailed you all an article from The sightline Institute entitled our outdated housing our outdated Notions of industrial areas hiding a giant Housing Opportunity the article highlights the taxi project in Denver as an example as well as projects in Seattle and Portland

[233:00] we we could have Creative Solutions such as these here too David has suggested simple edit edits to accomplish allowing housing without delaying the years-long effort by many talented people and staff had suggested options to allow housing to remain in response to our Mayor's Hotline questions that I hope Council will consider adopting tonight thanks Rosie now Mark painter and then finally Jordan bunch could you hear me okay yes my system doesn't work all the time good good uh good evening mayor Brockett and Council Members Mark painter from Holland and heart I'm speaking tonight on behalf of several industrial property clients including biomed Realty which as you know owns the majority of the buildings in plan Arts Business Park first and foremost I do want to acknowledge and it's been said a lot tonight councils and planning staff's work on this

[234:00] ordinance the new r d definition in particular and many other changes and expanded permitted uses help with Clarity and predictability in many areas but if the intent is simplification of the code for users not everything under this ordinance yet works as intended and the stakeholders need some time to work with the city staff further to get this important and complex ordinance right in those last respects we responded to a request this week from staff for examples and hypotheticals as you know and those are in our letter in your packet also in your packet is a red line showing suggested changes to the ordinance I I know staff hasn't had time to deal with those requested examples and that's fine it sounds like these will be responding to those and we appreciate that very much if there was a law in the process and I think it was innocent if it was a plot it was that while there may have been focus in other groups four months ago none of the stakeholders saw the actual ordinance or staff memo until less than a week before the planning board hearing

[235:01] and then a significantly modified version of the ordinance was published less the week before council's first reading questionnaires ask questions don't reveal how the city will ultimately draft a very complex ordinance so when you're seeing the ordinance for the first time it may not meet with what happened during the public input and hurting that ordinance through once drafted can kind of defeat the purpose of getting the Public's input in the first place uh those who are aware of the new ordinance are still scrambling to absorb the long memo and evaluate all the ordinances impacts on their different tenants scrambling usually doesn't result in good planning results more crucially notwithstanding staff's presentation regarding Outreach there's still a lot of stakeholders who aren't aware of this ordinance as we noted in our submittals to you the ordinance impacts both existing leases and future tenants large and small who need certainty before committing on a long-term lease many Boulder commercial tenants a fast evolving entrepreneurial

[236:02] businesses as their businesses succeed their space needs them all they need to know if that evolving use is going from a lawful principle r d use with accessory office to something the city will will view is unlawful office that takes the property over the 50 000 foot threshold they need to know that in advance they need to know in advance whether their use will qualify for being on the first floor now or through an expansion rate later we know planning staff has already stretched thin and without further Clarity in this kind of language The New Normal will be constant calls to staff to opine in advance as to whether a use will or won't violate the ordinance the new rules need to be easily interpretable without bothering City staff constantly smart Mark your your time is up all right thank you thank you thanks for your comments uh Jordan Bunch you're your last one

[237:03] all right good evening can you hear me yes great um thank you I'm Jordan Bunch also with Han and heart um and I'd like to follow up Mark's presentation with um a discussion of some of the specific provisions of the ordinance um first we've proposed removing the prohibition against locating office on the ground floor like in other Zone districts where this prohibition exists to create a pedestrian experience in this case it is not driven by a particular public policy it only exists to help limit office use in the industrial Zone and unfortunately this creates a multitude of unintended consequences and will harm property owners in the industrial Zone uh for example first it will unnecessarily create non-conforming uses while some of the existing Ground Floor Tech offices will fall under the new r d definition that's not the case for for all of them and it also hurts owners of

[238:00] single-story buildings there are a number of single-story buildings in this Zone that would be ideal for office because they were not designed for a traditional industrial use nor retail use second with respect to the square footage cap of 50 000 square feet for office we believe that the majority of concerns with this limitation can be addressed through the definition of accessory use which we've proposed to modify slightly often often as businesses grow and change they try to move different operations into the same general area given the nature of the industrial zones and the large business parks that are located within those zones we believe that limiting accessory use to the same building or even the same lot will prove too restrictive for example does it make sense that an r d company could have twenty five thousand square feet of accessory office on the same lot as it as its industrial use but if that same company could only find the space it needs for its office use on the next block over on a different lot that

[239:00] would be considered regular office and not entitled to the same first floor or square footage rights and we believe the answer to that question is no that does not make sense um finally um with respect to um non-conforming uses and grandfathered rights as written rights are grandfathered in if the use is quote legally established before the adoption date of the ordinance which as mentioned earlier will be March 15 2023 but what about a party who's already signed the lease two months ago um but the space won't be ready until April 2023 because they're doing a tenant improvements or what about an existing lease that has the right of expansion in 2024 to take office space on a first floor would those be considered legally established uses by the city those are really important question that we need answers because they are both most definitely legally enforceable rights by the landlord and tenant and if the tenant isn't going to get what it bargained for because of a change in law there's a very real risk of disputes and

[240:01] lawsuits between landlords and tenants um has been noted we want this to be a dynamic area that can attract um r d companies and we look forward to working with staff on this matter thank you thanks Jordan right um that wraps up public testimony so we should probably do a time check here we're getting to 950 we've got uh we obviously we're gonna need to um no that's and that's off by an hour it's 9 50. um so uh we're going to want to wrap this one up and we still have the check-in on County committee assignments and potential selection criteria for Library District Board of Trustees are we feeling like we can do all three of these things tonight or should we maybe take one of them off the table or quick opinions just do it I'm seeing some nodding heads here all right we got a whole extra hour isn't that

[241:01] exciting okay so we'll we'll attempt to do that we'll see how the um the changes go through um yes you would please just officially close the public hearing I now officially close the public hearing thank you did I get that right yes very good um okay so uh now we'll bring it back to council for discussion I'm actually going to get us started with it just a potential path uh forward here so I'm hearing a lot of con questions and maybe some potential areas for change uh from the current ordinance and I'm thinking maybe rather than attempt to um Wordsmith ordinance changes tonight what we might consider doing is give feedback to staff for areas to modify and potentially continuing the hearing so they could come back to us with some suggestions on how to implement that feedback how do people feel about that General approach I'm I'm seeing nodding heads so how about we tackle that and um take

[242:00] that approach if that works works out for staff as well great and then so what I'm going to do is I've I'd like I have categories that I think we probably want to address I I've got a few and people can add more one of them is the Rules for residential in the industrial zones uh one of them is the the office restrictions and another is the light and general industrial definitions and then the Independent Schools there we go um any other categories people would like to tackle tonight seeing none we can you can come back to one if you want uh maybe we can take those in order residential in industrial zones does anybody want to offer an initial thought on that topic I mean I have thoughts but I don't want to I don't want to dominate the conversation okay I'll get it started so you know per my per my hotline I was concerned that the additional restrictions would eliminate too many opportunities for

[243:01] residential in a town that obviously needs substantially more housing so I really appreciated your answers so thank you for that and so there were some good ideas in there as well um you know and I think that in terms of where sub communities guide us in this matter I think the East Boulder subcommunity plan newly adopted gives us great guidance on this but I feel like the North Boulder subcommunity plan the gun barrel plan are a little old to give us really precise guidance areas so I might look at still allowing residential in is and IG um and then I think potentially the East bowler subcommunity plan could control but I would I would not necessarily look to the other ones to add additional controls so if we still allowed them you know maybe we take away the contiguity requirements and the you know you had a proposal for maybe how to approach that so that's the direction I'd be interested in seeing us go and that was Dave and son I thought expressed that

[244:00] well I think he more or less said that and so that seemed like a potential path forward what thoughts yeah so we could one of the alternatives are what I had described in the hotline was that currently we're proposing just the IG zoning District would be determined by sub-community plan you could expand that and say IG and IM or and also is if that was your desire uh would be um fall under subcommunity plans maybe just East Boulder it sounds like maybe you'd want to specify only East Boulder subcommunity plan and then in the other areas of the city with industrial zoning we would still use contiguity if we were to keep that continuity requirement I would still recommend removing some of the other restrictions that we're recommending like the lot area requirement the minimum lot size um sorry and to be clear wasn't necessarily saying we should keep the consequity requirement I think you're proposing potentially removing that I'm open to that personally you know I don't

[245:02] people Lauren's nodding you haven't seen some nods here about potentially removing that okay Lauren did you have an additional comment there um and I'm sorry I'm sick so my ability to keep track of igis and IM are a little fin at the moment but um I also want to make sure that because I do think especially with the East Boulder sub-community plan Our intention is to have some housing and the way you get you know the way we ask for what we want is by allowing it by right so I just want to make sure that there is some housing in those areas you know particularly where um it aligns with the East Boulder sub-community plan and where we want housing that we are considering that by right and not everything is through review

[246:00] okay noted additional comments mark yeah I would want us to be very very cautious about residential in an is district and it's just a matter of really development economics the buildings in an is District tend to be lower rent one story small dilapidated but they're housing very critical services for the community if you permit housing there you will get housing there because it is a much more profitable Enterprise to raise those businesses those buildings evict the businesses and build housing it's just economically Superior and so if it is our goal to maintain that sector of our industrial Community the light businesses the family businesses the you know solo entrepreneurs I think

[247:00] you have to be very careful about this one of the reasons I asked about the breakdown in acreage of the various zones is to see if um it may not make sense to exclude is because it may not be that large and I think generally in terms of the pro Parkway industrial district when you turn left off of uh Pearl none of those businesses will survive if you can put housing there it can't and so you know we have different values we need to to balance here one is obviously we want to promote some appropriate infill and residential but the other is if we want to keep that sector of the industrial Community vibrant you've got to give them a little more protection against being thrown out raised and and redeveloped as housing that's that's a council choice but I would advocate for at least in the is zones being very careful and

[248:01] about the residential opportunity there the rest of the industrial sector I feel less much less strongly about I just wanted to maybe follow up on that Mark I understand the point about it you go wholesale to residential it'll the economics may just squeeze everybody out um I appreciate that and I'm I in its current proposal and Forum because I've now heard it so many different ways um I'm going to anchor on what it currently is or the proposal it it would be currently prohibited in is correct so the current the the current regulations not the proposed Ordinance do allow uh residential and is above the ground floor The Proposal tonight is to prohibit them entirely in is prohibit residents okay I appreciate that so I'm wondering if because I mean housing housing housing right I think that's the clear kind of mandate from this body I would I would say if I could speak on that behalf so what about use review

[249:02] being a conditional way in which we can be sensitive to some of that but be deliberate with where it goes in versus outright prohibition versus outright like no holds bar what if there's a way to allow con that way to sort of we can get it where we want it but we have at least a throttle to make sure it's not binary on or off with regards to housing in that area well one of the that's a possibility but one of the reasons I've asked for the the different zones in terms of acreage let's understand what we're disagreeing on is it 10 acres out of the entirety of the industrial zone is at 100 acres if it is a relatively small portion of the industrial Zone I would feel comfortable stating that this can be an exception to housing housing housing because we also have an interest in preserving services for our community if it's 70 percent of the industrial Zone then we can talk about guard rails and

[250:01] where it's appropriate and where it might not be um so I I think that's the way to look at it let's see what we are talking about before we make um final decisions so we have a map up there if somebody wants to get a protractor sorry I was just going to say sorry we don't have the actual acreage but if you look at the map the teal areas are is so you can see in North Boulder it's mostly is and then around Pearl Parkway as you mentioned and then the gray is IG and the purple is IM so that gives you uh just gives you I'm sorry it's not the actual numbers but it gives you a visual clue that is definitely the least um the least land area of industrial other than IMS which we only have a few Parcels of thanks that's that's helpful Lauren did you have a comment we'll save it yeah I think um

[251:02] I forgot I'm sorry sorry it's hard to be sick and be at a council meeting you can come back to it so I I mean I think there are good points here I mean the in uh having Service Industrial uses for the community is important right so what maybe there's some additional guardrail on is maybe it's enough to be used to review but it is I would say it's worth looking at is maybe a little differently but I still wouldn't prohibit it personally oh I remember ah there she is um and I think also you know when uh one of the things that I hear a lot about is sort of the parking lots in the industrial Zone and so you know are there ways creative ways that we could allow for infill without um jeopardizing the industrial area that we currently have and I don't know what the answer to that is but I just I feel like it's worth a

[252:00] little bit more thought in terms of how we might allow residential to complement existing uses maybe that's a comment ways to allow development in parking lots rather than raising existing buildings if I understood more incorrectly good enough on residential Industrial so we have there's is that sufficient guidance in that area I think maybe some additional clarification about so the alternative that I had proposed in the hotline was to retain contiguity because the continuity requirement up in Gun Barrel so the the proposed restriction increases the number of parcels that would be allowed or the proposal for residential would increase the number of parcels in land area that would be allowed for residential in East Boulder and the tbap area but it would reduce the number of parcels in land area and Gun Barrel so that's where we were saying that the subcommunity plan could um could cover East Boulder but then in

[253:01] Gun Barrel we could still use the contiguity requirement because in Gun Barrel the continuity requirement actually is much more logical than it is down in East Boulder so that could be an option and then if we were to get rid of that lot size it would even be even more logical up in Gun Barrel so it was the direction no contiguity requirement at all come up with a new idea or perhaps kind of a mix of contiguity and sub-community plan I mean if you feel like it's functional up in Gun Barrel because that it's not just contiguity right it's also like proximity to open space right it's kind of yeah it's contiguity to open space or residential right right I mean show us what it looked like I mean it seems like it has potential okay okay next is office restrictions somebody else could start on this one maybe or I can I just don't know I mean I'll take a crack

[254:01] um well is it yeah my restriction here is just the creating on like non-conforming use we are working so hard to bring things back into conformed use whether it be puds you name it and yet it seems weird that we would deliver event on the other side open it back up so that's my concern and then I think there are some some serious concerns brought up by some of the business communities about what legal ramifications may come from changing that use at this stage of the game in some so I'd like just to sort of kind of look at that again and how we can minimize the non-conforming and how we can sort of also minimize the the liability and risk between landlord and tenant which I think is real given how fluid those areas are with regards to the type of use that they intend to be and their evolution is that right I think the Holland and heart letters had a lot of examples and I thought they

[255:01] were most of them the ones I understood were excellent so can we look at those I was thinking about um the ones that stick out in my mind was when you uh you a company is in one location and then they acquire another location that one and also there was somebody that was speaking of tonight you know which one I'm talking about like different buildings okay and then somebody was talking about perhaps non-profits and what we can do you remember that question yes I don't need to go into that more right you know which one yes okay and I'll I'll call myself and just add in um yeah I share what Matt said about the concern about the large number of non-conformities being created and and we don't know how many there are and and it makes sense I understand why we don't know but it's also concerning um it does seem like a lot of that centers around the no office on the ground floor like that seems to be the

[256:00] one that's the biggest problem so I don't know if we're moving that kind of gets us to a more reasonable place not to say it's unreasonable your proposal but like to a better balance maybe with a couple other tweaks yeah so I think that that I I just want to thank Colin and heart for giving those examples because I think that that was really helpful there's kind of a a lack of data that we have to be able to analyze so having those was really helpful and I I hope you saw that we responded to each one of those scenarios that was super impressive by the way the way you responded to all those like a fun little zoning problem um but so that was really Illuminating to what the reality of administrative administering this regulation would be and so I think we have some ideas for what would be simpler and especially from both a city perspective and also business owners and property owners and so I think that you're correct that the ground floor has come up regularly as an issue for

[257:02] non-conformities so perhaps removing that and then the combined floor area administering that a combined like thinking about it as a combination is really challenging and so a potential other option that would still support the policies that we are intending to implement through these changes would perhaps be a square footage limit per use so because that is something that the city receives you know through a building permit or a business license we know the size of that business at that time and so that would be significantly simpler to administer and in that case we wouldn't either we or businesses would not need to keep track of the changing from one building to the other or how much space is being used and how much non-conforming and then in that way um there are significantly fewer non-conforming uses created Lauren

[258:01] I think that makes sense and just because I got thrown out as the person who came up with the not having it on the first floor I wanted to sort of say that in my thinking I was sort of thinking about as we create new buildings um you know as a way to ensure that new buildings aren't only office space or you know that they're preserving that kind of space on the ground floor um which is why I'm not in charge of writing code on from the dice never mind but I think that the uh suggestion that you brought up at least it sounds like a good one to me it sounds reasonable to me I guess I don't know enough to offhand think through all the scenarios so I think some Outreach would be important there but it sounds like it has potential and seen some nodding heads and no shaking ones um any other things on office restrictions uh the next is the light versus General industrial categories

[259:00] I had uh heard a couple comments on this before does anybody want it okay all right don't everybody go at once all right so I guess the I'll just throw out the um I'll call myself again the uh my concern was that maybe the the small uses that could get caught up in this and and I heard you that the intention is not to catch up like food production for example but it seems like the definition might and so there's a concern there how do we make sure not catch up a bunch of smaller uh not impactful manufacturing uses and to you know there's the question about could we regulate what they produce rather than what they're using as raw materials so that's a thought I don't know if that works 100 but it's a reasonable thought but I think we could also take another look at the definition and see if we could Define raw materials towards the end of it like for the purposes of this definition raw materials means and

[260:01] listed out very good anything else on that uh Independent Schools Tara I mean it was said already it was a question yeah it was a question of why public schools are exempt from use review where Independent Schools have to go through use review yeah tell us yes I'm going to defer to our legal experts for that because that's a legal question yeah I'm happy to address that so um school districts are seen as a state entity where Independent Schools are not they are private entities and if I may add on to that you may remember from her last discussion that there are also preemption issues when it comes to regulating Public Schools so that is the

[261:00] history behind the allowance of public schools in all Zone districts in bowling so why does that why does that mean we can't have Independent Schools without a use review it doesn't necessarily you could allow uh what we call private schools but Independent Schools by right in the industrial districts it's a use that we would typically the purpose of use review is to be able to further evaluate the compatibility of a use within its actual location and so for schools both the impact of industrial uses on the school and then the school on the industrial uses we think that that would be and that's an appropriate use to go through a use review that's kind of the purpose of use review and does the sorry go ahead Nicole I was just wondering do you have Independence gestural areas right now they're currently prohibited so no okay gotcha okay thank you

[262:01] I yeah and does do the code requirements to the criteria speak to the impact to the property it seems like we seem to remember most of the criteria being like what's the impact on other properties but does it correct um hello hello might be able to help because because this is one where I'm sympathetic if we're making sure that the school won't you know be an inappropriate place for it to have a school because of other impacts but as long as that's actually part of the evaluation process um Lisa is this where you propose some changes to the use review criteria was it for the school use yeah so at and yes now remembering so this was something that was brought up by planning board same question similar question so we recommended a change that um coordinates there's a one the compatibility Criterion has a sentence that says um the use of a minimal negative impact on

[263:00] the use of nearby Properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts the proposed development reasonably reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties so I think it's it's proposed to change to include um so it's proposed to include also instead of all just residential uses it also includes Community cultural and educational uses which is one of our use categories so similarly puts that um that part of that analysis in the use review too I'm about to say I'll just be frank I'd rather I would like to keep the use review for the schools just because I wouldn't want a school to want to necessarily go right next to court and Pharma not next no no offense to court and Pharma but that's not a use that I would sit there and go yeah good good decision so so you know in that sense like anyway I I think it's important for us to have some way of making sure that we're getting compatibility right so I just I don't know if that helps address

[264:00] why you wanted to bring that up Tara but I was just letting you know Lenin out thanks for being patient with me and explaining it also I'm getting a lot of texts that people are throwing up in my large family so I'm a little distracted right now your family's right now I appreciate Mr Eckert's points from before but I I'm when you're talking about is you know is it going to be is it mitigating you know the potential impacts from off-site uses on the school it seems probably worth looking at so yeah any other comments on this or any other topic well this or anything else about use tables which if we're sticking to use tables yes and and just on that last point I think you know when I heard preemption it's maybe not that we were singling out Independent Schools for bad treatment it's like we can't do Public Schools also so like like any other private company we we would do the Independent

[265:00] Schools so that makes sense to me um I guess I'm not sure if I have a comment or a question here but um I I very much appreciated um former representative singers comment about measuring twice and cutting once and so I think we probably want to avoid measuring Thrice if I may continue on that um and so I wonder what what is our plan for engagement we'll just go back to planning board like what is what is what is the plan for the next steps from all this feedback and also what I heard loud and clear from Community is great job most of this is awesome and um we didn't you know we didn't quite given us enough time for that final step to be reviewed so I'd just like to understand that y'all Brad Mueller with planning and development services uh the level of Direction and the nature of the changes would not require us to go back to planning board

[266:01] um we do want to respect the fact um that massaging this so that it feels final for you makes sense and also close the loop with the conversations we've had with industry and such so we would recommend a continuance to January 19th as being that kind of good balance between moving forward still and and yet giving time and when you say continued dialogue um like how will we be pretty sure that we've we've gotten all the feedback we need because I agree most of the emails that we have gotten have been excellent I am I'm far from an expert in this area so that the examples and the concerns have been super helpful to me and I want to make sure that we've gotten all them and that we've gotten them addressed and and that Community who's going to be impacted much more than me have been heard and we've worked through it yeah you know I would say the the group of interested users um has narrowed

[267:00] significantly and we've engaged heavily in the last two weeks with that more narrow group um just because we got the letter recently and you saw the responses to that just uh just this afternoon even I think with absorbing that uh you know we're sliding into home and and we'll have covered all that by then which is not to say there may not be a point or two at the final reading that we agree to disagree in in trying to interpret the direction given but I think we feel confident we're there okay thanks and I might just be curious what what um colleagues think about possibly planning board looking at it again because again they they have so much more expertise in understanding that than I do so I think we'll flag things that I'm certainly not going to be super capable of flagging and I don't know I'd like like Dave Ensign can you give me like a hand signal if it's a good or bad idea yeah

[268:00] well it's I'm sure yeah we can't really call it community members the member in the middle of a hearing I apologize I'll yeah but yeah uh Nicole yeah I was just um wondering if you know maybe to expedite it if folks could kind of maybe weigh in rather than sending it back to planingboard because I also I feel like planning board is one of the boards that always has things specified well in advance too um so I'm just wondering if there's you know a way for um you know I imagine that you're talking with them let us know if it's helpful I would say you know they've been very engaged in what you saw today and so these you know relatively finer points um we certainly would advise them of I wouldn't expect them to necessarily pick up and want a full discussion on that not to represent them but I think they recognize there's other items on their plate for the next year as well so but we will be careful to make sure

[269:01] we're communicating with them yeah so maybe what you could do is like you say keep them in in the loop let them know how it's proceeding forward and then say that they're welcome to review them and send us their individual comments on the changes yep good um and then just to the point I'm glad to hear about engagements because the finalizing the engagement will be important with the the property owners the stakeholders and you know probably filtering through the chamber as well you know great cool and Rachel were you all done with your comments before I jump in I'm good I'm still looking at the event sign for a hand signal but otherwise good thanks yeah do you all do the baseball signs can we do the um [Music] so uh what I just wanted to say is just some very general kind of high level feedbacks this is not not my area of expertise either but it seems like one of the one of the reasons we're in a space where things are kind of complicated is because over time we kind

[270:00] of kept adding a little bit more to each one so in thinking about some of these final tweaks to this ordinance what I would appreciate is thinking about tweaks that we'll meet some of these guidelines and make things simpler rather than anything that's going to add a lot of complexity because I think we've heard a lot of that from community members as well but the complexity makes things hard right and I know that you all know this better than we do so that would just be my very general kind of guidance and then in thinking back to our earlier discussion asking for you know some feedback or checkpoints I'm just wondering if there's anything planned with this because I think even in these last few weeks we've had some feedback from community members of just oh my gosh you know just thought about this or I just saw this part of it and now I have this concern and so I'm just wondering where where if anywhere are there any opportunities for folks to let us know if there's something that's just completely disastrous for a an industry or a group that you know we didn't catch where the opportunities to kind of come

[271:01] back as well if there are any yeah I think just building on what Brad had said just the the stakeholders we have been discussing this with over the last few weeks I think that they um they've been getting the word out as well to additional people so I think we'll just circle back with everyone that we've been talking with uh talk about the discussion that's been had tonight some of the proposals that we might have to simplify and be able to run through some of those scenarios you know with more time than we had this week so um be able to to make sure that those aren't creating unintended consequences either and I think my question was more after the the next meeting date are there opportunities there for you know folks to let us know things are going really awry and it needs a little tweak yeah yeah thanks any other final comments then I'll just go ahead and make a motion to continue the hearing and to January 19th

[272:01] second writing it's a show of hands uh motion is second all in favor pretty good and Lauren you got your hand up uh just to make a comment not just to vote yes that was that passed unanimously by the way learning an additional comment no okay well then this this is my moment here before you leave to just sing your absolute Praises because we haven't done enough of that yet we've been to right like um so we've been focused on the changes but there is so much that is good in this ordinance that I'm like as a planning wonk I'm super excited about like so phenomenal work like and I'm really excited to get this done it's the culmination of years of work and uh January 19th at the end we can do a big happy dance about all the progress that we've made so yeah huge huge thanks thank you appreciate it all right and with that it's time to move on to the next thing we've got a couple more I'm hoping we can be a lot quicker than the time stated on uh the paper here it's time for a check-in on

[273:01] Council committee assignments item 8A so I Turn to You Nuria here well this is really uh thank you mayor this is really a matter of uh Council but I will note that we've got um Taylor Ryman at the ready that if you wanted to look at those committees and track those in real time that she is available to do that and put those on screen but it really depends on how deeply you want to go into the topic um as we move forward yeah I defer to you thank you so what yeah what I would propose is just that people would mention their requested changes and we'll stick to that and so I'll just call on people who would like to change something and I got a Rachel and this is by the way not to make force other people's changes but changes you're interested in your own uh one thing I want to mention is and I hotlined this for myself and count uh mayor Pro tem Wallach that we would like to sort of disband council members participation in the hill revitalization

[274:02] work group and I believe we have staff support for that as well okay very good oh actually you know what there's something that I wanted to mention as well this isn't uh for tonight I'm going to bring this back at another meeting in January but we have a potential opportunity to participate in the Rocky Mountain Airport Community noise Roundtable group um and so that's something that that um staff is interested in us participating in it will require elected representation at that so just kind of keep that in your head I'm going to come back in January and ask Council if we're interested in applying to that but just as you're thinking about committee appointments you might be interested in that if Council approves it going forward but we're not going to talk through the substance I just want to mention that one more thing I don't know if it needs to be handled here but the mayor Pro tem usually goes to the mile high flood district and so I I've sort of off the Record probably passed the Baton to council

[275:00] mayor Pro tem Wallach but maybe we need to formalize that okay very good any other changes people would like to make Junie to make but I would be of the financial strategy committee because my term is up so yes and I did check in it sounds like it is possible to re-up if people are interested in so you by no means need to but you could ask to if you were interested yeah yeah Patrice would like to make it yeah that's right so uh there's there's nothing in our Charter or code that would prohibit multiple terms and in the financial strategies committee Charter it does say that terms are two years but it does not place a limit on the number of terms that you serve interested in re-upping or are you ready to be done well it's not that I'm ready to be done I'm ready to pass the Baton

[276:02] to someone else who probably could serve for longer term and help on board the next person I would be interested in re-upping for one term if that's the rule of council an interest in uh does anybody else want to put forward for financial stress I don't I don't think we have to replace Juni because I think we would still have enough people on the committee we would still have three people um so someone could replace you but it would not be necessary I'm not not see anybody jumping on that one yeah yeah um if in fact I'm going to take a second term on FSC I'd like to make room for Matt if he is he's expressed interest in intergovernmental Affairs so I will step down from that um to accommodate that is very gracious of you mark thank

[277:01] you so much and now Jenny you before you had mentioned something about that do you want to address that yes I don't um because I will be staying on Council and completing my term and also be a state legislator at the Capitol I think it would be um wise to to step away from this particular uh subcommittee so there would be I suppose more than one opening for that one thank you and anyone else interested in that commitment I see Lauren Lauren do you have your hand up I do I would be interested in um taking that seat on the intergovernmental mental conference yeah intergovernmental Affairs committee anybody want to arm wrestle Lauren or Matt for that extra spot all right see no one then that is done

[278:00] um okay any other changes people would like to make Tara okay Rocky Flats sorry bracket Flats I am not able to fulfill the requirements to go in person Monday mornings I believe it's the airport in Broomfield it's about five times a year it's three hours I work full time who graciously wants to take that appointment anyone can I ask just the question of are we even doing anything with this group and or do we have to have someone on this group I I just it's a functional question about just how viable is this for us to need a representative on it Taylor or yeah or can a staff member just represent us in perpetuity good evening Council Taylor Ryman city council administrator um so we are one of the properties that share a border with Rocky Flats which

[279:01] gives us a seat at the table at the Rocky Flats Stewardship Council and its ongoing management it's it's mostly monitoring um the the testing and maybe adding new testing that's that's a conversation that's been happening recently but it is in our best interest to continue being engaged in those conversations um we do have an obligation sort of generally speaking um to make sure that the continued remediation work um is is being monitored and we also have the opportunity to develop Partnerships and collaborate uh in that setting I I will mention we have a long and storied history of being involved with this this group and if we tried to withdraw I think Lisa morzelle would come up here personally and whoop all of our butts here so but does that did we confirm that it um it has to be a council member and not a staff member though yeah so I appreciate that and I'll just say that um Carl Castillo has been in contact

[280:00] with them they have indicated that yes it is uh their strong preference that it would be a council member who attends certainly there are there are occasions where a staff member and I know uh Taylor has been a part of those meetings and has done admirably but they have a preference that it'd be the council member themselves they meet about four times a year for about two to three hours I mean yeah two to three hours each meeting and if I may mention Marnie Razzle also with osmp has done a great job as being the second stop staff alternate and so we both kind of tagged team the alternate support for Council can can certainly go in place of council members of couple or three times a year but there are a couple meetings where a council member uh participation would be much desired so we're talking we're talking about like twice a year commitment here folks like it's not that bad it's kind of manageable why is nobody looking at me

[281:11] I said what Rachel described the mic all right a witch no exactly right um well maybe we we need to table this one if nobody's volunteering right now uh I'm going to send Lisa marzel to all of your houses yes right she she probably she'd probably go for it if we did so um maybe we'll have to hold on off on this one I'm not volunteering because I I also you know work another job so but what I'm wondering is it seems like one of the big issues is the not allowing virtual participation and I'm wondering if this is anything that they would think about changing so that those of us

[282:02] who do work have this as a an option that's a great point the council is contemplating a hybrid format but um it's it's not been offered yet maybe we can try to apply some pressure to the council to add this as a an option you can certainly Circle back with them and see what we can do okay cool okay all right great great suggestion Nicole that'll be our next step there all right any other requests to withdraw or add to any committees all right okay seeing none then here's what I got um so on the intergovernmental Affairs committee we've got Juni and Mark resigning and Matt and Lauren joining Juni is not re-upping for financial strategies Mark is re-upping to financial strategies and council members are removing themselves from the hill revitalization working group sound about it Mile High flood district

[283:01] and yes Mark goes in for Rachel and mile high blood good Taylor said does that give it to us yeah just one more uh point so because of section 9 that describes how Council meetings of counseling Committees of council can be appointed and sort of organized we are required to provide justification for all groups that have more than two council members on them we have prior justifications for intergovernmental Affairs but we actually look back in our records and and we we couldn't quite find a justification for the financial strategy committee having more than two council members so if council could just provide a justification for that um and and Teresa I guess I'd look to you to just ensure that justifications that were defined in the last appointment cycle would hold this appointment cycle but did you have something on this yeah

[284:00] I wrote something on this last year I don't maybe just got lost somewhere I'll just dig it up and send it to you okay sounds like Bob's got something that he'll send in to cover that great thanks Bob all right Taylor are we good on that as long as Theresa says so I think we're good come on Teresa is done she's just done sorry Teresa I'm afraid I I didn't review this question beforehand I assume that the reasons provided by counselors still a reasonable justification after I review them if that's not the case I certainly will reach out and let you know thank you thank you all right we're almost done here great and then this will come back for Council approval and ratification on consent I believe in the first meeting in January so we'll so we will approve those changes at that time great we got one more I think it's to take something new up after 10 30 we have to have a vote is

[285:01] so that's right so you've you've already done the check-in so um you can take a new matter up but it would require a vote if you're going to extend beyond 11 o'clock and that would require two-thirds we are not going to need to extend past 11 o'clock this is 8B discussion on potential selection criteria for the Library District Board of trustee selection committee all right all right and I'm going to turn to Matt who brought this one up there we go now we're on uh thank you Aaron I appreciate it and thanks for indulging this request and it's certainly coming at a later hour my goal is to keep this uh brief um knowing that we've entrusted Aaron and Nicole to represent the city in regards to lifting up the library district and select the Board of Trustees I just thought we'd want to maybe think about what some guard rails and or some ideas we want them to take

[286:00] to that conversation with their County Commissioner counterparts and how we can just sort of as a body provide some of that guidance and they can take that as they will I had two recommendations that I wanted to throw out right off the bat and so I just maybe start with that if people like we're great and if there's additives we can go from there um first is I'd love for us to recommend that we um we we exclusively pull really from a set of specific skill sets that come from being current or former members of the library condition commission ldac and or Library employees I think we're lifting up a new institution so we need people with explicit experience on how to run a library but more importantly experience and already discussing and understanding the IGA process so I think focusing on those individuals would be a great first start it doesn't foreclose on other community members participating at later terms but I think the inaugural class should come from this core group of people that have this unique skill set and experience and how to operate and manage Library systems within the

[287:00] city my second would be discussing how the city of Boulder would perhaps have proportional representation with regards to the Board of Trustees that we end up appointing the infrastructure the geography and the population is predominantly the city of Boulder and so it makes sense that city of Boulder Representatives carry a proportional weight if the Board of Trustees ends being a body of five we should have three if it's a body of seven we should have five and so I would I would like to make sure that that's cooked in because I'd hate for there to be an instance that you have five people from from unincorporated Boulder County representing a Library District to which 90 percent of the assets geography and population reside within the city so I I want to I think a guard rail there is an appropriate place to start so that we can sort of maintain that influence with regards to where things are um for the for the library district so those are my two recommendations I just want to throw those out there and see what people think okay just make a quick response there on that first one Matt a point very well taken could we call that a very strong

[288:01] preference rather than a requirement we might not get it you and Nicole have to negotiate that with your counterparts at Commissioners but I I that's your discretion on that I just I'd like to carry forward however that works and if you agree to carry that forward I trust you too to figure out how best to manage that but I think that's a that would be a strong preference I have um however we can execute that I trust you guys to figure that out great I saw Bob another hand I first agree with with everything Matt said I would I would add to Matt's category of strong preferences also a skill set that I think at least one of the trustees should have and that is the um the expertise in pulling things apart those of us who are lawyers who have done m a work sometimes we put things together and sometimes we pull things apart and that can be more difficult actually than integrating two things and and we're gonna have a lot of pulling apart to happen happen over the first two or three years I get the fact that after the the library District's up and running steady State Library skills are

[289:01] going to be super important and I think that should be the predominant skill among the trustees but I think it'd be helpful if we had one or two trustees in this first batch that knew about what I call de-integration which is all the stuff that we're going to have to do we in the negotiation of the IGA with them on the other side of the table and understanding how to pull things apart how to separate employees how to separate assets how to separate all the financial stuff and I think one or two skill sets on in that category would be a strong preference from me and and there are people that do this for a living so thanks uh quick Teresa and then sorry then Juni of Denmark so I I just I have a an observation about about it being a library staff member um in my mind that's that's tricky because they're currently an employee of the city with duties running to the city duties of loyalty running to the city in addition say former former sorry I was saying current former

[290:01] for the other things and maybe I didn't put the caveat of not current for employees so it just carried over former libraries your attorney you carry that what you are good at the language these words good catch got it thank you thanks Teresa very good uh tuning thank you I like everything that you said I think it's a great idea on number one I think the idea of having a diverse board with people with diverse thought in perspective is extremely important as well but Point well take in that we need people with the right expertise but also we need that diverse Point set of skills as well right someone with financial uh literacy or financial prior Financial experience might be very helpful as well right and maybe someone with a legal background so yes I understand having the library perspective but also having someone um was willing to listen and communicate and engage and one last thing which is

[291:00] probably something else can you someone mention how if someone in the community is interested in this how can they contact the city I've had community members reach out to me and say hey I have a strong interest whether it's possible or not for them to apply or be part of the process that's something different but who do they reach out to thank you I'll address that question I think that that is that's still coming together right as as the appointees from the um from the county and the city are um establishing themselves as a as a body that's going to select um I think that information just isn't available yet but certainly from a communication standpoint the city can make sure to to help spread the word got uh Mark and then Rachel I want to um also agree with both Juni and Bob um I think it's important to have people

[292:00] with Library experience as members of the group but I also think that we need a broader experience base for the process of actually creating the library district itself I think it's going to be a little more complex than people imagine and there may be issues of employment law corporate law real estate law finance and we need people who also have those disciplines in their toolkit it's there will become a time when running a library is going to be the primary qualification for somebody to be a trustee but I think initially we need a little bit broader base for the complexities of what we're trying to do here Rachel believe it or not I've never formed a Library District in my life nor run a library so I and there's no

[293:01] staff memo here and I probably missed an email that this is even on tonight's agenda so I I did not give this much thought so I just wanted to turn to staff and see do you all have thoughts of what we should be looking for Nuria or others again just just wanted to toss it out and see if there's input I think a quick stab at something that I'm probably going to be kicked under the table for but um what I do appreciate and I I do think it's the diversity of skill sets that will be important I do think if I think of sort of something as a merger of two businesses that sometimes you have to look through personnel there will be policy discussions there will be um conversations about the transition of assets or not staff or not there if there's a lot to be considered here and having a multitude of diverse experience from both the perspective of

[294:01] uh what will folks need just for the IGA but then also the trustees beyond that so knowing a little bit about libraries important but also knowing about financial and setting up a business and startups and so forth the legalities of it I think are important so I think you're on the right track of having a diversity of folks on the panel or on the on the board good point I'll just give Nicole an opportunity since you're do you want to respond to any of that or you just now I was taking notes I'm good okay okay great did you want to add anything that I'll just invite you up here if you'd like to you are here with us at 10 45 so well I can tell you Janet Michael's with the city attorney there are just two statutory [Music] trustees have to be from within the legal service area of the district it

[295:01] kind of speaks for itself but that's one and the other is that you can't have fewer than five or more than seven so other than that um it's really up to the discussion of the selection committee and I'll also say I think I'm envisioning the first meeting of the selection committee establishing what the process is so with the question of how do we communicate this or how do we let people from the community know about it that would be a part of what the committee discusses in their first meeting how to set that up thank you thanks for that clarifying those clarifying comments Jim appreciate it and for sticking it out with us good point all right and I I got the message too so I'm good thanks for the input everybody that'll be really helpful as we move forward and with making those decisions I have something under discussion what's up I have discussion I'm sorry I know it's late but I had a couple things I wanted to put under discussion couple I do I'll be I'll be quick though number

[296:00] one there were a couple times tonight where people spoke on at times that I thought was odd so we had people doing open comment speaking to a public hearing and then we had someone at a public hearing speaking to something that was not relevant for that public hearing so I just wanted to flag that and and maybe discuss how we do that going forward because sometimes it's been handled differently so flagging that number two we do not have police oversight panel amendments on our work plan I don't think I think we've all appreciated this week that we probably need to shore up some of the procedure on that and so I don't know where that needs to be flagged and put in but um while it's fresh I think I think we should be making sure that somewhere on the work plan to come back to us and then number three a speaker mentioned he's not on hotline I've had I'm not on hotline on my personal email anymore I've had several people say I got dropped off hotline so there's something wrong with Hotline thank you I'll call this comments rather than

[297:01] discussion points thanks for raising those Rachel or maybe well I think you're going to be coming back to us with that on on the pop changes potential changes right we will indeed and I'll say that the uh current oversight panel is also thinking about that and we will be deferring to them as well in terms of some things we as staff have um some considerations we want to bring forward as well and some fairly quickly to allow for um discourse currently in the in for the panel um heard uh the concerns about hotline it is something that staff is aware of and so we're going to be we have a meeting actually set up to talk about hotline and we were Teresa and I were just thinking about and looking at through the council handbook and the code and so there will be some amendments in terms of the the comment process that need to be come

[298:01] forward so we will be doing that as well you're on top of it as always an area stuck in my throat I do not have coping I'll just end with my Millennial status the can't talk about the pop without thinking about Naughty by Nature so you're down with pop you know me [Music] all right pop culture is a question area microphone when we respond to a community member you know you click respond and it keeps doing reply by all still oh God I think that's to the council forum and I will certainly um bring that to to Sarah who's been taking a look at that with it okay see nothing else nothing else nothing else I will say uh

[299:00] happy holidays everybody and congratulations to a very successful 22-2022 for this Council and our amazing senior staff very appreciative of each and every single one of you and it is a pleasure to be working with you day in and day out on these sometimes hard questions that we wrestle with so I'm very grateful and here's to the end of a good year feel better Lauren there you go and feel better Lauren right and with that I'll gavel is closed uh 10 40. thank you Lauren feel better without you 10 49 P.M [Music] foreign

[300:15] [Music] thank you