January 26, 2023 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] [Music] thank you [Music] [Music] foreign [Music] [Music]

[1:15] foreign [Music] [Music] [Music] foreign

[2:00] [Music] foreign [Music] [Music]

[3:06] foreign [Music] foreign [Music] [Music]

[4:10] foreign [Music] foreign [Music]

[5:17] foreign [Music] get us started and welcome everyone to the January 26th 2000. I will welcome everyone to the January 6th 2026. 2023 special meeting of the Boulder City Council and I'm going to get it started with one announcement which is uh to the

[6:01] community if you're looking for an opportunity to get involved the 2023 boards and commissions recruitment period is open but we'll close in just a few days on January 30th 2023. so please look online and find boarding commission descriptions and vacancies at www.bouldercolorado.gov boards Dash commissions and if you have any questions or need assistance please contact the city clerk's office at city clerk's office at Boulder colorado.gov or call at 303-441-4222 and with that announcement uh Elisha can we call the role please thank you and good evening everyone we'll start tonight's roll call with council member Benjamin present mayor Brockett president councilmember Folkers present brand here Joseph

[7:02] president spear present mayor Pro Tim Wallick here councilmember weiner here and councilmember Yates president from beautiful Omaha Nebraska glad to have you sir mayor we have our quorum very good so Lou Shippy could move us into our first agenda item 1A please yes sir thank you again tonight's agenda number one a is the consideration of emotion appointing Claiborne M Douglas as special counsel pursuant to sections 2-7-10c of the voter Revised Code 1981. bring it and Teresa could you get a start on this item please I guess I'm here thank you good evening Council as you may recall from our last meeting the city received a complaint under the the city's code of conduct

[8:00] uh that's title two chapter seven and if you'll forgive me I'm just I'm trying to get to my resources here so under that provision we we received a complaint um from Mr neslag that complaint was received on January 19th uh 2023 and that does meet all of the requirements of the code which is that facts were stated alleging a violation of the code of conduct and the complaint was sworn so having met all of all of the requirements under the code it now triggers a process of investigation and the code provides that um that that the city council refer the matter uh to the City attorney

[9:02] so here because it's filed by a Community member the code provides the council shall request the City attorney to conduct an investigation regarding a violation of this chapter that's at 2 7 10 C to be clear all this does is launch the investigation and it is not discretionary under the code the code also though provides that the City attorney May request that the city council appoints special counsel to investigate and prosecute any case that may cause the City attorney to have a conflict of interest or may cause an appearance of impropriety under the provisions of the the code of conduct or if it could violate any rule of professional responsibility so here at council's Direction I have advised the selection panel with respect to the criteria and their process given that I believe that it would be a conflict of interest potentially a

[10:00] violation of the rules of professional responsibility for me to investigate this complaint therefore I reached out to Clay Douglas clay has um over 40 years of Municipal experience has conducted investigations similar to these I did distribute with the materials his resume and I I would request that Council appoint clay Douglas as special counsel for the purpose of investigating this complaint and Prosecuting should that be necessary Mr Douglas thanks you thank you for your willingness to serve here and for being with us this evening and now Teresa can you clarify is this something that we have any discretion in or is or is this a required action by the council mayor there is this is not discretionary um it is the the code provides that Council shell request the City attorney

[11:00] to investigate right and then uh if the criteria are met for special counsel Council can choose to appoint special counsel for the matter but the fact of um an investigation happening is is not discretionary the code provides an investigation must happen thanks for clarifying that uh with that said I would invite emotion foreign special counsel VES great this is a show of hands I believe Alicia is that correct that is correct sorry great so in that case all in favor raise your hand and let's see I got it and then Juni we can't see you so would you be able to say a yes or no I'm not in favor I'm not

[12:02] in favor and I was opposed to having this meeting tonight so I am not in favor thank you so much Nicole I see you also do not raise your hand so that that motion passes on the vote of seven to two with Joseph and Speer uh voting now or I guess yeah I I just um I was uh intending to abstain ah okay vote um it's I'm really it concerns me that we had another member of this election um or another panelist who was recommended by the application process withdraw this last week and I am concerned because the people who are applying for this panel have lived experience with disproportionate policing or social justice engagement that's a requirement um and I am just really concerned about the sort of intimidation factor of having a complaint like this come in and

[13:01] I don't really see any protections that we have in place that um can kind of mimic like for example the anti-slap law that we have at the state level that can offer people or groups who are targets of complaints the opportunity to have the complaint dismissed if there's evidence that its goal is to silence or intimidate critics um so under those circumstances I don't really feel uh comfortable moving forward um without something that would offer some protections for the folks who are applying for this panel as well as serving on the panel and serving on the selection committee who are already putting themselves at risk of intimidation and traumatization for the oversight work we're asking them to do hey thanks for clarifying Nicole so so we have seven yeses one known one abstention and under city code and abstention counts as a yes it's effectively an eight to one vote in favor of the appointment so um Mr Douglas again thank you for your willingness to serve if if you wanted to say a sentence or two you're welcome to or but don't feel that it's necessary

[14:01] a rare occasion I'm gonna let the lawyer be quiet okay very good well we we trust to your um impartiality and willingness to investigate this claim and we look forward to hearing back from you likewise very good okay so that's one a so Alicia can we do uh one B please yes sir one B is the consideration of a motion to a prolu excuse me a consideration of a motion to approve selection committee recommendations for members of the police oversight panel as outlined entitled to chapter 11 police oversight BRC 1981 pertaining to the composition duties and powers of the city organization related to civilian oversight of the police and setting forth related details thank you Alicia so uh you last week you know this item came in front of us and we had just received a complaint just a

[15:00] bare couple of hours before and so it was a little unclear uh how to proceed and whether the police oversight panel would have a quorum if we waited until the investigation was complete since so we had a motion to wait a week while we determined those those facts and since then I think we've gotten information both legal and about uh panelists ability to serve so I'm going to turn maybe first to you Teresa to talk about your legal findings and then uh turn to Nuria or Amy Kane uh for to hear about the the panelists thank you mayor um so given a little more time I was able to track down a memo that um came at the request of former independent monitor Joey lampari and I believe the panel co-chairs asking about what constitutes a quorum uh as we discussed um the ordinance could set a different quota it does not in the for the police oversight panel

[16:01] thus a different portion of the code applies which provides that a quorum is half plus one and that is half of all available seats so um if they even if the seats are vacant the Quorum number still stands so here with an 11 member panel of Quorum would they would need six people to meet quorum it's very helpful thanks and then uh Nuria should I turn to you or Amy on that this next question Where We Are we can turn to Amy in terms of who has withdrawn and um where we are right now in the process sorry okay thanks and Amy if you can introduce yourself and then let us know how things are going please sure thank you mayor Brockett and Council my name is Amy Kane I'm the equity officer for the city of Boulder and I've been helping um with the police oversight panel and the selection process and as I hope you all saw in the memo that I sent out

[17:02] yesterday we had another potential candidate um withdraw from the process um I think this delay in lag is is starting to lose some momentum for our folks as Nicole mentioned and I just want to lift up that we do have selection committee members here present as well if there are specific questions for them so thank you looking forward to tonight's vote Amy also I think one of the questions last week was how many panelists are currently on it and whether anyone is able to serve for any additional time and that we've heard back from the pales about that so could you explain that please yeah so sure um we were down to I believe it was five panel members two of whom have withdrawn we need six panel members to continue the work um so we will not meet Quorum if um if this doesn't go through tonight and with that I if I may I'd like to add that it's not just about the meeting itself there's a body of work that

[18:00] includes training for new panelists and it's it's quite a heavy lift um and being able to get that scheduled and on people's calendar is pretty pretty critical thanks for that okay so as I said last week the the motion was to wait a week while we determined the current status of whether there'd be a quorum and the status of panelists members so what we've heard is that we not enough panel members will be continuing to constitute Quorum and we're also losing panel members potential panel members in the meantime so I guess I would put out start with a threshold question Council of saying does anyone want to propose an additional delay given all that we've learned or um and if you do not we'll if no one wants to have an additional delay then we'll move on to a vote on the panelists themselves or in front of us so if anyone like to advocate for an additional delay I am not seeing any takers at all so um that means that we'll go ahead and proceed uh with a vote on the panelists

[19:02] uh tonight and just as we get into that um just a couple of background words uh if I may just uh to get us started as mayor here that you know this has been a pretty long road to create the police oversight panel right it started after the incident with uh zadax Atkinson back a few years ago and you know we formed a task force to create an oversight panel and and they did really hard work and came up with an ordinance and we've since appointed panelists and they've been working super hard on this oversight panel process but clearly you know we've we've had some some kinkses getting started and and I think we have an intention as a a council in an organization to continue to work to refine how this all works and so we'll just acknowledge that that work is coming and it's going to come quick so everyone should be be prepared for that that we do have an intention of of revising the ordinance to fix some of the issues that we've done recently but what is in front of us tonight is is not

[20:00] about whether we will have police oversight we we will and I think there's very broad support in the community in the city staff and the police department themselves as well for Effective uh oversight and we also have a new police monitor coming on board in hopefully just a few weeks that we'll be working with the panelists who are appointed to find the next steps in this important Journey for our community our city so just with all of that in mind um I just want to turn now to the question at hand which is we have a slate of candidates that have been brought forward to us by the selection panel we do have selection panel members present if anyone has any questions but I think for now we can just move forward to you know discussion of that if anyone has words to say or wants to make a motion I invite your participation now so feel free to raise your hand and we'll we'll talk it through uh very good I got Nicole and then Mark um yeah I just wanted to move to approve

[21:00] the recommendations of the police oversight panel and I was also wondering we didn't quite have a chance for questions last time and so I don't know if there's an opportunity for asking some questions this time but I can hold off on that sure well I well we have a motion on the table so maybe I'll invite a second and then we'll go to questions at that point I wasn't sure if we had any outstanding questions but thanks Nicole for pointing that out that I didn't offer that opportunity so I would ask if there's a second and then we'll move to questions I got all kinds of hands up people can just speak up second second I think I heard Rachel so we have a motion in a second and so now maybe a folks can take your hands down I'll just see are there any questions for you staff or on this topic before we move to discussion Nicole yeah I just um had a couple of questions that uh maybe for one of the selection committee members or for Amy and maybe I'll let I'll let let you all chime in but um this is just a clear to kind of

[22:01] clarify uh some of the concerns that I've heard coming from some in the community and it's really just about the role of the police oversight panel and so my question is just whether a member of the place oversight panel or even the panel itself has the authority to eliminate the police department or in any way uh um affect the funding of the police department um so I'll just those two questions and I got a couple more so I don't know if any of the panel members want to um answer that question I'm happy to do so and Taylor uh Teresa I don't know if you want to chime in as well regarding the ordinance but that does not outline in the ordinance that that is the capability of the panel okay um and as far do they have the ability to discipline individual officers or remove individual officers according to code I believe they are able to just make a discipline recommendations final recommendation or final disciplinary action lies with the chief okay great thank you thanks thanks for

[23:01] clarifying that um and then I just had some question about the criteria used to score applicants um it's my understanding they were evaluated on whether or not they have ties to Boulder yeah so I don't know if one of the selection committee members want to take that question I don't know Victor I see that you uh your camera on I don't know if you want to do that or Sean Ray is awesome pass it to Sean Ray okay Sean Ray are you available to answer that question Sean Ray is the individual who helped lead this work thank you hello everybody hello uh Council um council member Nicole um so the criteria that we used for this year's panel selection was very similar to the criteria that we used um during the first selection of panelists and that work was done by um former task force members including

[24:00] myself who decided to stay on during the implementation phase while we were seeking and hiring the former police monitor Joey lapari and seeking to fill the spots of our nine panelists of that particular time plus the alternates and those criteria were were based upon um I'm sorry we're based upon uh things that we looked at um throughout our work as a task force and using recommendations from Nicole the National Organization for similar oversight bodies like ourselves you did receive you all did receive a memo that outlines those criteria and so we looked at must-have criteria and those were things such as having a knowledge of history of policing in the United States looking at historical local and National structures of sentencing law enforcement

[25:00] and criminal justice awareness of how the police oversight board panel was formed in the city of Boulder which we've already mentioned tonight having awareness of the overt and covert racism in the context of policing or over policing and this is concerning Boulder and Nationwide it we also sought that every panelists future panelist would have an understanding or awareness of current events that would also inform any sorts of conversation around policing and police oversight um another thing that we looked at very closely was that the candidate would represent perhaps multiple communities via intersectionality and when we talk about intersectionality we're talking about possessing um being part of the black latinx indigenous Asian Pacific Islander person of color populations

[26:00] hopefully a person who had experienced or is currently experiencing homelessness we looked at the lgbtq plus Community as well a person with differing abilities a candidate who may have low socioeconomic status obviously important given Boulder's demographics um and somebody who perhaps um had experience with um formerly being incarcerated um in addition to that we did look at the criteria of bias as stated in the ordinance um both any sort of evidence of overt covert um bias and to that point and I think this was this was a point that was made at the city council meeting last week bias is very challenging to Define in terms of police oversight there is an idea that if you are looking to oversee the police that you are against the

[27:01] police that is not necessarily the case um as Amy just described there are people both on the police staff and in the community that would like to have better policing for the community members of Boulder and better does not necessarily mean anti um but we did look at that criteria area as well I hope that answered your question probably somewhat too thoroughly but those were a lot of the criteria that we looked at for the selection no thank you I appreciate that um it's been a bit of a drawn out process so thank you for summarizing for us and any community members listening um that's the end of my questions Erin hey thanks Nicole seeing no other questions no I'll open the floor for uh comments we actually do have a motion in a second on the table Aaron Judy's hands up Junior's hands up I didn't see that sorry Genie thank you so much um I'm anyway I am having a bit of bandwidth which issue so I need to change um

[28:00] of Technology but anyway I do have a question about the oversight panel I wanted to know what percentage are people of color uh Jenny I think maybe you can take that yeah I I can take that of course um Junior may I ask are you talking about the panelists that are being selected or perhaps the demographics of current panelists yes current panelists current panelist um that one I cannot remember off the top of my head um Amy you're going to have to help me here I believe it's three out of five correct Victor I haven't specifically or four out of five we're out of Health I don't I haven't asked specifically how one panel member identifies thank you thank you for that uh so I just want to be clear and

[29:01] understand so while this investigation is going well they still be doing their work Juni I apologize I was totally wrong on that there's six panel members but we're going to be losing a couple of those um so five of those identify as people of color and two identify as white okay thank you and my last question for you is that will they still be doing their work while they're being investigated if I think that's an a question for Teresa Teresa yeah I'm happy to address that so to be um to be precise the panel is not being investigated uh the complaint is against the selection committee and so that selection it would be around the selection and selection committee the investigation would be um two of the people on the selection

[30:00] committee are panel members however and to further answer your question it is my understanding that as long as there they have Quorum the panel will continue its work okay thank you so much very good sorry for missing you before there Jeannine uh so now open it back up for discussion we have a motion on the second uh typically we would turn to the motion maker and the seconder for the initial comments and it'll go to General uh so Nicole and and then Rachel if you would like to thanks mayor um so I I just want to say I mean the police oversight panel doesn't have power over a police department or its employees Beyond making suggestions for managing complaints I think that's important um and oftentimes most of the time the suggestions are things that the police chief agrees with I noted last week that it's not biased to include people on the police oversight panel who understand the fact that all of our systems including policing not just policing are

[31:00] biased against black and brown people queer and trans people poor people and people with disabilities I just want to highlight for as a tenant of inclusive leadership and Equitable governance is to welcome criticism of systems that have disproportionate impacts on marginalized members of our community not to try to stifle it the selection committee affirmed and reaffirmed that they followed the guidelines and the ordinance that governs their selection process the application process confirmed the panelists have the knowledge they need to carry out the duties of this panel so I will be voting yes thanks Nicole Rachel would you like to speak to the motion I will and I had like some talking points prepared for tonight so just go through those I take it at this point too all right um so I have done a lot of reflecting I think all of us have over the the past month that this has been a percolating issue and we've gotten a lot of emails and testimony about sort of Pro police and anti-police camps in our community we've gotten accusations that if we

[32:02] overturn the selection committee picks we are racist or heartless and I'm using words from from emails or that we've heard if we do not overturn we support lawlessness and I want to just on the record reject the notion of anti or pro-police categorizations for myself and probably for most community members Duality is okay tonight's vote I do not believe is a proxy for sort of good versus evil I am not Pro police nor anti-police I am pro-good policing and I'm anti-bad policing I testified for oversight panel creation and I support our Police Department I have personally cried two times in the last 24 hours one was when um I read the news story out of Memphis about Tyree Nichols and his brutal death and the second was today um I might tear up a little bit just saying these words but one like a Rhinestone Cowboy came on the radio they

[33:00] played that song at officer Talley's funeral during a family slide show and I cry every time I hear it now I also did a ride along with two um police officers two nights ago um and I overlapped with a lot a lot more police officers and all of them demonstrated compassion and kindness and I think as a society all societies need kind and smart police and I think from what I've seen our police chief is really knocking it out of the park with recruitment I would never want Boulder to become a city where outstanding officers do not want to work and police oversight is critical no one wants profiling or excessive force used in Boulder and that includes police officers our panel does hugely important work it's time consuming it's emotionally draining and all of us to my to my knowledge support this work so we can both recognize the need for oversight and appreciate our police officers and we have to be able to do both of those things and have Grace when we do it even where it's more

[34:01] challenging like with these appointments um I think that the the community issue that is the Crux issue seems to be bias and at this point I really wish that that word was not in this ordinance and I will move to strike it when we revise the ordinance um when we by way of contrast a point other Advisory board members we often actually look for bias to be honest we want people who are depending on our vantage point maybe Pro cycling infrastructure or pro-density or slow growth or have particular you know Muni leanings or whatever and so bias is not necessarily a bad word um and I actually in law school did my equivalent of a thesis on Thurgood Marshalls jurisprudence and how it demonstrated that of course he was biased because all of us any I've worked as a judge or in judicial capacities judges do bring biases um personal biases to the bench and life experiences and that is why all of us know that Supreme Court nominations are

[35:00] such a big deal we pay such close attention we all have biases and the fact that we all have biases can be okay as long as that bias does not interfere with us performing impartially so we can have personal meanings and preferences and biases and we can still apply the law to the facts at hand and I've done it a lot in my own life um in their case review capacity I believe that our panelists perform similar to judges I imagine frankly that all panelists that we have seated in the past in the present and in the future have biased so the question to me is whether they can be fair and impartial I trust that those nominated will not inject biases into this work uh where they need to be impartial and I will caution any who are tempted to please don't this public battle that we've had over these appointments I believe adds to the toll that policing and oversight panel work takes on everyone involved when we were finalizing this ordinance in 2020 I begged city council not to insert ourselves into the panel selection process I fear the exact thing

[36:01] that's happening now that someone would be recommended some community members would object um and then it would come to council and anytime this Council touches anything it becomes political like even just the community and we politicize things so we find ourselves not surprisingly at sort of a level 10 out of 10 concern um and and some finalists and panel recommended people have been really publicly humiliated for weeks and that is not how it should be so I want to to stress that future appointments should never come back to this Council in my opinion um we don't see the applications we don't even know who all applied we don't do the interviews we're somewhat under-informed and we should really prioritize our limited time on legislative and policy work we need to do several pop ordinance fixes and one of them needs to be us not reviewing these recommendations in the future I think we also need to ensure balanced spectrum of voices are appointed um and I know that panel members

[37:01] currently and former members have asked for changes so let's get at that very quickly I just again advocated strongly for us not to do what we did tonight um it's a ridiculous role for us it's a poor use of time it has been humiliating I think for some applicants and other members of the community um so let's let's get back to it ASAP and change it I thought about abstaining from this vote to emphasize how important that point is to me but I've never ducked out of a hard vote I don't want to sort of Center myself um with abstaining I think that the focus needs to be on the panel and I need to um on on my responsibility as someone who's elected to vote so um I'm a yes I support the panel being seated I trust that they will proceed with impartiality um and because I think this has been so politicized I just want to say again that with The Duality that I'm talking about I appreciate both the oversight panel and the Boulder Police Department I think both of these groups are doing

[38:02] exceptional work and it's exceptionally hard work and they're they're doing it well so I want to thank the police department I want to say thank you to the panelists who are rounding off thank you to the panelists who are coming on um let's please keep doing great things and I'm a yes thank you thank you for that Rachel I've got Mark Matt Tara and Bob I happen to agree with a good deal of what uh Rachel has said I thought it was well thought out and well articulated although I have come to a different conclusion tonight we're considering whether to ratify these candidates presented by the selection committee for service on the police oversight panel I believe we have been presented with flawed candidates selected by a flawed process and I'm going to oppose ratification the key defect in this process has been the failure of the selection committee to present us with candidates who meet the statutory requirement of an absence of bias

[39:00] given the public statements by some of the nominees not all it is simply impossible to argue that they meet this standard it requires almost willful blindness to maintain that that some of these nominees actually fulfill the requirements of the statute in addition we task a selection committee to review all of the candidates and provide us with an analysis as to how they met the statutory criteria including of course absence of bias instead we received a cursory reaffirmation of the current candidates without any analysis whatsoever this was entirely unresponsive to our request there's a difference between approaching potential police misconduct with a critical and skeptical eye which we all would acknowledge to be important and necessary and approaching it with a predetermined set of views neither apologists for the police department nor those reflexively antagonistic to it should be members of this panel

[40:00] today we abandon this ideal we would never appoint someone to the open space Board of Trustees whose stated view was to pave over and sell off our open space why then would we appoint someone to the police oversight panel who demonstrates open persistent and well-documented hostility to that department you know it's almost as if the selection committee sought to maximize the anti-police orientation of the oversight panel and if that is the case that objective May well be achieved but be careful what you wish for um in taking this action tonight we will also diminish the panel of credibility and moral stature as an Arbiter of police Behavior what weight will the community give to its recommendations other than to shrug and say well what did you expect their future determinations will be seen largely as the biased product of a biased panel a vehicle for anti-police sentiment

[41:00] they will render their judgments and many will not care and some the process was flawed It produced inappropriate candidates it ignored the statutory requirements for service on this body the analysis requested by Council was ignored and dismissed the candidates put forward by the selection committee reflected a more politicized process rather than an impartial process intended to provide actual unbiased oversight of the police department it will serve to marginalize the oversight panel and ensure that its judgments will be to some great degree discounted it is difficult to imagine a worse set of outcomes for the important purpose of serious thoughtful and substantive police oversight I will not vote to ratify thanks Mark we've got Matt Tara and Bob and Jenny thanks Aaron um

[42:00] first I just want to say thank you Rachel for those Exquisite comments um it actually makes my job a little easier because I got to trim a whole lot I would have said because you said it way better so allows me to be brief and a lot of my colleagues to say what they want um as was stated you know this has been hard over the last month plus and a lot of Reflection from all of us on this issue one thing is is really clear that this is clearly an Advisory Group um and so I appreciate some of Nicole's points before but what has happened recently is really a stress test and that's helpful for a relatively new panel is to stress test the situation when things are going rough up to this point you know I think the panel and and our police chief have agreed on over 90 percent of the things that they've had to work through it's an exceptional rate of return when you think about that so credit to the panel and credit to our police chief for for being aligned on so many ways but here we are in that sort of stress test but what does that show that shows

[43:00] that there are some fractures in the foundation of what we're working on here it means the ordinance itself needs some fixing needs some reforms and it means we need to clarify what the role of the panel is and we need to do so not just this for the sake of the panel but for the sake of our Police Department Council and our community as a whole because it is in all of our best interests that we put them on everybody on a path to success and so I think we're incumbent on doing that um I I think largely some of the issues that we face around the concerns about certain candidates are a very symptom of those structural issues with the ordinance and how the panels perhaps structure as a whole and so I think and I would love for us to expeditiously work to fix those things I'm hopeful narrated upon hiring our new police monitor that one of the things we can ask them to do is quickly evaluate the work being done the ordinance those structures and really come quickly with some recommendations to help us fix that I would love to see us come back to come back with some recommendations as soon as humanly possible because otherwise we

[44:02] then sit on a system that might be flawed and fractured and it's and everybody's best interest to fix it I want to give great credit to our police chief because of the work that she is doing and trying to find a way that we can end that adversarial relationship that some members of our community have with a police chief who is very reform-minded and is doing an incredible job in trying to meet the moment that we have provided and and she has stepped into by being a police chief in this community and so I'm really hopeful that we can lower the temperature of that at the end of the day I think we can fly the plane and fix it at the same time um and for those Reasons I'm going to be in support of these uh candidates and I look forward to expeditiously fixing and and trying to get us to a better place where these future conversations are done uh without too much drama and we can have a successful oversight that both the police department the community and everybody has full faith and trust in going forward thanks

[45:01] thanks man uh Tara Bob Jenny Lauren and then myself so even though it's been a really difficult month or probably two months I feel like this has been an important discussion for our community I personally do not like conflict or attention but as a member of the police over panel uh oversight panel said in one of the interviews I watched and I'm paraphrasing sometimes tension is good in this case it forces us to realize that there's a problem and that we need to have these necessary conversations so we can go for it as a community I am a strong believer in Us in an unbiased oversight of police departments a strong unbiased oversight of police departments I believe in the need for and the function of a police oversight panel to quote another member of the panel so everyone could experience safety when it comes to contact with the police I do not feel the police should select

[46:03] the people that will be on an independent police oversight panel nor according to the ordinance is the independent monitor allowed to do that either so I really hope we all agree on that so how should the panelists be chosen well there are specific language in the ordinance we already heard about that tonight at least half the members should be African-American latinx Asian and or indigenous in addition there should be someone with a disability someone with experienced home that has experienced homelessness a person identifying as LBGTQ and a person who has experienced incarceration I want to take a second to read a small part of the section of the ordinance that discusses the legislative intent of the panel it is to ensure that historically excluded communities have a voice in police oversight that is the intent so if we want historically excluded community members on this panel after

[47:01] all that is the point of this panel we will get some strong feelings from some people who had negative experiences with the police or whose loved ones have my question is is there a point where a person feels too negatively about the police or has too much bias that it would impede their judgment you know the phrase real or perceived bias has created a lot of discussion perhaps arguing in our community and a lot of confusion you know there are some very smart lawyers on both sides of the argument all who say that their explanation of bias is the correct one and guess what they don't agree with each other in fact I would say that if you said to me what phrase is trending in Boulder right now I'm pretty sure it is real or perceived bias so I believe we need more clarity as to what that phrase means and I believe we actually need it before we proceed any further I have many fixes I would like to see

[48:00] but I will mention just a few for the sake of brevity if you can call a four-minute speech gravity sorry Aaron more first is someone who has seen almost all the interviews I believe that there is a fair amount of frustration and disappointment amongst past and current panel members why do I know that because they say so in the in the interviews folks these people have put in a lot of work sacrificed their free time and have had to experience a lot of pressure lately which is evident if you watch those interviews and you carefully listen and I want to fix that for them quickly and we also see the stress from two people who already uh withdrew their applications in a very compelling comment one of the people who was on the police oversight panel said and I quote I enjoy the review process up until the point we turn it over the vehicle is good we are thorough we get the perspective the community in a way that has never happened before the things that are

[49:00] giving us the most struggle have more to do with legalities and we are people I don't know that we should be worried about that kind of stuff this is the job lawyers do end quote so my number two would be we must make sure the panel has the precise training it needs in terms of legal advice City governance and rules Sunshine laws and administrative support they are people they are volunteers and they need this to succeed my next one is going to be highly controversial maybe or maybe not the ordinance says that while the interviews will be for public viewing the deliberations will be confidential well should they be confidential as a city council member try to make a well thought out and fair decision should I be able to see those deliberations I would love that to be discussed to me it would add transparency to this process open meetings are a good thing this was reiterated to me this very week yesterday in fact for me it's not about

[50:00] trusting or not trusting the panel selection committee we have a system of government in this country that uses checks and balances and that is because the three branches of government need oversight haven't we learned that on a national level in the past few years I would like to again quote someone on the panel I'm going to paraphrase the panel has allowed the opportunity to question the police and to be able to see them as people and provide some scrutiny there because people are capable of anything and I agree with that in other words we all need oversight and finally I'm going to quote myself things are really messed up right now and that is why I'm voting no to this current slate of nominees I realize that my fellow city council members are not implied to further delay this vote until the system gets fixed and I respect their individual individual decisions they are smart each one thinks deeply and they care a lot each one of them cares a lot so I strongly believe that we need to fix

[51:02] things first and I'm going to vote no on the Slate even though it means we have we won't have a quorum by February 8th in cases we push back I am sorry to those who are disappointed with any of my comments tonight on either side by the way and this is the 16th iteration of my speech I did my very best however I want to end optimistically I believe in this community that we will all come together that we will give each other Grace and I truly believe that collaboration will bring us a model for civilian oversight that works for everyone again I'm just voting no because I feel like we need to take the time to fix this ahead of time thank you thanks Tara Bob didn't you need and Lauren wow what a smart wise group of people I'm serving with I feel very humbled by all your comments that's just amazing um when this city council uh set up the police oversight panel in in 2020 we had

[52:00] high hopes that it would serve in partnership with our police department and it would look for ways to improve policing in our community some of those expectations have been met I'm grateful for those who have served on the police oversight panel it's tough work and the community I think is indebted to these people um unfortunately not everything has gone as expected during uh the first police oversight panel which was seated two years ago by unanimous vote of council there has been over the last two years confusion over the roles and responsibilities of the panel uh what city staff personal information can be made public and the limits of the panel's authority at the request of the panel Council last year expanded the penal size to spread out the workload nonetheless some panel members have resigned at least one in protest and the first police monitor who facilitates the panel's work has left in the middle of this turbulence City

[53:00] councils faced with the need to appoint new members to the police oversight panel to replace those whose terms are ending or who have quit in doing so city council must apply the criteria dictated by the law specifically a boulder Revised Code section 2 11 6 a9b requires the following and I'll read verbatim quote members of the police oversight panel shall be volunteers who immediately prior to appointment shall demonstrate an absence of any real or perceived bias Prejudice or conflict of interest at City council's meeting on December 15 a selection committee brought to council a slate of recommended nominees for city council to appoint to the police oversight panic however both before and during that council meeting community members stepped forward and provided to council evidence

[54:00] that they said demonstrated bias Prejudice or conflict of interest among some of the nominees for the oversight panel we have heard more examples of this over the ensuing six weeks including at last week's city council meeting that evidence makes a prima facial case for the possibility that some nominees for the police oversight panel have real or perceived bias Prejudice or conflict of interest because it was unclear to city council at the December 15 council meeting whether the selection committee had seen or considered this evidence city council that night unanimously voted to return the nominees back to the selection committee and ask that the committee review the evidence Council asks that after review of all such evidence along with any other relevant information so selection committee either

[55:00] a advise counsel y it did not believe that such material demonstrated any real or perceived bias Prejudice or conflict of interest among the nominees or B if the selection committee did believe that there was evidence of real or perceived bias Prejudice or conflict of interest among one or more of the nominees that other nominees be recommended however from the memo of the selection committee delivered to City Council in response to this request it appears that the selection committee did not do either one of those things the selection committee reaffirmed their original slate of nominees from December but is unclear whether the selection committee actually considered the materials that it received to ensure that the nominees complied with the criteria enshrined in city law if the selection committee did in fact do this they did not explain how in light of that information the nominees who the committee recommends

[56:01] demonstrate an absence of any real or perceived bias Prejudice or conflict of interest as the law requires and there is now pending a code of conduct complaint by a member of the community concerning this very thing an investigation is now underway for these reasons I am voting against the appointment to the police oversight panel of the Slate of nominees recommended by the selection committee to me the process appears to have failed the selection committee either did not comply with city law or they failed to explain how they did so in failing to explain how they fulfilled the duties required by the law the selection committee risks marginalizing the very important work of the police oversight panel going forward many community members may disregard future recommendations of the panel as having originated from those of

[57:01] bias and Prejudice rather than out of a sincere desire to improve policing in our community if it appears to some that the deck is stacked the deck may simply be ignored it gives me no joy in voting against the selection committee's recommendations there are likely people on this slate of nominees who meet all of the statutory qualifications including those qualifications on bias and Prejudice and in the likely event a majority of my Council colleagues vote tonight to accept the selection committee's recommendations I'm happy that those particular people will have an opportunity to serve on the police oversight panel as diminished as the stature may become while there sounds like there'll be a split vote tonight on whether to accept the recommendations of the selection committee nearly all of us on Council have expressed concern over how the new police oversight panel has functioned during its two-year life

[58:01] soon the city manager will point a new police monitor who can help us re-law launch this panel in a more productive way and as we chart our 2023 city council work plan in a few weeks we need to reserve time this year for Council to take steps to reset expectations and to clarify the roles responsibilities and authority of the police oversight panel with these clarified exceptions expect with these clarified expectations and with the help of a new police monitor we can work together to ensure that we continue to have the excellent policing that our community expects and deserves thanks thank you Bob uh Juni then Lauren then myself thank you so much mayor Brockett um I am a little bit troubled by this

[59:01] conversation from beginning to end and I hear things from both Bob and Mark and the decision of this body I understand that we technically voted to have these people investigated and I understand I asked earlier it's only two members of the panel nonetheless to me that whole process is a bit demoralizing imagine if you were working for an employer and you are being investigated for the most part actually when somebody's being investigated by an employer they tend to actually put them on an administrative leave or something where they're not doing the day-to-day work so I just don't know how we are going to have this process going on that we're looking at the selection committee and then these members will still be able to do a good job with

[60:02] um you know just following the process openly because I really do believe this whole process will have a chilling effect on the members it will make it less likely for them to I understand some of the comments that were made earlier that you know there is a process but nonetheless we are all people we have perspectives as we're following the process as well because we do bring our full selves into every process so in a way to me this investigation and I understand Teresa that's part of the process and I know that I voted no and part of the reason why I did is because I do think our system is flawed I think we have to work on if we if it's either this body is independent or it's not and I think over the last few months the way we've engaged in this selection process shows that it is not independent

[61:00] that it really doesn't have the ability to pick and choose for itself and when it does somehow anyone or group can just showed up into the process put forward a complaint and then we're we're changing the way we see the process so to me I'm just and again another thing that is very that I find a bit confusing as well if some of us say hey these people should be investigated or the process should be investigated let's just set aside the people then essentially we do believe there is a problem and here we are some of us are saying let's vote let's vote Yes so you believe there is a problem but you're ultimately voting yes so to me that's a bit of a conflicting message for me

[62:01] um and honestly when I think about what's been going on with this this whole police oversight conversation ultimately it is a community who suffer we will continue to do our job here on Council but these community members who will come before the panel they will they will look at all processes as something that is not that is Shifty that things are not necessarily as they are and thus important as a body if we want community members to have trust in us we have to have clear processes and sometimes we have to make the hard decision and hard choices right and I've heard from people here you know as as you know one of our members mentioned what he said I concur at least I felt that wow what he said touched me that we're not here to apologize for the police decision we're not here to or to um to demonize or vilify their

[63:05] their decisions we are here to answer right to look at it and say was it a fair process and as far as I'm concerned in my understanding of the process if they're an independent body and yes ultimately we have to vote on their choice but we have to give them that opportunity and again it's just very surprising to me hearing some of the conversation going on and how some of us can go from you know let's abolish the police to today you know we this is this is just great so I think we have to be consistent in the job that we do it's not about whether we love the police or not it's about fairness and that's what I stand on and that's what I base my votes on when I voted in December or at least when I talked about the fact that I didn't want to have this conversation tonight because I do believe I just don't see

[64:02] what happened the um the appointments rise to the level of any type of investigation because people do have the right to free speech so to me it's a matter of fairness it's not a matter of whether I love the police or dislike the police and I've been very consistent on my stance on the police as far as I was never an abolitionist I've always been believed in reforming so ultimately that my decision tonight or at least this process has been very confusing on how we express or or agreement or disagreement about how this process should move forward thank you next Genie learn thanks Aaron um I'm gonna focus on the main point of contention that I've heard which is mainly about whether any of the candidates are showing real or perceived bias prejudiced or conflict of interest as required by code

[65:00] as Sean Ray mentioned bias is a difficult thing to judge bias is defined by the Cambridge English dictionary as the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way especially oh sorry because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment prejudice is defined as an unfair or unreasonable opinion or feeling especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge unfair and unreasonable are very important words in these definitions as I see it my job isn't to decide if these candidates are for or against more or less funding for the police department my job is to determine if the if they are expressing an unfair or unreasonable feeling

[66:01] given the actions of both the Boulder police officers for instance those that preceded the formation of the oversight panel and instances we've seen on the national stage I don't believe the sentiments expressed by these candidates are necessarily unfair or unreasonable and I will support moving the police oversight panel selection of panelists forward thanks Lauren well I'll call on myself uh and just say I'm really grateful to my colleagues I've I've heard some very thoughtful words tonight and it's clear that all of us have spent a lot of time agonizing and thinking over these questions in in great detail and great depth I know I certainly have had some sleepless nights tossing and turning thinking over the best way to proceed there's been a lot of strong opinions and conflict in the community about it and I'll I'll mention uh Rachel you you

[67:02] spoke pretty much my thoughts on this matter I thought those were very well articulated I'm sort of tempted to say ditto on what Rachel said but I'm gonna offer just a few words of my own as well um I and I want I want to thank the police oversight panelists for all the hard work that they have done you know I've been through this process every step of the way uh in the last few years and have appreciated deeply the hard work that community members and selection committee members and the panelists have done throughout that I spoke briefly with Daniel Leonard one of the co-chairs today to get a little bit more of his perspective and to thank him he wrote us an email about all the hard work and how tired they are and how much help they need with with new panelists to continue doing the work that we set them up to do and and I also very much want to thank our Police Department for the uh amazing work that they do day in and day out as well as our phenomenal Chief Harold uh

[68:01] whose work I have enormous respect for and and I had a personal relationship with this just recently as I think most of you know my my wife was hit by a car while walking our dog a couple of weeks ago and all the First Responders were incredibly helpful and that included the representative from the police department who had a tough night for me and my family was very compassionate and helpful and so I've seen just up close and personal uh how great award the department uh can do just just recently and I just want to reiterate what some folks have said here which is that the what we're dealing with tonight is not about whether we should or should not have uh police oversight panel or whether we do or do not support our Police Department it's it's about uh nominating this particular slate of candidates to to the oversight panel to allow them to continue under their work and you know the the oversight pail is advisory you know Nicole asked questions to to that point it is it is not it does not have ultimate Authority

[69:00] um and so it's it does important work and it makes important recommendations but it is advisory and that advisory panel needs a variety of opinions on it and it I think it it is fine for some of those opinions to be strong as long as the panelists can be impartial about the case cases that come before them and I appreciate learning your words about teasing out the the difference between having opinions and being unfair about them and whether you would have an unfair approach to matters that came before the panel so I do um have confidence I would expect every panel member to be impartial and to be clear about evaluating the facts about of each case and I do think these people in front of us tonight have the ability to do that I will uh watch for that and expect that from them but one thing is a number of people have referenced one thing that is clear is is that we do need some revisions to the the process the selection process and also to the operation of the panel

[70:01] itself and uh I know that work is to come um as Bob said I think we'll uh prioritize that in our retreat in a few weeks here that we do need to allow time for revisions um to how the the panel operates um and I'm looking forward to having the new panel members and the existing panel members work with the new uh independent monitor I'm confident in Nuria and Amy's ability to select a highly qualified new monitor who can then work together and you know produce a set of recommendations for us to consider about how to make this critical uh function in our in our community and our society work better and um and in the meantime though the the panel needs to function as important work to do so if we don't appoint panelists tonight the the panel will be not able to function for uh who knows exactly how many weeks or months and the day-to-day and week-to-week work that they do is critical and so I will be voting uh yes

[71:02] on our slated candidates tonight and look forward to the panel continuing its important work and to the revisions that we'll all make together to improve things going forward so with that all nine of us have had our piece um you could reassuring if you really had to for another comment but I'd love to go to a vote if that is all right with my colleagues seeing no objections Elisha can we do a roll call vote on this one yes sir of course we can all right we'll start this roll call vote for the appointment of the police oversight panel with council member Yates no Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes councilmember faulkers yes brand yes

[72:02] Joseph yes spear yes mayor Pro Tim Wallick no councilmember weiner no the appointment of the police oversight panel is hereby approved with a vote of seven to two I believe that was six to three six three six to three my apologies okay thank you Alicia um and just thanks again everyone for your thoughtful deliberations tonight and uh to all the community members who've paid close attention to this and and we'll just pledge to continue to work together to make all this function as best as it absolutely possibly can for our community going forward and with that that's actually the end of our special meeting but we still have a study session to come so I'm going to adjourn this special meeting and then hand it back over uh Alicia for you to get us started on the study session so gavel is closed on the special meeting

[73:02] and hand it over yes sir we will end this meeting at 708 pm and we will now turn it over to Mayor Pro Tim Wallick to lead the special meeting on the Lighter Side um good evening and welcome to tonight's study session of the Boulder City Council I'm mayor Pro tem Mark Wallach and thank you for joining us we have on tonight's agenda two items our first item will be a discussion of the proposed boards and commissions liaison duties and procedures and our second item is accessory dwelling unit regulations update before we go into our work items I'd like to outline how the meeting will be conducted we will review staff's presentation for each of the items and then we will have a time for questions at the end of the presentation we will conduct our Council demonstration discussion with staff if you have questions please wait for staff to complete their presentation this should be good I'm now going to

[74:01] turn to our city manager um Nuria Rivera vandermeid to introduce our first item if she can thanks so much for this and you'll hear me very very little today but I'm going to pass it to our assistant city manager Pam Davis thanks very much Nuria um hello everyone good evening my name is Pam Davis I use she her pronouns and I am assistant city manager for the city of Boulder so tonight I'm just here to do a kind of a brief tee up for you all to deliberate regarding a proposal to establish a council liaison program to each of our boards and commissions by way of just a bit of history and a reminder back in October October 27 2022 we had a study session to discuss a wide variety of board and commission Improvement suggestions one of which was

[75:01] a notion brought forward by the board and commission Council subcommittee related to piloting one council member establishing a relationship with a board to explore this notion of becoming a liaison that could then be applied to the rest of council through that discussion you indicated an interest not in pursuing that method but sending some work back to to the staff team and the subcommittee to explore what would a more robust Council liaison program look like what are some other cities doing and how could we structure such a program to enhance engagement between uh you all and your boards and commissions and so we have since done that staff researched several different city models for Council and board liaison programs and I'd like to just quickly acknowledge the stack team involved with that our clerk Alicia Johnson our elections administrator John Morse we had support from our engagement team and Brenda

[76:00] rittenour as well as our assistance of city council Taylor Ryman and then the city attorney's office as well collaborated on some of these details that group then brought recommendations back to our Council subcommittee of council members Weiner and folkerts and we offered them sort of a wide menu of what various Council liaison dudes could look like um they provided feedback that was then whittled down into the recommendations that you saw in the amended attachment a of your packet um it's about six suggestions for essentially a job description or a list of duties for a potential Council liaison role that you all could take on as well as some initial thoughts around a process for selecting which council member might be appointed as liaison to which four is in commissions and so with that we do have uh two slides available to you all that go into detail about what those descriptions are

[77:01] um so we would be happy to um pull those up at this time just to do a quick walk through and then um so Emily if you're there perfect and then I'm happy to turn it back over to you mayor Pro Tem for uh managing the council's discussion um so essentially following deliberation with the boards and commissions subcommittee um the list was narrowed down to um a this following notion of sort of six essential duties for being a board and commission liaison so one would be to attend the annual Retreat of your uh respective board and commission to understand their work plans for the year and intentions two would be over the course of the year to attend one or two of said Borden commission meetings so that you can observe their business and we'd recommend that that be done with some advanced notice to the leaders of that border commission um then third would be you'd be sort of

[78:00] a designated primary Communication channel for that given board and commission so as as leadership of that board and commission wanted to communicate to council and vice versa as Council wanted to communicate with that board in commission you would take on um that responsibility in the recruitment process you would participate in the interviews for that given border commission um that as border commission questions um came up about city council priorities you would hope to be a conduit for information regarding the council as a whole and then finally to assist with sort of challenges that may come up about the the functioning of the board and commission and bring those to City staff and the full Council for resolution so happy to have you discuss which of those duties you you agree with if you choose to pursue this direction of establishing a liaison program and then the second slide is really

[79:00] um after that first question might be answered of whether you'd like to pursue a similar scope as as to what has been outlined we just have some initial thoughts for you about the authority of counsel to appoint a single liaison to each board in commission that the term of the the office of your liaison ship so to speak would coincide with the existing cycle of committee appointments that you currently do so we would have a similar Cadence um and add this to the list of assignments that council members would take on and then finally uh the process for actually selecting those assignments we recognize um if you move forward with such a program there would need to be a deliberation if there was multiple council members interested in a particular border commission to liaise with that perhaps the each council member could sort of rank their preferences of boards and commissions and then staff could consolidate those

[80:01] into a recommended slate that could then be further discussed and negotiated upon during your biannual Retreat or similar midterm check-in as needed so with that summary I'm certainly happy to turn it over to you mayor Pro tem or the members of the board and commission subcommittee for further comment does the subcommittee have any particular comments up front otherwise let's go to questions yeah I think we did have some quick comments to make first of all and Tara please jump in with anything I miss but in general the idea I think for us was to sort of present a starting place these are this is a list of things that we thought worth considering um that doesn't necessarily mean that we feel really strongly that all six of these things need to be you know it's not all or nothing um it's just a place to start the

[81:00] conversation from okay Tara anything to add yeah I trust this Council and so you don't have to feel obligated to us to vote a certain way or feel bad that you are voting whatever way you do um as my daughter would say you do you each one of you so and I support that um I do want to say that uh my original was from a point of if I remember just thinking that we it would be nice for us to have some type of even little relationship with our boards and commissions because we don't have unless we personally call people we don't really have that right now and uh I thought that that would be nice but again you know it's up to to the will of counsel on this okay let me open it up now for questions are there any questions either of the subcommittee or uh or Pam Davis

[82:00] well Matt oh I see Tara's hand up so does she have a question or uh okay um yeah mostly I have comments but there is just one question which is is are we aiming to have a liaison for every single boarding commission or or do we have some sort of cut off on which ones will have that so I'm just sort of curious I don't think I saw that in the memo or it was just assumed that it would be all so I just want to get clarity on that we talked about it both ways um I I think it you know I think that there are count are definitely Awards and commissions that have work that more directly relates to what council's doing on an ongoing basis and that where I think that this has a lot more benefit um I think that all of the boards and commissions could benefit from this but there you know is definitely a

[83:00] reasonable question of time and commitment from um all of us for instance though if you're for instance on the Water Board that sounds like torture so there's better name for that then um you might want though to know Council people so just because it's a smaller board isn't it just still the the concept is still there although it just might be call me if you need me you know or if you have any troubles or if you need a friend or whatever we decide okay Rachel thanks Mark okay uh my two questions so on the potential liaison duties number two says serve as the primary Communication channel support I just didn't know like what does that mean what is what is being the primary Communication channel really going to mean

[84:03] council member friend I'm happy to address the question I was just wait pausing to see if a subcommittee member would I think based on the conversation we had the the notion in the research that we did is just really a designated point of contact so from the Borden commission perspective if they have an interest or need in getting in touch with the council body over a particular issue getting clarification on um the the priorities of council um wanting to check in on a particular issue they would know this is the person that is my liaison right and so that could be that point of contact in the reverse case there could Envision situations where the whole of council wanted to have a connection to a particular board and rather than have to engage in a full-fledged process you could go and say hey liaison why don't you start by talking to a particular board chair or attend a meeting and

[85:01] represent us and bring back to um whatever that perspective might be so I think that's the sense it's really just about creating a clear pathway um for information to go back and forth okay thanks for that and then on number six it says we would be assist as requested with identifying any challenges that may exist with respect to the functioning of the board bring those to City staff how are we better trained or equipped to identify challenges or handle this we all have different backgrounds and you know why would we do this how would we help the boards or the community in taking that on yeah if you don't mind I'd love to jump in here um so so I would I would suggest a council that um that if you adopt this that it would instead be rather than go to staff that you would go to Nuria as that's the appropriate pathway under our Charter

[86:00] um in addition boards and commissions are under the purview of city council and so staff doesn't have any Authority um to address issues that are happening within a border commission meeting um if there are you know if there are procedural issues or members with problematic behaviors um only the city council is is in a position to to to take care of that and do something about it I certainly can't speak to your expertise to do so but um but it is within your Authority okay I will save everything else for comments thanks Nicole you're up thank you um yeah I just had a question about the uh duties section and uh probably for subcommittee foreign was there discussion of what the duties would not be um so just kind of a way to further constrain uh some of us like we're seeing what it would be just wondering if there if you all discussed and what

[87:01] you came up with about what it is not well I know what I would I would not like it to be um but I don't know if we discussed Lauren did we discuss what we would not like it to be I mean we don't want to it's there I believe in separations of powers I just mentioned that in my speech so we're certainly not going to want to push ourselves on these boards and commissions who are supposed to be separate bodies and making their own decisions that wasn't the purpose of this and I think that if we did that it would be not an abusive power but maybe so that's my opinion about so not anything more so that we were um Liaisons really yeah and I think that kind of comes out in the bullet point number one of the attending one to two boards or commission meetings By Invitation of the board or commission like the the intention is that the city council

[88:02] member is not going to all of the meetings in an official capacity I mean if they're public meetings so anyone can watch them but you know in terms of participation with the meeting um that they're there was an idea there that there would be some kind of restriction on that so that the boards and commissions can function as they typically do any other questions let me open up the floor to uh comments comments Rachel then Matt I will run through mine that I I do not think will be particularly well received by anyone but here goes um I'm I'm against us creating this liaison position first of all I don't see a particular need for it and I think it will get politicized very quickly my guess is that most of us will want the same like four to six boards I assume

[89:01] that the people in the minority three to four people will just get bounced to a board that they don't want every single time there's I just don't see a way that this doesn't get politicized um and we used to see that like even just with asking questions to boards and commissions during interviews like if you're a more senior and in the majority you asked a question and others did not um so I just I think that this will have negligible if any Community benefit it will be more of a time commitment for us and a lot of us are already overworked and underpaid and then we will infight I think dramatically over appointments and opportunities and I I just have no interest in going there so that's first second as to the potential duties for number one attend one to two border commissions meetings a year I would say that's Max um and I was trained that we cannot open our mouths at board meetings or commission meetings and unless we are speaking on behalf of our colleagues and

[90:00] with Council input and permission and from what I have seen we have gotten very far away from that so I would firm up our rule about no speaking in any board or commission meetings and we are a political group of people like I think half of us right now are going to be running for Council or mayor this year um and and I don't think anyone should be seen uh by by staff by the boards or by community members watching the boards as kind of the expert I think we all have a lot of interest in a lot of boards and this is is just going to be um heavily politicized again um I I think that um also when we speak to boards uh and we are a council member uh there's a potential for us being seen as sort of speaking for the majority so I would strongly if we are going to create this liaison um I mean either way I think we should tighten up that work rule if we have this liaison it should be a Max of two um and and no one should be speaking in

[91:01] any boards other than that because that has been the the rule and I think it's got really strong political reasons for for not allowing us to do that um and and I think it also has the potential to sort of Curry favor with board members um and especially if you're on this higher level profile higher profile boards um and again like with so many people running for office I think that can just get turned into endorsements and and I don't think that's fair especially for people in the minority of which um not too long ago I was and so uh I think you know we should be mindful of being fair um on point number four uh to help resolve questions um you know I have um encountered situations where City Council Members maybe we think we we know more than we do and I'm not sure that any of us should be instructing an entire board from our own lens there are nine of us with nine different Vantage points so for um for us to answer like the the role

[92:00] and what our priorities are and um just what we see is important for that border commission I think that that again uh is if we're doing it on the record and and seeing us speaking for counsel that's brought um on point number five to represent the interests of designated boards and commissions in the council Retreat and priority um setting process again just this this will be probably slanted by our political lenses so um I wouldn't go there either again wouldn't be doing any of this at all but I would just tread lightly and I won't be here much longer so it's not going to impact me so um I just think this is a this is again just extremely fraught um and finally number six um to assist again as requested with identifying any challenging any challenges to the functioning as I said I don't believe that we are all equally trained or equipped to identify or deal with challenges so I think that you know

[93:00] that's the luck of the draw that the board gets like if they get me versus you know whoever else like I I'm I don't have expertise in that I think I I do a worse job than some and better than others so why would we um set up that that kind of inequality I think that it could we have a boards in commission um subcommittee that right now all of the stuff funnels to and they should be trained and and becoming experts in doing that so I would have it continue to go to them for the challenges um and and then you know in terms of like identifying what what is functioning or dysfunctional I might have through a political lens called one board fairly dysfunctional over the last couple years and you know maybe Mark Wallach would not have and he I might have been kind of cheerleading another board that uh I thought was like knocking it out of park because I like what they're doing politically and Mark might have been like they're they're way off you know Off the Mark here so I I

[94:00] just see topped about him this whole thing is is fraught we have a system that's working I don't often agree with uh you know this is a solution is that what you say Mark or Bob solution looking for a problem or problem looking for solution I can't remember which way it goes but that is how I feel about this and I don't know why we're going down this road and I think it's it's if not for this Council the next council is is going to pay the price for us doing this so I would I would call it quits that's all I got thanks I just want to comment on your statement that we are underpaid I think much of of the community thinks we're probably grossly overpaid but fair enough Matt Bob Nicole thanks Mark yeah the compensation at dinners before Council meetings is excessive [Laughter] um uh thank you for that and uh just say uh Rachel's on fire tonight I just want to call shine a light on that so thank you um um so first I I'm I'm kind of generally

[95:02] uncomfortable with how we've kind of gotten here um in the Years prior to being on Council I was quite vocal and supportive about this uh kind of evolution with regards to having some oversight and or at any oversight but just connect greater connection with our boards and commissions um but but as it sort of played out you know um I I think this we sort of ended up with sort of an unsanctioned pilot of this without Council input and it kind of just reared its own head in its own way and then now it's ending up in sort of a formal proposal as a result of that so just how we got here just really has me uncomfortable um but but in light of that um I think one of the pieces is for one I think we start if we if we do this I personally want extremely clear guard rails not just what they can do but really to Nicole's Point what we can't do I think we got a small start small and start tight and if things work

[96:01] expand it's really hard to tighten the reins once they're loose um so I think that is a place to go if we end up doing this I'd start small one board a person just go with sort of the nine more not not to disparage other boards but just the nine that have the greatest connections to our sort of daily weekly workload one each uh I would not do top five Rachel's spot on I could probably be in high confidence knowing which of the top four or five all of us are going to put on their list and then we're sort of just peacocking around for the ones that we want and someone gets left out if you're gonna do it and you probably should be randomized and it shouldn't be every two years it should be every one so no any particular council member sort of institutionalizes themselves with that particular board and it creates more variety and that rotation is probably a healthier end result as a whole um I I think one meeting is probably Max again I'd start small have one meeting

[97:00] um and we to or I'll reiterate Rachel's point I think it needs to be a standing thing not a part of this program but we should not be presenting to boards this is a staff's role we need to keep some separation there and in terms of what the guidance is I think it's really mostly about um process I think we should be focused mostly on process and helping them out or if they're sort of inter-board conflicts um and Personnel conflicts and helping resolve some of that um I think we should really steer clear of any policy conversations with our boards and commissions um and um I mean that that really sums it up but I think I sh I'm yeah I'm sort of challenged with how we got here with that so I would be fine if we didn't do this um but if we did I would want the strictest of guard rails of what we can and certainly what we can't do and start off on a pretty small scale and if things are going okay expanded at a later date uh Bob Matt you're right Rachel is on fire tonight wow I agree with everything that

[98:00] Rachel and Matt said I um this is not something that I probably would be inclined to do either and I say that from the perspective of somebody who served on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board from 2009 to 2013 including last two years as chairman I remember we talked all the time on the Parks Board gosh it would be great if we Council would just pay attention to us and if we could just have a console liaison it'll be really great and they would show that they loved us and they recognize all the hard work we're doing and now that I'm on the other side of that thing and I recognize how much work we do I'm not so sure that we can add this either to our workload or to the workload of future councils uh this is the time in the cycle where people start to come to council members and say gosh you know community members do and I'm thinking about running for Council how much work is it and you have two choices you can either tell them the truth or you can lie to them and um this just adds a lot more work I looked at that list of six things I thought oh my God uh that's a lot of work and that's just one more thing we're gonna have to tell perspective

[99:01] uh candidates that they're gonna have to add to the workload and and unfortunately you know with our compensation system um this we are excluding people from serving on this Council because they have jobs because they're raising children because of other things going on in their lives and I think making our workload greater is just going to drive more of those people away and and this becomes an unrepresented unrepresentative uh Council and that's a consequence of of what we've done here and so I think this would just be exacerbating that problem the most I would do I'm not going to go through the list of six things on the list but the most I would do I'm I'm with with Rachel and Matt I'm not sure I would do any of this but the most I would do if there's a problem that we think we need to solve is as I would just have a point of contact a designated council member who's appointed contact it's passive it's a one-way communication if somebody on that board wants to contact us and say hey we've got a problem we got an issue we got a question or whatever they can pick up the phone or send an email and they can ask that designated person

[100:01] a question of course they can do that now they can ask any one of us a question if they want to we don't get the whole lot of questions but if it made people feel better to have a plan of contact that's fine I agree completely with Matt how we make it completely randomized and I would make it a year long term that way there's no competition we just pass a hat up and down the dice and Bob pulls out an environmental in bjap that's what I got for a year that's what I'm going to have next year I pull out two more names and that's what I have for that year so I would make it random I would make it one year like Matt suggested and I would make it merely a point of contact we would not attend our meetings we would not attend their Retreats but not tell them what to do wouldn't do anything other than answer the phone or answer emails if they send them to us but I'm not sure I would even do that but that's the most I would do if if there's a majority in Council that want to do something thanks Nicole thank you um I still do think that this is a good idea just in response to um what others were mentioning about the feedback from boards and commissions

[101:01] that it actually means something for them to have a council person showing up and um showing you know some some engagement some willingness to pay attention to the work that they're doing even as just a presence even not saying something um I think it does still make people value for their time in the same way that when we go to community events and things people get really excited when we show up because there there is a sort of um it it just it shows that we're paying attention to the things that are happening in the city but I would I would offer some suggestions um one is just around um the idea of the um I think Teresa was right on point that you know any any challenges or anything should go to the city manager that should not be anybody um trying to you know inject themselves um with staff or anything like that um the let's see I'm having some

[102:01] description of what it is not I think can really help with some guard rails on this to make sure that it doesn't kind of become a political sort of thing um explicitly is dating you know it's not guiding board work it's not recommending direction for the board work it's not influencing the decisions of the board and it's not representing the council opinion right because as one person we can't ever do that but I think you know noting that we are there to provide information and clarification on um on any you know issues that um like our work plan items for example um facilitate sharing information across entities these I do think are are potentially valuable things to have um let's see the other oh and the other thing was um I actually think in the selection process it makes sense to have roles overlap a bit so um for example and I I will just name that I'm I'm having a hard time tonight feeling

[103:01] like some of these criticisms are not directed at me that's still just kind of putting putting that out there to name it and um but the this idea of having some overlap with other committee works so for example me as the Dr Cog representative for our Council having that overlap with transportation makes logical sense because that's where some of the tip projects and things are coming through we're discussing Dr Cobb board work if people have questions about some of those things from the perspective of a Dr director then I would be able to answer those questions so so that it does make sense to me I think there's some Synergy or symmetry between some of these roles that um that could make sense um and just kind of help bridge some of these multiple uh connections a little bit so that would be what I would offer of just trying to create some um some of those symmetry so for example between human relations commission and the

[104:00] racial Equity committee um again kind of just having some of those overlapping perspectives I could see being helpful and you know about the this workload issue it's one to two meetings a year that we would be asking each other to attend a board or commission um I think the solution to the workload issue and how that may bias who can serve in this role is not to avoid the things that can make some of our work better but rather to pay us the living wage for the work that we're doing on behalf of the city so to me that is the solution and if we're concerned about workload having some of these synergies between committees and and the liaison position could help thank you uh Tara then Juni and then I will call upon myself said I can't even use that word that work we still

[105:00] um but it's true when I was on Parks we all said gosh we wish that the city council paid attention to us and read what we wrote to them and and now that I'm sitting on the other side I'm definitely not leaning I'm not saying I'm against it but I'm definitely leading towards uh uh now I can actually see your old points who think it's not a good idea so I just wanted to say I appreciated that Bob and I can see both sides and I am just really I might even just say whatever you guys want not even vote I'm just saying that uh Judy thank you I heard some pretty good feedback tonight that I do agree with um I do get a sense that so here's what happened on Council here's the issue what happened on Council a lot sometimes not always and I

[106:03] remember Nicole well not to speak poorly of maybe myself too as someone who's been on different for instance we're on Dr Cox together but there are other things that we are all on on subcommittees and some of them do report right every so often but some of them don't report at all we just expect us to do a good job so ultimately what is the hope of having these two members on these committees and boards is it to give feedback to council but we do get somewhat of a feedback annually when we do the boards and commissions so I'm not sure if having two council members on boards and commissions is really a good thing and I think someone said something I I can understand that

[107:01] when we council members show up places sometimes people do try to Lobby us or they'll talk to us in a way that you know so I I'm just not sure if joining meetings if that's going to negatively impact certain decisions or even positively right some of the boards they give us recommendations if we show up two of us show up and we sit there as they're making their decisions even tonight considering how things went well they feel wow I better make the decisions that the count these two council members want or they'll report to the council so I'm I'm just not sure if that's the right way to go and I have to say Rachel's points are well taken you know we I mean we do take on this job I know it wasn't paying and um I've taken on another job that doesn't pay but I'm willing to make that sacrifice But ultimately again a comment

[108:00] that was made earlier is that we also have to think of the bandwidth of other members and also well it foreclosed the opportunity for other people in the community who eventually wants to do this job so thank you mayor and then I believe Nicole has a question yeah people have made some great points here tonight I guess I'm I'm open to having this function uh I would just make sure that the scope was really limited so I I would so I would not include the Retreats um as something that we attended and I think maybe uh what I might recommend would be to go to one meeting to introduce yourself like but not really necessarily stay for the whole thing but like maybe show up at the beginning I have an introduction say hi to everybody say hey I'm available for any questions here's how you get in touch with me um and and maybe maybe limit it to that

[109:00] as a as a liaison position rather than an advisor to the board I think I I wouldn't want to see you know the the person representing each board having an overly loud voice in their decision-making processes um but but I do see a potential value to uh to having a go-to point person for for a board uh to be able to go reach out and talk to a council member if they had any questions or things they wanted to uh talk over so I might think about that kind of scope uh rather than the other so no it's but I'm open to what the majority Council wants to do Nicole you had a question I believe yeah just uh I'm sorry I forgot to ask this when I was giving comments um is there any way of finding out from boarding commission members whether you know Define define this position kind of specify it and then just see is this something that they would see as being valuable or welcomed or not um just wondering if that's an option

[110:00] yeah I think if we were to go forward with that that's definitely something that would be worth looking into um but I think that sort of the question on it to me sort of after listening to a lot of this it sounds like what's the main question is is there enough interest on Council to go forward with revising this to come up with a very small scope um liaison position or not because I I don't know that that's clear to me at this point I would say that just in defense of the list a little bit we did get this from looking at other communities um so it's not that uh we made all of this up there are communities around us who are doing these types of things as a way to Foster um interaction with their boards and commissions and their Council

[111:01] I'm never going to get a chance to talk Junior you're up oh sorry go ahead thanks well maybe um based on what I hear from Lauren tonight maybe you're after you respond she this may be clearer in what direction we should go maybe a stroppel might be helpful for this particular discussion thank you all right I'm going to chime in um I'm not sure I I fully see the the purpose of this although I greatly appreciate the work that's gone into it and the more we strip it down um in some respects the less purpose it has um one of my concerns is that no matter what our point of contact is um we're going to be putting our thumb on the scales a little bit just advising um the commenting whatever it is we're asked to do

[112:00] um you know if they're going to get the mark Wallach version if I'm on that board uh or the liaison for that board they're not going to get the Lauren Focus um vision of what the right thing to do is and I think we really ought to be staying out of the way um if we can make the life of boards and commissions better and more effective we should do that but I'm not sure that giving them an um the point of view of any or all council members is the way to go um and other than that I would simply refer everybody refer everybody back to uh Rachel's comments and my comment is what she said so um I think that's that and that completes the uh the comments um uh we're permitted to take a straw poll are we not uh Teresa okay then perhaps we should do that now

[113:01] um the first question being who would like to see this this process continue and I don't want to create work for the purpose of work and and so if we're not very serious about the this process and and this structure um we ought to be fairly candid about it so who would who would like to see this process continue and basically send the subcommittee back to shape the proposal a little more I see one two um who would probably take a pass and you know Let it go for another day one two three four five I think that's dispositive um all right any final comments from anybody on this

[114:02] and move a lot of final comments okay Matt first you then Rachel and Aaron maybe we might be headed in a similar Direction um I I just want to thank uh Lauren and Tara for putting in the work I mean uh there was interest by Council and you guys Dove all in on it and I really appreciate you guys diving in doing the peer review and coming back with this uh and and yeah that's the nature of the Beast sometimes uh that all those things get love on but but uh really appreciate you guys really diving in and you've done a lot of work on Boards of commissions certainly in my tenure with the two of you on that committee so uh yet another round of applause for just the hard work that you guys do and the thoroughness you put in for boards and commission work um so it is definitely noticed so greatly appreciated and certainly setting us up for success for their next round of boards and commission interviews so so I just want to thank you both Rachel and would extend that to Pam Davis and other staff who have worked on this I we are sorry that we asked for something and then and then didn't re-night it so

[115:02] that's got to be very frustrating I I apologize and thank you for the work you did and then I also wanted to ask Mark maybe if we could take a straw poll on looking at the work rules that um say how many board meetings we can go to at all or you know like observe in real life and and speak it I'm not quite sure sounds like we maybe had different we're getting trained differently like currently versus in the past and so maybe we should just look at it would you like to formulate a straw poll question sure is there support for us to look at the work rule around attending boards before we do that I'm sorry my apologies uh mayor Brockett you had a comment yeah well I was just going to do the same thank you to to uh Taryn Lauren and Pam and staff and Echo the apologies for uh making having people do work that's not being followed up on so appreciate all your effort there but then I'll just say Rachel to your point is that maybe

[116:00] is that not just a report back to us maybe from Teresa or the attorneys to say like what are the current rules and we can I think that'd just be helpful information to have that's fine too I'm happy to provide that yeah thank you um get a Judy go Judy did you have a comment no I think Therese salary do you answered thank you so much okay all right seeing no further comments um we will move on to item number two on today's agenda which will be accessory dwelling unit regulations update um and I will pass that over to anyone who actually has a voice um that would be Brad councilman mayor Pro tem thank you very much Brad you're up good evening council members uh we are excited to bring this item discussion literally for decades and uh

[117:00] Boulder as Lisa is going to highlight but um got attention most recently in a legislative sense in 2019 but has also been talked and researched more recently uh following your direction at after the council Retreat of just over a year ago so with that I will um uh thank you and pass it on to Lisa for presentation [Music] just a heads up if I turn off my camera it's because I'm blowing my nose but I'm still listening and still here but um I do have a voice so I should be able to get through this presentation and looking forward to talking with you all more about accessory dwelling units we were last here back in November when we talked about the work plan program priorities and all of the different priority projects related to planning and development services so we're excited to have an update to provide to

[118:01] you tonight um just I know you all know since it's on your list of work plan priorities but an Adu just for the basics for anyone that might be listening because we'll use This Acronym a lot an accessory dwelling unit or Adu is a small residence sharing a lot with a larger main house in Boulder we have both an attached Adu style and a detached Adu style you can see the graphics on the right so an attached at you can be like an attic or basement apartment and a detached Adu is in a different structure usually like a converted garage or an apartment above a garage but it is an independent and self-contained living space with kitchen and bathroom and things like that um we're here to talk to you tonight because of the Adu update project that you prioritize back in November we talked and finalized the scope for the project and determined that these four items would be the focus area so that's what we'll be talking about tonight and

[119:01] we're hoping for input and direction from Council on these items before we start to actually draft the ordinance so the four items in the scope for the Adu update project include eliminating the Adu saturation limit modifying the size limits and the method of measurement for size clarifying and simplifying the regulations and improving the overall approval process so I have some background slides and then I have the presentation kind of divided into uh the questions that were in your memo so I'll start with the background a little bit about the engagement plan for this project um for this year so we are as we discussed in November we're planning to rely quite a bit on the public engagement that was undertaken with the last update to the Adu regulations back in 2018 there was a significant amount of public engagement done at that size or at that time and a lot of it was relevant to some of the focus areas that

[120:02] we're looking at again so things like saturation limit and size limits were all focuses back then so we're able to use that to inform this future work as well which is really great and attached your memo packet there was a summary of the engagement that was done between 2016 and 2018 and I'll also go briefly over that in the next couple of slides as well we met with the community connectors and residents a couple weeks ago which is the group that kind of represents underrepresented groups in Boulder and provides a diversity of and a variety of perspectives and we talked with them about adus I will also give an overview of that we met with planning board last week the asterisk on the slide means that that's a meeting with an opportunity for open public comment and then we are at housing Advisory Board just last night and obviously we're here tonight and we'll be going to the board of zoning adjustment in their February meeting as well we've also established a be heard Boulder page the online public engagement site where people can submit

[121:01] virtual engagement or input related to adus how current adus are working or their input on the future changes as well as well as that site being kind of a Clearinghouse for people understanding how they can submit input through the process we'll also have office hours so staff will be available for questions and answers with the public throughout February and March and then we'll go into the ordinance review about actual public hearing process scheduled for about April or May of this year and we think with all of this we'll be able to meet the consult level of Engagement that we discussed back in November so just a brief overview like I said there's more detail in your packet but looking back at the engagement that was done back in 2016 back between 2016 and 2018 the last major update of the ad regulations these are just some kind of quantitative summary of all the engagement that was done at that time and then just some Key Community

[122:01] concerns that came up which are some of the things we're still Hearing in public comments as well um neighborhood nuisances over occupancy owner occupancy illegal rentals saturation limits and affordability are all common concerns at that in the previous engagement round um we also had a questionnaire in 2018 that actually asked some questions really similar to these Focus areas that we're going to be working on with this project so we asked about the saturation limit at the time the proposal uh included a change to increase the saturation limit from 10 to 20 percent and so there were mixed opinions about that in the questionnaires about 2200 respondents to that questionnaire in 2018 and about a third of those were opposed to raising it from 10 to 20 percent um but there are also many residents who were supportive of the increase in saturation and even a significant number of those said indicated that they would

[123:02] support going even further and eliminating which is the step that we're not looking at with this project the questionnaire also asked about size limits so I will get into more detail later excuse me um but the original proposal at the time in 2018 was to increase the size limit for detached from 450 square feet to 800 square feet and to increase for attached from a third of the principal house or a thousand square feet to a half or a thousand square feet and um although the questionnaire indicated that a majority of respondents were supportive of that increase the one for attached did not get adopted ultimately so that is still a third or a thousand and they limit for detached actually was increased just to 550 at the time we also had a community survey in 2016 related to the Boulder Valley comp plan comp plan that was a statistically valid

[124:02] survey um it actually asked three different questions uh gauging support for adus and established neighborhoods and all three of those questions received a majority of support for allowing more adus in established neighborhoods with about 62 percent support in that survey mentioned we met with the community connectors in Residence just a few weeks ago and we really focused that conversation on the benefits and burdens of adus which is one of the steps of the racial Equity plan that Boulder has and this is a really high level overview there's more detail in one of the attachments to your packet but some of the feedback that we got back got from the community connectors was that they were generally supportive of eliminating the saturation limit and increasing the size limit but they did want to make sure that in doing that we're making sure that adus are truly providing housing for the people that need it in Boulder and that they're remaining affordable they had some really great programmatic ideas we talked about Section 8 housing

[125:01] vouchers uh the potential for having some funding assistance for Adu construction so that first time home buyers people of color the economically disadvantaged folks would be able to benefit from having an Adu as well and then also some ideas about potentially reducing permit fees or application fees based on income levels so that there's more of an equal playing field of who gets to benefit from adus and then finally we talked about the fact that increasing the size limit of adus they thought would make it more suitable for families to be able to use adus that's kind of an overview of community connectors next we went to planning board last week and discussed the potential changes and the planning board was generally supportive of the overall changes to simplify and clarify the Adu regulations they were supportive of removing the saturation limit but they did we did have a long con conversation and they

[126:00] wanted to make sure that there were other ways to control the externalities of adus without a saturation limit in particular in the neighborhoods near the university so the externalities that they were talking about were things like parking and noise and trash we had a discussion about some of their concerns that adus might raise property values um and then they also expressed concerns that a smaller number or smaller percentage of Adu owners are using their Adu for long-term rental that is one of the findings that we saw from our survey of Adu owners so I'll talk about that on another slide as well and then they raised some concerns with one of the clarification and process Improvement recommendations about potentially eliminating public notice for Adu applications again I'll talk about that when we get to that part of the slide or the presentation and then they were open to some changes to the size limit as long as there was a logical reason for that limit next we were at planning board or we

[127:02] were at housing Advisory Board lots of boards in the last couple weeks um last night and the housing Advisory Board was supportive of the clarifying and streamlining the process to eliminate barriers to adus uh supportive of eliminating the saturation limit like planning board they discussed the concerns near the university but they talked a bit about how it might not be an Adu issue but more of a nuisance Enforcement issue um we also discussed whether adus might have a more limited impact in these denser neighborhoods overall um and um then they also discussed something similar to planning board where perhaps there could be neighborhood specific rules for these types of neighborhoods they were supportive of increased size um especially as a way to provide a new housing option for different types of of households so like families if the size is increased a bit um and then but also ensuring that it doesn't get too large to counteract the

[128:01] inherent affordability of these smaller units and regarding owner occupancy they supported clarifying the requirements um but thought that it was okay to allow LLCs as long as they can prove that their owner occupied foreign so I talked a bit about the evaluation that was done back in November so I'm not going to go back over that um just maybe a few highlights are sprinkled throughout the presentation but just a reminder um that we've allowed adus and Boulder since 1983 so it's actually our 40th anniversary of allowing adus um an accessory dueling unit in Boulder has to be on a lot with an owner occupied single-family home and so the owner has to live on site they can either live in the main house or in the Adu we have about 450 of these adus in Boulder right now and I went over in November some of these facts that we and data points that we went through with the evaluation which was also attached to your memo about the

[129:01] size type and affordability so over the last few years we saw about two-thirds of Adu applications were detached a third were attached average size of 80 uses about 640 square feet of those over the last few years and then in those last round of updates we established this new type of Adu and affordable Adu where it's kept at 75 percent of area median income for that rental price and we saw about a third of Adu applications come in as affordable adus and then two-thirds as market rate you might remember this chart that shows all of the Adu applications that were approved have been approved since 1983 so you can see that big jump in 2019 after the last changes that were made and those years following those changes were what we studied in that evaluation this is just a conclusion of what the evaluation said just a reminder um we were looking for which changes

[130:00] that were made in 2018 really seemed to reduce barriers to Adu construction and the conclusions were that the increase in the saturation limit increase in maximum size decrease in minimum lot size and allowing them in more zoning districts really did reduce barriers significantly with the saturation limit and maximum size but we also identified a few other changes through all of the work through the evaluation such as extending approval expiration flexibility for height and other code clarification and process improvements that would further reduce barriers to adus for this upcoming project I mentioned that we surveyed all of our Adu owners in the city this is a survey that we've done um in 2012 and 2017 so we've been able to compare the data over time we got about half of our Adu owners to respond to the survey which is great there's a lot of great information in the attachments to your memo if you want to learn more but some of the highlights

[131:00] are that compared to previous years a greater percentage of adus are being used as space for relatives in particular but also visitors um and then we asked the people that chose the 80 the affordable Adu route what their reasoning was for that and about 40 of those people said that they chose it to reduce the parking requirement which is one of the incentives if you do an affordable Adu and then uh at the time the initial direction from Council had been to explore potentially allowing more than one Adu and we so we asked the question whether Ado owners would be interested in over three quarters said that they would not and that is not something that's part of the scope as we talked about in November also as part of the evaluation we've been doing a lot of research of other cities around the country so you would have seen in your packet There's a summary Matrix of 34 different cities that we looked at from around the country all of these are cities that are comparable and Boulder to some way so

[132:00] either University Town similar population size population density housing price things like that and they all have Adu regulations so they allow 80s in some manner um some of the highlights from those comparable cities the first one is that none of these 34 cities have a saturation limit for adus in the same way that Boulder does and this point has been a little bit of a sticking point so I'll just explain that a little bit further so none of the 34 cities the comparable cities that we looked at had a saturation limit and we've been continuing our research to try to find another city around the country that has a saturation limit in the same way that Boulders works this week we were able to find one town uh town a 20 000 person town in Connecticut that has a saturation limit like we do um but we haven't been able to find any others there are certainly other ways that cities choose to limit accessory dwelling units whether from not allowing

[133:00] them at all or having like a certain number of permits allowed per year something like that but the kind of distance saturation that we have um we were only able to find the one town I did find some history yesterday that the city of Seattle used to have a saturation limit so they had a saturation limit in 1994 when they first adopted their Adu regulations but they they scratched the saturation limit in 1999 so they only had it for five years and we are on year number 40 of our saturation limit um so some of the other takeaways are that only a few of these 34th comparable cities have a minimum lot size requirement for a to use that's definitely something that's been changing a lot of cities have been eliminating recently almost all of the Cities we looked at limit to only one Adu per lot in terms of the size limits Boulder's maximum size of detached J to use in particular tends to be smaller than most of the cities that we looked at cities

[134:01] in Colorado seem to be on the smaller side but Boulders even on the smaller side of that because that's usually about 600 to a thousand so we allow only 550 typically it's around with these cities that we looked at it's around 800 square feet or a percentage of the principal structure related to parking um most cities either require zero parking spaces or one parking space for the Adu and it can usually vary based on distance to Transit and almost all of the Cities say that a Navy you can't be sold separately so it has to be part of the same lot and about half of the cities that we looked at require owner occupancy so just a reminder of that comparable City and how that's been helping to inform our changes as well this is something that wasn't in your memo but it's something that our planning board asked for so I thought I would include for this presentation as well also it's very timely because Governor polis and his State of the State address uh just last week really focused on housing priorities so I just think it's interesting context to think

[135:01] about some of the state legislation that's been happening around the country we haven't looked at every state but just some examples California has been incrementally removing barriers to adus Washington has required since the 90s that all cities of a certain size allow adus same with Vermont New Hampshire Oregon Oregon actually doesn't allow cities to require owner occupancy or parking requirements which is interesting and then Connecticut and Utah both recently adopted mandates for cities to allow adus with some options to opt out or exempt certain areas so just a little bit of Nationwide context as well on adus um in the political sphere all right so I mentioned that I'll be dividing this presentation kind of up by the questions um council member walk is it okay if we kind of stop at each question after I give some framing is that or would you like to go through the entire presentation no that would be fine

[136:01] all right so I'll start with some framing questions about or some framing slides about the first question related to saturation limits so um going back to this scope so this is the scope that we were directed to focus on the saturation limit size limits clarification and approval processes um the saturation limit I know we talked a little bit about this in November so I will try to be brief but just to explain because it is a bit of a complex um topic but the saturation limit that we have in Boulder um only applies to the rl1 and rl2 Zoning District so those are our low density zoning districts and it's a 20 limit it was increased from 10 to 20 back in those uh recent updates in 2018. but essentially what it says is that a property owner has to draw a radius of 300 feet from their property and of all of those properties within that 300 foot radius only 20 percent can have an accessory dwelling unit a co-op or a non-conforming structure

[137:01] so in the simplest of examples with my simple little graphic say there's 10 properties within 300 feet uh only two of those can have an Adu so if two of those properties have an Adu already and you're the third property owner to want to put in an Adu you're not able to apply for or get an Adu approved and so you're kind of just stuck with no options other than that we do hold a waiting list for people in case a neighbor might remove their Adu but we do not see much movement or removal of adus so the 12 properties that are currently on the waiting list I think have been on the waiting list for several years um so that's how the saturation limit works like I mentioned we've had the saturation limit since 1983 that was when Boulder first adopted the Adu regulations accessory units were actually common historically before single-family zoning um but in the 80s is kind of when cities started to re-legalize accessory

[138:01] dwelling units um so Boulder was definitely on the Forefront of allowing adus and understandably it was kind of a New Concept at the time and so as I've been doing continued research it seems that cities maybe um if they're doing like a pilot program for adus they might do something some kind of limit like this um but we're now far past a pilot program 40 years into our Adu program or having Adu regulations and so we really do understand the impacts of adus uh potential impacts and the ways to mitigate those so most cities will use their typical zoning standards either specific to adus or general to all structures um related to design and compatibility and things like that as ways to mitigate potential impacts of adus um as part of the evaluation that I mentioned we looked at that change from 10 to 20 that occurred back in 2018 and

[139:03] what we saw was of the 200 applications that were approved in that time um this kind of green part the light green part of the pie is the properties that were allowed with a saturation limit of above 10 so these are adus that would not have been approved prior to the most recent changes um so about 20 but it's interesting that over three quarters of the applications that were approved over time are over the last few years were either in a zoning District that doesn't have a saturation limit like I mentioned it only applies in the rl1 and rl2 Zoning districts or it was already um less than 10 so it wouldn't have um needed that increase I talked about this a bit um in November I know but I just wanted to underscore the saturation limit uh definitely proves to be a continued Challenge from both a staff perspective and an applicant perspective these are verbatim comments from our inquire

[140:01] Boulder customer service ticket um ticket portal so we get hundreds of questions related to adus that come into our staff and the majority of them are related to saturation limits so it's something that's really difficult for the public to understand it's not something that they can measure or look at themselves so staff has to do that measurement one by one for staff to confirm the saturation limit and that's kind of the first step into whether people will pursue an Adu so I think that this top right one is a good explanation we'd like to consider an Adu over the garage of our home but we need to confirm that the location is not saturated first how do we do that without submitting the full application in 400 400 fee and so we have a lot of people that just have a lot of questions about the saturation limit and one of the unique things about the saturation limit compared to most zoning standards is that it's not concrete over time so somebody can ask us somebody could have asked us in January what their saturation limit was and they

[141:00] were fine and they could pursue an Adu but if they're their neighbor has gone through an Adu application and they've hit that limit then suddenly that owner is not able to pursue uh the accessory dwelling unit so it's kind of a moving Target which is not typically what we um do for zoning standards so it is unique in that manner as well and it just creates a lot of confusion um and a lot of um just a either a real or perceived barrier to accessory dual units in Boulder I mentioned that a lot of cities will rely on their existing zoning standards to mitigate potential impacts since that was kind of the initial probably the initial reason for having a saturation limit I was trying to understand what the impacts might be with this newly introduced use type back in 1983 but we have a number of standards in our land use code that regulate the compatibility of design and uses this is just an

[142:01] example of a typical 7 000 square foot lot in the rl1 district if you were to build a market rate Adu these are all the different regulations that would impact the design and location of that Adu so we have form and bulk standards so things like height the number of Stories the floor area ratio the maximum building coverage we have um side yard bolt plane which is basically you draw a line from the setbacks and then an angled line in and the building can't Pierce through that we have a maximum length that a building can be before it has to be articulated so you don't have a big long wall next to you we have setbacks for principal structures accessory structures everything that's yellow on this sheet only applies to accessory or Adu so separation from buildings but building coverage within the rear yard setback the maximum size the owner occupancy that the owner has to live on site the occupancy limits um minimum lot size parking requirements

[143:01] we have a requirement for open space for detached units a requirement to screen sign side entrances for attached units interior connections all of this just to say that we have a number of owning standards that are intended to address these issues potential externalities of adus and the design and location of them so with that those are kind of my framing slides to help understand the issue with the saturation limits and we're hoping for just your input and Direction on the proposed elimination of the current 20 saturation limit within the 300 foot radius in the rl1 and rl2 districts thank you thank you Lisa are there any questions first before we get into comments seeing none uh what did I miss one I don't think so um yeah I got a I got a question mark okay very good you're right I appreciate

[144:00] it oh thank you uh so um my question is uh uh see where is it there it is um is centered on um why it was sort of mentioned in a couple points and discussed so I'm just really curious what why did have's recommendation of eliminating parking requirements not make the cut or not make the list is there a is there I just was sort of curious what's the reason why it didn't make the list um in that capacity yeah thanks for that question I think you and particularly I think you might have missed our discussion on work plan priorities are you right there on that meeting but we talked about just the balance of the various planning and development services work plan priorities and the timing of finishing the projects so um the parking requirement uh we thought would require significantly more public engagement in order to understand because um in order to just fully address that issue and so it was kind of put into a second tier or like a second bucket of something that we could do down the line with future Adu changes but for this

[145:01] work plan priority program item we wanted to keep it kind of limited in scope and focused uh you were right I was I was out of country for that meeting uh so pardon me for not fully reviewing my notes from that no it's okay to clarifying thank you for clarifying that at least I'm going to make a quick question isn't the uh existence of the parking requirements one of the incentives for getting affordable adus yeah one of the credit cards that we uh that we offer correct so with a market rate Adu owners are required to provide a parking space but if they do an affordable Adu they don't have to meet that additional parking requirement so that that and that has proven to be a really successful incentive based on that Adu survey which I said 40 of people that went affordable chose to to do that to reduce the parking requirement okay um comments from Council Bob here first followed by mayor Brock

[146:03] well I'll say a few things first Lisa this was an outstanding memo and presentation one of the best I've seen in my years on Council so thank you so much for doing just a fantastic bang-up job about this one um it really made it easy to understand um I want to back go back a little bit history um you know as Aaron will recall um we we had I think almost two dozen um public meetings and hearings and this went on for like years because our our 1983 Adu laws were really outdated and we had a lot of community members who wanted a weigh in and so we spent a lot of time with community members listening some wanted us to liberalize a lot some that didn't want us to touch them at all and um we finally settled on a package that was probably incomplete but we kind of knew that at the time we we knew that we were probably not getting a completely right um but we were kind of took it as far as we thought we could go with the thought that we would come back maybe in four or five years um and uh evaluate how things were going

[147:01] and that was exactly five years ago so here we are five years later and we're looking at some of the things that we didn't quite get right um back in 2018 and one of them was the saturation limit um you know as you pointed out Lisa um under the 1983 law the saturation limit in Boulder was and Boulder was one of the first cities by the way in the country to to recognize adus and so we didn't know what we were doing Back 40 years ago and so we somebody just said tub of 10 and and that's what we lived with for for 35 years and the intervening 35 years a whole bunch of other cities uh it recognized adus and they said why do we need a saturation limit so they didn't put Lots in place and so here we fund ourselves in 2018 with this old 35 year old law in one of the few cities that have saturation limit let alone one at 10 percent so a bunch of folks wanted to eliminate saturation in 2018 and a bunch of other folks in the community didn't want us to do that and so we kind of split the baby there and said well okay how about we go from 10 to 20 percent

[148:00] modest change and and we saw some some incremental abuse created in intervening five years and that was great uh there were some other reasons why some have been created as well but we still find ourselves in a situation where we're kind of an outlier other than that small town in Connecticut you discovered Lisa we're like one of the only cities in the country that does that has a saturation limit at all and it was pretty modest for us to go from 10 to 20 and and um uh the world did not end in the last five years uh although all the horrible things that that we heard were going to happen if we increase the saturation limit simply just didn't happen I suspect very few people even know that there's an Adu in their neighborhood or if they do know if there's an Adu in neighborhood they're pretty happy with their Adu neighbors so I I am fully supportive of going all in and eliminating saturation limit it's probably something we should have done in 2018 we didn't have the courage to do that back then but I hope we have the courage now to do that Aaron yeah Bob laid out the history very

[149:01] nicely there I'm thrilled to be coming back to it now five years later and uh it's time to do away with the saturation limits I I think they're an unnecessary control over a much needed housing type in our community which is great for you know kids they're staying home or mothers-in-law or parents-in-law that want to stay in or for renting to create housing for our community so I think removing this restriction is is a great Next Step so I'm excited to get finish the the business we started uh five years ago but at least I just have to ask the question what is that uh City in Connecticut that also has the saturation Point uh South Windsor I think it's a suburb of Hartford okay all right well uh hopefully and soon there will be the only city uh in the country with saturation limits thanks Tara I have a quick question that has nothing to do with this tell me what is the appropriate time because we were talking about parking and I had one question about that

[150:00] when is the appropriate time to ask that question that's a good question um when would you like to not even on the list but I have a quick question tell me when and I'll do it ask the question now okay so in the neighborhood in the neighborhoods that have the npps where there's like maybe one or two cars on my entire block period that are parked why would we not want to possibly use one of those parking passes each house gets two for um adus for parking is there a reason why we don't I don't know specifically related to the neighborhood parking program but the parking requirements for adus are that they have to be on site so it wouldn't be on street we can't use on-street parking there certainly are cities that do allow on-street parking to count towards a parking requirement but as our Ada regulations are now it has to be accommodated on the actual site so on the private property rather than the street

[151:00] foreign I think that will be a conversation for our next discussion with adus any further comments on this issue would it be appropriate to take a straw polls to how we feel about the elimination of uh the saturation limits all right all in favor of elimination um please raise your hand it was close uh but nine to nothing so I think that reflects the will of counsel um Lisa would you like to move on to the next question sure thank you all right so next is next up next up so again I have rhyming slides for the question um so just going back to these Graphics to think about these size limits because they do differ by the type of Adu so for that attached type of Adu So within the the main structure either an addition or basement apartment or things like that

[152:00] it has to be one-third of the size of the main house or a thousand square feet whichever is smaller so an example of how that works is if you have a 1500 square foot house you can only have a 500 square foot Adu so in order to really take advantage of that full size you would have to have a 3 000 foot house or larger to get the thousand square foot Adu uh detached Adu the limit is 550 as I mentioned back in 2018 we increased it from 450 to 550. so this I think I probably showed this slide to you all in November but just a reminder that some of the data that we looked at of all the Adu sizes that were approved in the last couple of years um so the average like I said is 640 but um we have this kind of different tier of what sizes are allowed based on what type of Adu they are so if you start at kind of the bottom line what's allowed so a market rate detached can be 550 and affordable can be 800 square feet and

[153:01] then if you're a designated historic structure it can be a thousand square feet for the detached and then on the attached Side market rate is either a third or a thousand whichever is smaller and then if it's an affordable unit or historic it's a half or a thousand and so what we saw over the last few years of having these regulations is the average size of a detached Adu as a right of at about 550. you can see the difference between affordable and market rate the average affordable size is up to 634 so not really maxing out that full 800 and then the average market rate detached is 492. there's not as much differentiation of the attached sizes so both affordable and market rate tend to be right around 800 square feet one of the other main things that came up through our evaluation so our evaluation included interviewing all of the staff that deal with Adu applications interviewing applicants who had withdrawn their Adu applications looking

[154:01] at the inquire Boulder tickets as well as looking through the public engagement and things that we've done one thing that came up just constantly was the fact that adus have their this unique way of measuring floor area and so it's kind of just as a matter of practice but the the more different ways that you have to measure something in the code the more confusing it is for people so we just have a lot of back and forth about how this floor area is measured or adus because it's Unique only to adus and so this image is an Adu that's right at 550 square feet it's a detached Adu that's above a garage and the kind of image off to the right are the three different ways that people could measure this and because of the limited size of the 80s you you wouldn't think so but it actually makes a really a significant difference in what the overall floor area of the Adu ends up being so this this gets a little zoning wonky but it is a constant struggle

[155:00] um because we in the 2018 um included this unique measurement for floor area for adus and it's the difference between measuring from the interior wall or six inches beyond the interior wall or using the exterior wall and then another interesting artist factor to think about is that the floor area of an Adu has to include the egress to it so because this unit is above a garage we have to include the egress path up the stairs and around as part of the maximum floor area so that's not technically usable space for the Adu but it it counts into that 550 square feet so it limits the actual living space for people because that's a part of the measurement as well so we just think that this regardless of changing what the the actual size limits Are We There are definitely improvements that could be made to the way that we're measuring it to just be consistent with the way we measure floor area across the code for all other types of buildings

[156:00] um and then I think this is my final slide related to size limit so as part of the valuation we also looked at the variances that had been applied for over the last several years there is a variance option for people to increase the maximum floor area of an Adu we saw four of those applications go to Boza the board of zoning adjustments all four of those were approved they all were actually quite similar situations so they were all existing basements in a home that where they wanted to convert it to an accessory dwelling unit and um you can see the kind of the size ranged from just over a thousand to fifteen hundred and all four of those were approved um so we have a potential size limit increase really it's the original proposal from 2018 um of a detached size limit of 800 square feet and then attached just sending it at a thousand square feet um and so we think that that would be a modest increase to the size of adus that

[157:00] would allow more flexibility for additional housing types or household types to utilize adus and also provide some flexibility for those things like egress and things like that but one thing to consider when potentially limiting or increasing the size limit is that the incentive there is an incentive for affordable adus right now that they can build a larger size Adu so if we were to increase that the market rate size then we'd want to probably correspondingly increase the incentive for the affordable Adu so maybe that would be up to a thousand for detached and 1200 attached but this is where we're really hoping for council's input and Direction on what seems like a reasonable size limit or the potential to increase it or just to improve the floor area measurement issue so those are all my framing slides related to size limits and happy to take any questions and also to hear your

[158:00] comments questions Lauren you're first woohoo um so first of all with them with changing the size measurements overall do we think that will make the like so forcing people to count the egress path is obviously making the allowable amount of Adu square footage smaller but then how does the how is the wall currently measured and how are we proposing it to be measured yeah so it gets pretty confusing um so adus have a special exception where they you can measure to six inches beyond the interior wall instead of using the exterior wall which is how typically floor area is measured um and it just trips up basically everybody that tries to use that measurement and definition and so it creates a lot of back and forth between the applicant and staff which adds to time and frustration and things like

[159:01] that I'm guessing that was a well-intentioned rule to try and allow for to encourage more insulation because thicker walls exactly yeah I think there was a good intention behind it but I think there are other avenues where we could provide flexibility like through a variance or something for a particular type of construction or if we had slightly larger adus allowed it might not be such an issue to accommodate that insulation for the different types of like alternative types of insulation okay thank you for that um and then my other question was around the affordable adus do we know what percent age of the time on average like the permitted affordable adus are rented out for um like you mean the like is it for a year or two years or well no I just I

[160:00] guess one of my concerns was the affordable restriction has to do with what what amount of rent you're allowed to collect on a monthly basis for the unit right but what if you decided not to is there's no rule against building it and then not renting it out right correct there's no restriction that people have to rent it it's just if they were to rent it it has to stay at that 75 area median income which um we put out what that limit is each year and this might be a discussion for a later Adu discussion but to me it seems like we're already right you are mentioning that not all of the adus that are being created are being rented out period we're sort of maybe seeing a drop in that um and that seems more and also on top of that for

[161:00] the rental rates that we're getting it looked like most of them are being rented at affordable prices whether or not they are deed restricted affordable or not and so to me this whole like is it an affordable Adu or just a regular Adu is not a super fruitful conversation because some of the issues to me it's more about like are we housing people and are we housing them at rates they can afford and if a regular market rate unit Adu is doing that and sort of why do we have this whole extra system with extra hurdles um but I know that that is not on the agenda for today so the um list that you came up with in terms of the size both clarifying the size how size is measured and the size restriction seems to make a lot of sense to me thank you thanks seeing no other questions Bob did you have a question I'm ready to roll in the

[162:01] comments okay let's have some comments uh Bob and then Nicole well this is another thing that we got wrong in 2018 or at least we didn't have the courage in 2018 uh as Lisa mentioned um for other use attached as example uh the the rule for 35 years in Boulder since 1983 was the the limit for a detached Adu was 450 square feet uh we um there was a proposal on the table back in 2018 to increase it to 800 square feet which is tonight's proposal we didn't have the courage to go that far there are a lot of people in town that were opposed to that so we only modestly increased it for 450 feet to 550 square feet uh when you think about a 550 square foot space and I've lived in one of them that's that's a basically a studio it's it's a very very small space uh that you're basically living in a pull-out couch with a little kitchen over on the side um it's not appropriate for more than two people if you have a family of three or four it just doesn't work and so I'm

[163:02] I'm delighted that you're recommending that we go to 800 square feet uh for rent attached that's what we should have done in 2018 and also that helps I think rationalize especially for detached units the actual cost of building because with a detached unit you're actually constructing something from the ground up and that costs several hundred dollars per square foot and and the amount of rent that a a landlord can charge is obviously going to be a function of size um and so if they can build a bigger unit at a lower cost per square foot for construction they can justify the the the construction costs because the rent will recoup so both for social reasons that is that is creating adus for for more than two people at a time but also encouraging the Adu creation um which could cause rental income for families that are on a Asian place I think these both make sense I do want to offer two caveats uh to to the um endorsement of Staff recommendations one

[164:01] is um and we may not get into this tonight but I just want to throw it out there I do want to read retain the affordability Delta so I may be in a little bit different place than Lauren was I think it's important that we come up with some differentials I don't know if it's size I don't know if it's parking maybe some other differentials to cause people to continue to sign up for for the affordability Covenant uh um somewhere around 35 or 40 percent of the adus that have been created in the last five years the owner has opted for that I realized that many of our adus even without the affordability restriction are naturally or market rate affordable that may not always be the case and so I think we want to continue to incentivize people to to limit their rental uh charges to 75 area media income I'm happy to have a discussion at a later date about what those Deltas are but I think there should be some Deltas whether there's parking for size or something that continues to incentivize that one-third to one half of the people who are willing to to forego rent and and do a

[165:01] below Market rent the second kind of caveat I would have is um while 800 square feet for a detached unit sounds good to me and certainly better for families and and makes more economic uh sense I can imagine there's probably a few Lots in Boulder that are really really tiny uh that already have tiny houses on them and adding another 800 feet um probably makes it pretty tight so and I don't have a solution other than to say when staff comes back with their with their more concrete recommendations I'd ask you to look at at whether there's a sliding scale of some sort and I don't know what the smallest slots in Boulder are but I imagine there may be some lots that are in the neighborhood or four or five thousand feet and I guess you start to ask yourself okay if you've got a four or five thousand square foot lot and you've got already got a 12 or 1400 square foot house on it adding another 800 square feet or maybe even a thousand if it's an affordable way to you it starts to get kind of crowded and and I'm sure this is something staff has already looked at but but if if you haven't drilled into it I'd ask you to come back and at least

[166:00] make a proposal to say listen um it can only go up to a certain number of square feet for a lot of a certain size and maybe it's a sliding scale or maybe it's the far calculation or something just to make sure that we're not putting 800 square foot detached adus on a really tiny lot that's already kind of crowded thanks can I calculate on that um um Bob would you be willing to go the other direction with that so let's say you have a really big lot then can do we also want staff to tell us whether a Big Lot can have a 1500 square foot ADM thank you yes absolutely I think it's a sliding scale both going both directions and I don't know what the what the right formula is but if we could see smaller Lots maybe having smaller units and medium lots of medium units and large Lots heavy bigger units that'd be great so yes Rachel thank you for asking that question fabulous thanks can I call a quay on that as well I guess so um 80 or 80 is still required to meet the sort of floor area requirements that otherwise are on a site

[167:01] yeah thanks for the opportunity to clarify that so yeah so we have kind of a sliding scale already for overall floor area and building coverage that's related to lot size so it's a calculation based on lot size how much floor area and how much building coverage you can have and the adus are subject to that overall requirement for the site anyway um so for instance you might if you had a smaller lot you might be able to do an 800 square foot Adu technically but because of your building coverage and your floor area overall for the site you might not be able to accommodate the full 800 based on those sliding scale lot size related requirements but it's definitely something we can look into and certainly other communities have different limits for different lot sizes so that's really helpful Lisa and so when you when you bring back whatever legislation you want to bring back to us this spring if you can kind of build that into it and show us um how that all works that'd be great and maybe the fars are an adequate uh uh uh uh break to to what I was concerned

[168:02] about thanks thanks Nicole you're next thanks and everybody just kind of wiped out a lot of my questions so thanks everyone for the questions and colloquies um yeah I uh was just going to uh Echo kind of support for increasing um the allowable size of adios and then I also just had some questions about how this process compares to um what it would be say if somebody has a 2 000 square foot home that they wanted to turn into a 4 000 square foot home so just like to pop the top like happens in my neighborhood a lot and add on more and I think for me as long as those are kind of consistent you know whether somebody's making their own home bigger or making a home for somebody else to live in um then I am I'm feeling okay about that if there are no others I I will weigh in um I think eliminating the calculation of square footage uh based on egress is mere common sense

[169:01] um as far as the methodology for calculating square footage there are as many different methodologies as as there are developers and so anything that is rational and consistent I think will work um you know outside wall to outside wall um you know I'm familiar with inside wall to inside wall so as long as it's easily comprehensible and consistent I'm fine with that as far as the the increase in size goes I also want to make sure there's enough Delta to incentivize um affordable adus I think I think they are very important and we've gotten very very good response so far and my concern is if you increase too much you really eliminate the incentive assuming you can provide parking you know you get the 800

[170:01] square feet you can be talking about a three thousand dollar a year a month unit and and I'd be a little concerned about that you know um we don't want just more housing we want housing that will um serve our interests in terms of being more affordable and bringing more people into the fold um so I share Bob's concern about the the size Delta and about the other Deltas of parking versus no parking because I want to keep people um agreeing to make their their adus affordable um when whenever possible and now we have more comments the first is Aaron then Lauren I I just wanted to say to support the staff recommendation I think you all are on target with the changing the measurements and then the increasing the sizes I think where you're going is a good direction and just to remind us everybody that as you've said a couple

[171:00] times that the compatible development rules that were crafted back 10 odd years ago do place the significant limits I don't think we need additional limits on the adus because of we have plenty of rules already so thanks for all your hard work on this Lauren I just had a quick question about um the affordable units so what you can rent them out at per month is capped but isn't the Restriction also around who they can be rented to like do do people have to income qualify for an affordable unit or is it just capping the amount the cost the amount of rent you can collect yeah there's no designation for who can rent it so it's just the maximum cap at 75 Ami thank you that makes me feel better about that shall we uh take a straw poll to see how we feel about this

[172:00] um all who approve staff's recommendations there is no dissent all right that's that's the way I like it um next up you're on again Lisa all right all right so moving on to kind of the general code simplification and clarification items oh there we go so there are a number of items that we found while we were doing that evaluation so like I said when we were studying all of the data related to the adus over the last few years interviewing all the staff interviewing applicants things like that there are a number of things that came up as opportunities that we thought would help to eliminate some of the barriers to adus they might not be they might be more just clarification issues than kind of the saturation limit size limit things that we've been talking about so this is the list that we that kind of rose to the top of things that we thought would make and really make an impact so I'll just kind of give a

[173:01] couple sentences on each bullet and if you have any red flags that come up on any of them we can I can definitely discuss them further but um just want to explain each one um and just a note uh because I had talked about it earlier in the presentation but planning board and housing Advisory Board were really pretty supportive or they were supportive of the first four and then we discussed kind of the bottom two so those are kind of the the main points to discuss I think but I'll just explain each one so the first is extending the approval expiration period so right now A if you get an Adu approved you have to establish the Adu within one year most land use reviews allow three years before their approval expires and this just um a lot of people are running into not being able to get through the application process the permitting process securing a general contractor and then getting most of their construction completed within a year especially with covid and construction timelines this has just proven to be more and more challenging and it causes

[174:01] a lot of stress for applicants we've we've been flexible about this application expiration period throughout covid but it just provides a lot of stress for the applicants and so we think that extending that to three years like most other land use reviews would provide just more more of a reasonable timeline for people to actually construct their adus and it did it did seem to be an issue that was causing some people to not ever apply for an ad because they knew they wouldn't be able to do it within a year and then they'd lose their approval so we think that that would be an easy way to remove a barrier secondly there's no flexibility for height of existing structures so an Adu in like an existing garage or a historic garage maybe not a designated historic garage but just a garage that's been there for 50 years if they want to convert it to a to an Adu um and it's over 25 feet there is no Avenue for flexibility or variance or anything that an applicant can pursue to convert that existing structure and we

[175:00] think that for environmental reasons and other reasons adaptive reuse of existing structures is almost always preferred because it uses existing materials and also is likely to have less of an impact on neighbors because it's an existing structure and so we've just had a few applications over the last few months actually come up that have run into this issue and so we think that providing some kind of flexibility mechanism whether that's a modification or a variance process us to allow people to pursue that option um would would eliminate one of the barriers to adus as well lockable separation this is very zoning wonky this wouldn't be a substantive change but um deep within the definitions of the code there's a requirement that dwelling units have to have a lockable separation it creates a lot of back and forth between applicants and staff adds to application time and confusion so just pulling that from the definitions putting it straight into the Adu regulations we think would eliminate a common friction point

[176:00] um limited accessory units so this one I mentioned there's two types of adus detached and attached we actually have a third type it's called The Limited accessory unit there's only one property in the whole city that has taken advantage of this option it's essentially a non-conforming duplex so there's other avenues that that property could use to retain their second unit so it's just adding text to the code currently right now and it's been in there for decades so we think cleaning that up that wouldn't necessarily eliminate a barrier it would just be cleaning up our code and simplifying it I mentioned that the bottom two bullets were the ones that we discussed most with housing Advisory Board and planning board so I mentioned that an Adu has to be owner occupied so the owner of the property has to live on site whether that's in the main unit or the accessory dwelling unit and we do have regulations but there are some kind of vague parts of the regulations or places where it could be better clarified and we are

[177:00] hoping for some direction from Council on this as well as we work to clarify this just what the policy direction should be for either of these so the first is llc's right now we have a few adus that have been approved with a property owner as an LLC they do have to prove they still have to prove that they live there through their LLC membership documents and things like that um but it isn't extremely clear in the code whether that is allow allowable to do the LLC or owner occupancy certainly uh most long-term rentals around the city um can be in an LLC that's that's permitted but our short-term rentals are not allowed to be owned by an LLC so kind of hoping for some policy Direction there whether Council thinks it's appropriate for llc's or those types of entities to still be able to prove owner occupancy and then kind of similarly along that vein there's this was raised by our rental licensing staff there's

[178:01] some ambiguity in the code about our temporary rental exemptions so right now if you own a property and an Adu well if you own any type of property you can't and they're going to go on sabbatical or something and be gone for less than a year you're able to rent out your house without having to get a rental license like most people would have to get because it's a short term that you're going to be gone and you're going to come back um so it isn't clear right now um whether that still qualifies as owner occupied so obviously the owner is gone for a certain amount of time but technically they might have to remove their Adu while they're gone and not rent that Adu out while they're gone because they're not technically owner occupying so that's another one where we're hoping for policy Direction and to just clarify the code about what we intend with that of whether whether people should be allowed to leave for less than a year and still rent out their main house and the Adu and then the final bullet point is related to public notice so adus have a kind of

[179:02] unique public notice um it goes to adjacent Property Owners the only other application type that is similar is our solar access exemption so a notice goes out to neighbors but neighbors have no way to influence the process or influence the decision because it's an administrative decision and so we're just looking for the standards that they meet so it can understandably be frustrating for Neighbors um to kind of reach out and realize that their comments maybe can't be incorporated or don't have to be incorporated by the applicant or things like that so it also adds a number of steps to the process of the Adu so the overall timeline of the permit and obviously it's part of the fees so that was one issue we also wanted to raise to understand if Council would desire kind of it's kind of a balance between um obviously notifying neighbors but also trying to streamline processes so hoping for some guidance there so happy

[180:00] to talk about any of these but again kind of the focus from those other boards were on those bottom two bullets uh Tara I think you're first up for questions I have a quick question on point one why wouldn't why would you pick three years and let's say not four years or five years is there a reason why it's only three years yeah I um I think three years is a pretty like a tried and true amount of time for most development applications um so because we have that as applicable for most of our other types of land use reviews we've seen that that's a possibility for construction timelines um certainly sometimes people have to ask for extensions even of the three years but and there is an Avenue to do that but we over time have been pretty confident with the three years for most types of applications okay okay um I think Lauren is first then Bob thanks Mark um so

[181:00] say you have an owner occupied Adu and then the person who owns that or a property that's owner occupied with an Adu and the person sells it to someone who isn't going to be on site um can you clarify what you mean when you talk about the Adu being removed like are we talking about and I sort of know the answer to this but I'd love to hear a little bit more detail because we're not talking about demolishing the structure correct correct so um just talking to like our rental licensing folks the Adu removal would be like removing the kitchen or the bathroom so it'd be a significant expense to have to take that out while you're like going on sabbatical right okay but it doesn't actually like if you're the neighbor the next door neighbor like it's not like the Adu is going to disappear from the property it probably still exists there it's just that people can no longer use it as a

[182:00] dwelling unit exactly okay Bob uh Lisa just I want to understand a little bit more about how this um the LLC um ownership works because this is this is one area where I've heard some concern from community members um so what what percentage you know LLC is is like a corporation and that there's ownership interests um what percentage of the LLC does that designated on-site resident need to own it do they need to own any or is there one percent or what's the threshold uh it's 50 and so it's a similar yeah and that's similar for like a revocable trust or other types of arrangements as well okay so the human being has to own at least has to show you that they own at least 50 of the LLC right and then is there any prohibition against them the very next day selling off some are all about 50 percent um they would have to I mean yes the program is that they have occupied Adu uh whether we are able to track that efficiently or things like

[183:00] that might not be easy for the city to do um but if they are not if it's you know if it's not the person that's living on site then they're out of compliance with ad requirements it just seems to me that this is this is an area that's kind of fraught right because you know owner occupied is a relatively easy standard because you know the neighbors know whether the person is really living there or not right um but the neighbors don't know how much of the stock or the ownership interest of the LLC the person has and so it seems to me somebody could go through I assume that you have a rule that says a human being can only be the designated um occupier for for one property in town right you can't like go through and create an LLC and own 50 of it and be the designated human being and and then do another property another property another problem you guys have a way to check that to make sure that there's only one human being per property is that right I am not sure the answer to that question I think I mean you because you could

[184:00] I mean if you are obviously you can only live in one place and so I think that's how we do that um so we would check and it we have definitions of principal residence and owner occupancy and that's what we would rely on but um specific like whether we're checking whether someone that owns an LLC also might own a different LLC I'm not aware that we're doing anything like that but we can see where the where the abuse could could happen because you know let's let's say you wanted two tenants and one in the main house and one in the Adu you just say to the person at this prospective tenant hey sign this piece of paper for about five minutes you're going to be a 50 owner of an Adu um and so the designated human being and then they sell it back for a dollar back to the to the real owner and and now you have a rent paying tenant who's the designated human being for a moment time was the 50 owner of the LLC and then you got another tenant it seems to me that there's there's um dangers here and we've heard stories from people in the community about

[185:00] things like that happening what what um what are you proposing to do to fix those loopholes I think what we want to do is just clarify one way or another whether llc's can prove ownership um so I think that we would use kind of similar requirements to other places that we've used require documentation of llc's so we'd want to be clear that an LLC can prove owner occupancy or cannot and if they can then what do they need to do to prove that but I think one of the issues just to clarify for a typical owner so like a not LLC if they get an Adu approval they record their Declaration of use with the county they can sell their property the next year and because we have that document recorded with the county the next owner knows but we don't know and we don't check that that next owner is still occupying they are just still subject to the Adu requirement of owner occupancy and if there was an issue we could

[186:00] enforce that but we're not continually checking all real estate transactions to ensure that the owner is continuing to occupy but again we haven't had enforced issues related to that yes it's less about about a person a human being occupied and more about a human being owning right and so I guess you've now opened another Avenue of concern for me which is I think you should be doing that it's it's not like there's that many real estate conveyances in in the city in a year so it seems to me you've got a list of adus and who the who the owner is supposed to be right so it wouldn't be really hard for somebody you know on January 2nd to go through and say all right were any of these these is real estate conveyed away so I would recommend that and same for the LLC I you know I would either I would either prohibit LLC ownership like you already do for short-term rentals which is the easiest thing to do or if um you think that's true Draconian then I would require an annual proof with with ownership uh of the real estate is

[187:01] easy because you know there's a deed right so it's either owned by party or on board part of B with llc's you're not going to know because those are behind the scenes transactions that's why people do LLCs because they're somewhat secretive so I would say that if you're going to allow llc's which I'm not sure I would I I would at a minimum I would require an annual certification to you that they certify under Federal and perjury that they still own 50 or more of the LLC that'd be one way to kind of address some of the concerns but I do the same thing on ownership you know if they're not LLC I I'd be looking at Deeds that's my two cents yeah understood uh one point just to to plug for our staff time and things like that as you saw the large increase in number of adus had a really significant impact um on the Staffing capacity of our planning department so adding something like that would probably need some additional staff support to be able to track that as well feel free to push back I'm just I'm just making suggestions yeah no I think it's a great suggestion thanks and we'll probably

[188:00] have to talk a little bit more about Staffing whenever we bring in ordinance as well because once we know how the regulations change uh we might find that maybe there might be uh quite a few Adu applications that might come through after those pass and that might require additional Staffing so that's something that we expect to talk about more with you just let us know if it's too burdensome that we can talk about other Solutions thanks Rachel then Tara I just get a colloquate on Bob's hypothetical um like if I'm a renter and somebody offers me 50 through LLC for this like pulling in-house in Boulder that has an Adu I'm gonna say you know keep my my security deposit and I'm gonna walk away with that 50 like I just don't think that's uh something that we need to be worried about because you you would just lose half your property if you didn't get it back so I want to set and I want to say to any LLC owners who are thinking of doing that like that you watch yourself because I don't I don't think you're protected

[189:00] can I call for you after that and off of Bob you know okay um I would we're we're asking the community and I'm totally into this I'm really excited about IDs for a lot of reasons but we are asking some members of the community that let's say are less excited to come with us so when we say oh yeah well let's do this rule but we really don't have the staff to make sure that we are protecting our new rules or however you want to put it I think we're going to lose uh let's just say some Community backing who we're trying to take along with us let's just put it that way so I think it would be really good to be able to say yes we are going to be checking these license these rental licenses and such to keep Community Trust in this exciting Venture that we're doing I'm going to call a Quee on that and uh just point out that llc's are corporate

[190:00] Vehicles they participate in real estate transactions but they are designed for secrecy and lack of disclosure and so if we want to bring people along um I I think the llc's could could be very fraught um and having said that we have Nicole mayor Brockett and Rachel again just a quick question that came up for me in this LLC discussion I'm just thinking about you know if you're a small business owner for example and you're you know your LLC is based out of your house I am assuming that when we're talking about llc's in this context it really just relates to the ownership of the house being under the LLC but I also want to clarify that we're not going to create any more uh struggles for people who are small business owners with llc's running out of their homes yeah I think I I don't know all of the

[191:00] reasonings why people would want to do an LLC um certainly they're like we were discussing this with uh the housing Advisory Board last night and one of the board members mentioned that from his legal perspective um anyone owning a rental would probably want an LLC to protect their assets um so it might not be necessarily that it's an investment property but really just the owner wanting to protect that um but not every owner obviously would put it into an LLC and I'm not sure how that would relate to like having a small business and whether that would be separate from how that owned how they would own the property I'm not a legal expert related to that but um certainly it's a it's a different way to protect your assets by having the LLC yeah and I'm sorry I think I'm not being clear in my question so I don't mean that the the house is sort of owned by the LLC but you've got a homeowner who is running an LLC out of their home right like they're they're working they're running their small business from their home

[192:01] um and I just want to make sure that there's nothing that would come up that would like flag that as an LLC and you know if they had an edu and then start them in a process that just makes their lives more complicated oh yes I'm sorry I misunderstood so yeah it would have to be that the property ownership is listed in an LLC I think that's that's how we because we check the county assessor records when an Adu application comes in so if it comes up as like 1920 Main Street LLC that's when we need the the um ownership documents and things like that that proves thank you Aaron yeah I think he's on target with all of these suggestions and I'll just weigh in on the the LLC bit I'm uh my wife and I both have our participants in a couple llc's and it's not done for secrecy reasons you can look up the ownership of the LLC on the Secretary of State's website it's purely for liability protection and it's we've gotten advice over the years that well if you want in

[193:00] certain circumstances you just form an LLC it's just what you do that's like standard practice so I don't they're not inherently nefarious um so I think as long as you're you know testing that that they're still owner occupied which is trackable I think it's fine personally I think the suggestion is fine because it's it is a relatively common uh way to own property and just as long as we continue to validate the ownership and you know um on our occupied nature of it I think that's fine so I'm good with all your suggestions thanks Aaron and that actually reminded me of um Tara had put a question through to Brad yesterday or so about the number of LLC rental properties and so we did have our data team look into that there's a lot more that we could do but of the kind of the areas where adus would be allowed to mostly single-family homes um there's about 5 000 that have rental licenses and a quarter of those are in an LLC um so just for edification thanks

[194:00] Rachel um I also support uh staff's recommendations in general just I'm gonna uh keep on this LLC thing for a moment I'm Not For a Moment I'm not terribly fussed about the notion of LLC ownership and we'll just add anecdotally I haven't owned very many homes but two of the homes my family and I have lived in were purchased by LLC Sellers and they were both families one was an elderly couple and one was a young family I also don't know why they had those structures but I think that there are um you know I don't know maybe the elderly couple had you know one one half and passed away and it became a an asset that the the kids structured I don't know what it was but these were not um owned by uh anyone who is renting out the homes or businesses so just want to say I wouldn't want to make it difficult for people who for whatever reason have a financial structure that makes LLC advantageous for their families so

[195:00] um I'm okay with the llc's I think if I assume that that if somebody saw it being abused we would still have the reporting system in place and and we could at least investigate yeah yeah thank you Matt um yeah I I think by and large we're headed in a really good direction um it's interesting that we've toned down on the LLC piece um it does mean limited liability Corporation so it is usually about the the liability aspect of protection there are a number of states that offer anonymity and or secrecy of uh who is on an LLC who owns it Delaware is one of them a big chunk of llc's come out of Delaware because of maintaining that investor secrecy so you know you can kind of pretty much tell who's doing it for investment versus who's just sort of like got an LLC because they're doing a business thing so it's pretty easy to derive perhaps intent um uh from from some of that pretty straightforward without bearing into to who the people are but by and large I I think we're in a really good spot and

[196:00] that again just want to credit staff this is really good stuff um I like like where we're going so thanks for all the hard work okay seeing no other hand I'm going to jump in for a second um you know no major real estate transaction is done without llc's the issue for us is appropriate disclosure so that we know who the owners of the of the building are and who is actually living there um it's not that there's any problem with with using llc's as a purchase vehicle it's we have a different interest than that of the um of the owner and and our interest is to make sure that we know who's living there and so if we can come up with the appropriate um forms of disclosure there's nothing inherently wrong with the LLC but we don't want to um have the anonymity of most llc's be a barrier to what we're trying to achieve okay in terms of the other issues

[197:02] um the expiration period absolutely the flexibility of height yes yes I mean I I think we are going in a good direction here the public notice requirement is is almost a form of politeness just to your neighbors your adjacent neighbors you know who don't wake up one morning and see a backhoe in the in the backyard um and have no idea what's going on so you know maybe a cursory form of notice to those parties that are adjacent to you not a neighborhood notice because we're taking away the um the saturation requirements but you know something where people um are being good neighbors and letting them know that there's going to be a construction project next door um other than that I would not go past that and I think uh we're doing well here um any other comments on this all right do we have uh

[198:02] do we have anything else to deal with today so just one more slide so this is actually not ordinance updates that we need but just some of the process improvements that we'd want to work on immediately upon implementation of the new ordinance and so these aren't things that are written in the code per se but are things that I think are equally important to removing Adu barriers so one of those that we've been focusing on and that came up a lot throughout the evaluation was a one-step review right now people have to go through an Adu application and then a building permit application and they have different requirements for each and oftentimes people think that that Adu application is their full application and they go into the building permit and realize there's all new reviewers reviewing building code and they might have these building code issues that they didn't know about can understandably be very frustrating for applicants drawn out process because they're doing two separate instead of a combined review so that's something we'd be looking to do it's really only something that's feasible with some of these other changes like getting rid of the

[199:00] saturation limit or some of the other streamlining so assuming those changes if those would go forward through the ordinance we'd be able to make these process improvements as well addressing I won't get into the the Deep zoning issue related to that but essentially adus have to be addressed as a unit a and Unit B and it's just happening too early in the process and causing issues um Declarations of use is the legal document that people have to record uh when they get the Adu application so just looking at that and making sure that that's up to date with all of the changes that we've made and then finally very simple things are seemingly simple but things that can have a big impact are creating better handouts now that I've been looking at all of these other cities that allow adus there's a lot of great examples of things that we can do to help our applicants our customers um understand what the Adu requirements are obviously as we simplify the Adu requirements all of this kind of stuff gets easier and then as well as like graphics and videos and things like that things that we can do to improve the

[200:00] process and reduce those barriers to adus through these process improvements as well so um if you have any comments on those happy to take those as well but again not quite not exactly related to the ordinance Lisa have you received the guidance that you require from us I think so yeah you've been very clear and this has been a great conversation hey are there any further Bob Yates yeah Lisa just for um I know that with this was in the memo but maybe for for our listing audience Could you um please describe the next steps as far as uh drafting a legislation public hearing info the planning board public hearing from the council what what's your time frame to bring what you heard tonight into into legislative form absolutely we had to do a little bit of rescheduling or reshuffling with some other items but um we're planning to bring this ordinance to uh planning board first for public Hearing in April and then you would see it in May um first and second reading

[201:01] so um in the meantime we'll be doing additional engagement uh obviously the that slide that I gave with all the different meetings and the virtual engagement and office hours and things like that to better understand the issues but we'll be Drafting and bringing an ordinance in April thank you any last words and which point I will declare this meeting adjourned at 9 16 p.m Mountain Standard Time thank you well thank you good night everybody all right [Music] thank you