February 2, 2023 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

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

[1:12] foreign [Music] foreign [Music]

[2:17] foreign [Music] [Music] foreign [Music]

[3:22] foreign [Music] thank you [Music] foreign

[4:02] [Music] foreign [Music]

[5:09] foreign [Music] foreign good evening everyone got Channel 8 going uh good evening everyone and welcome to the Thursday February 2nd 2023 regular meeting of the Boulder City Council so good to have you all here we're going to

[6:00] start with a call to order and then a roll call so I am calling us to order and Elisha if you could call the roll please yes sir good evening everyone we'll start tonight's roll call with councilmember Benjamin present mayor Brockett present councilmember folkerts present friend here Joseph here spear here mayor Pro Tim Wallach is absent councilmember weiner here and Yates right here mayor we have our Quorum thank you so much so uh if we can start uh would invite a motion to amend the agenda to do a few things one is to add item 1B which is a historic folder Inc declaration commemoration of 50 years to be presented by councilmember Yates when his 3i a motion to authorize the city manager to enter into settlement agreement in the amount of thirty three thousand two hundred dollars and 33

[7:00] cents to set all disputes arising out of damage to the Snow Lion property another one is 3n uh consideration of a motion to request special counsel to investigate and prosecute complaints and when we get there I'll ask for a little more information about that rather than reading it all out right now and then finally item 8A under matters discussion regarding option of council member right along to the Boulder Police Department I'm moving in the agendas Aaron just described second we have a motion second all in favor brace your hands okay that's unanimous agenda is amended and then one other little item of housekeeping um generally I will run the meeting and generally the mayor Pro tem runs it if I need to step out for a couple minutes the mayor pretended Wallach is absent this evening if I could just ask council's Indulgence that the person on my left if councilmember weiner could take over if I need to leave for a couple minutes is that all right okay great yes Junie

[8:01] um great point we do not have a monitor going in front of us okay thanks do you mind if we proceed while that's working on Jay okay great okay so uh now we are going to move on to our item 1A which is a declaration honoring Black History Month and that will be presented by myself but we may give it a second there we go turns out if you turn the power on the TV works better all right so here we go and um Ms Woodley would you like to come up for the presentation Louisa

[9:02] um wonderful so here we go Black History Month February 2023 the month of February has received National recognition as Black History Month in 2017 the boulder branch of the National Association for the advancement of colored people the NAACP was established in Boulder with the purpose of promoting Civic engagement eradicating racial Prejudice and eliminating racial discrimination in education employment housing and civil rights the Boulder County branch of the NAACP is celebrating its annual Freedom fund a long-standing tradition that brings together other brings together NAACP members and Community supporters to raise funds to support the operations of our local branch and the Boulder County branch of the NAACP is dedicated to upholding the mission of equality and justice for all as championed by the NAACP since its founding in 1909.

[10:01] educating and fostering a sense of community inclusive and respectful of all is needed to affect understanding and facilitate positive change the Arts have always been an important expression of Black Culture shared and emulated worldwide African-American musicians are underrepresented in formal discipline ensembles despite a deep musical tradition including aerophones flutes Reed pipes trumpets and horns rooted in the Bounty of the African landscape the Boulder County branch of the NAACP is honored to extend an invitation to all to attend a performance of the Premier Nashville African-American wind Symphony an ensemble comprised of 65 black musicians music educators and professionals on February 19 2023 during the annual Freedom fund at Mackey Auditorium on the University of Colorado's Boulder campus hope to see many of you there in another part of the city with our University Partners we congratulate Dr Raylan rabaco and everyone who worked to establish the University of Colorado

[11:01] Boulder's new center for African and African American studies the cause which celebrates its grand opening on February 1st which was last night and in fact there was a wonderful event that I very much enjoyed attending and saw many of you there the mission of the cause is to research promote preserve interpret and disseminate knowledge about the histories cultures and arts of Africa African Americans and The Wider world of the African diaspora so we the city council of the city of Boulder Colorado declare February 2023 as Black History Month uplifting the community Through the world of Art and I'd like to turn to my friend Ms Madeline Woodley to say a few words and accept the Declaration on behalf of the NAACP thanks thank you mayor and to counsel persons and uh I'd like Council where is she if you will come up with me

[12:00] we have uh started a different kind of um to to add more about even more value to this process the Declaration be called Proclamation declaration we know what it stands for and it is such an honor so we decided to try to create something where we could involve the community and select someone and in this case it was this lady right here councilwoman Nicole Spear and I tell you um if you look back at her uh accomplishments the things she's working on I asked her what was the most important thing to her and she said uh I asked for three and she said the top one was working with the education committee uh within the NAACP and being able to influence our young people and we all know that they need our support and so with that I

[13:02] thought what could be better and her work speaks for itself with that I extend this to you dear lady yeah thank you and I would just like to add a personal comment of gratitude the Boulder County NAACP for the honor of participating in the receipt of this declaration there are so many exceptional black leaders and community members within our branch and too often white people like me get credit for the work of people of color so it's something to be asked to receive this declaration on behalf of our branch and I'm truly humbled and grateful to stand with the NAACP as an advocate for justice and Equity so thank you and I just wanted to say a couple words about the branch itself we heard a little bit about the mission and how the branch has grown in the last

[14:01] five six years since it was organized in 2023 our branch has nearly a dozen committees working on a range of issues across Boulder County and across the region in partnership with NAACP Colorado Montana and Wyoming tri-state area conference from working on state legislation to end the school-to-prison pipeline to Gathering Faith communities into the work of social justice to promoting and growing black and people of color entrepreneurship to celebrating the accomplishments of black residents and bringing internationally renowned artists and musicians to Boulder to so much more than I have time to say the diverse members of the Boulder County NAACP are building up and strengthening our community every day and as a city leader I am so grateful for the work our local branch is doing you challenge us to be better and to do better in our work to create a more Equitable and just

[15:00] community and you bring Faith and Hope to so many of us thank you for helping our city celebrate and honor black history and black presence and thank you for leading us toward a more Equitable and just future yes yes what a great night tonight we have two really wonderful declarations the second declaration is going to be um read by me relating to the honoring the um 50th anniversary of the founding of

[16:01] uh The prominent institution in our uh Town historic Boulder um Leonard seal do you want to come on up uh Len is the executive director of historic Boulder and I want to have him up here while I read this to him this is a declaration on behalf of City councils commemorating the 50th anniversary of historic Boulder Inc the preservation of historic properties is known across the country to help shape the character of a community recently U.S news and World Report lists bouldres again as one of the best places to live in America historic preservation has been a long time value that has contributed to the boulder we know today historic Boulder Inc an essential non-profit organization serving our community is celebrating their 50th anniversary historic Boulder was established to be the advocate for Heritage properties they're important lessons in the story of shaping Boulder historic Boulder has worked in partnership with the city other historic

[17:00] advocacy organizations and citizens resulting in the protection of many properties with landmark safeguards initially the work was to stop wrecking balls from leveling historic schools train depots homes and theaters The Next Step was guiding the adoption of a landmark preservation ordinance for individual properties which now number more than 200. following that was a creation of 10 historic districts around the city this work continues because it's important to preserve examples of important properties from every decade that provide lessons to our present and future residents generations of older families and visitors to town have benefited from the preservation education and advocacy of historic Boulder the character of this city has been celebrated and historic tourism has become an economic benefit to the community so in recognition of the preservation advocacy services that the members of historic Boulder have provided and continue to provide for our community we

[18:00] the city council of the city of Boulder declare February 2 2023 as historic Boulder preservation day you get Applause now and I'm going to turn the mic over to uh I'm going to let me put these right here during the night I think Len has a few things to say and I think you've got a little party coming up next week too uh party um and then I think Len also has something to give to somebody else who's in the audience so we're just going to keep making gifts go ahead Lynn thanks Bob can I shake your hand of course thank you so much absolutely um it is an honor to accept this uh certificate and um uh Honor on behalf of historic Boulder thank you council members and citizens of Boulder five Decades of volunteers have been working to make a difference in preserving the heritage of this community as manifested in physical properties and buildings and it's a

[19:02] delight that we are able to continue to do this and one of the things that we do is focus on different properties around the community and one of the them is a Columbia Cemetery and so I'd like to invite Parks and Recreation Department and play Foundation people come to come up here and accept a check that we want to give you great so hi so since 1985 historic Boulder has been putting on Meet the spirits in the Columbia Cemetery in participation with Parks and Recreation and we couldn't do it without the city and all their help and we do it every two years we get volunteers like Bob Yates and and the mayor to come and present the stories of people who are

[20:01] pioneers buried in that Cemetery it's a really incredible and very popular way to tell the stories and important stories of Boulder and we share the pro the proceeds of that with the Parks and Recreation Department through the play foundation and this year we were able to share six thousand dollars with the foundation and and you should help to go to continue to do the important restoration of the cemetery so here you go thank you thank you yes [Applause] [Music] thank you thank you thank you thank you and this is yours thanks again thank you

[21:00] see you next week on the 10th of February we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of historic Boulder at the Boulderado hotel uh with um a renowned speaker uh from Back East who uh is an expert in the values of historic preservation and we will have many other festivities that evening and I'm going to leave some postcards for more information on the table over here so I hope to see you there thank you thanks so much for that Lennon to instruct Boulder for all your work and for the donation very good and so we'll now move to open comment I believe uh Brenda writtenour will be reading out our open comment public participation guidelines Brenda you want to do that

[22:00] sure thank you and good evening everyone both um in person and on zoom in our virtual space um we welcome you all here we're glad that you're here to share your thoughts with city council tonight and if Emily will share the slides for me um that would be great um so we know many of you have seen these many times we appreciate your patience while we go over them for those who may not have seen them as often the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive Civic conversation this Vision supports the physical and emotional safety of community members staff and Council as well as supporting democracy for people of all ages identities lived experience and political perspectives for more information about the vision and the community engagement process you can visit the city of Boulder website at bouldercolorado.gov and type productive

[23:02] atmospheres into the search bar next slide please the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder Revised Code as well as other guidelines that support this vision and we will uphold these during tonight's meeting remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters relating to City business no participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person obscenity racial epithets and other speech and behavior that is that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online currently only audio testimony is permitted online in-person participants are asked to refer to refrain from expressing support or disagreement with other speakers

[24:00] traditionally support is shown through um American Sign Language Applause or jazz hands everyone may practice at this point if you wish and we appreciate you coming tonight I think we are ready to begin thanks Brenda and I had a question from a Community member come in just to be clear that our our declarations are the one exception to that when we're handing out declarations we sometimes applaud but during the rest of the meeting we ask uh to people to follow the guidelines Brenda just specified great so we have uh seven in-person speakers and four virtual ones each of you will have two minutes to speak our first three speakers are Terry bernsick Michelle Rodriguez and Evan ravitz foreign I'm part of the safe zones for schools initiative which represents a group of parents who are concerned about the lack

[25:00] of safety surrounding our schools our children are required to be at school many depend on our City's bike path to travel to and from school and use the areas near campus for lunch and studying yet these areas have become increasingly unsafe for them they report routine harassment offers of drugs indecent exposure and other menacing behaviors children are a vulnerable population are deserving of special protections we are proposing that the City established a 500-foot safety zone around schools to create a buffer for our children from the illegal activity that's occurring in our public spaces the safety zone designation would eliminate the 72-hour grace period for encampment removals and would instead make them subject to immediate clearance to be clear this proposed change would only apply to the 500-foot perimeters around schools and would not impact broader City policies concerning encampment cleanups there is precedent for treating school zones with a higher level of care for for example liquor stores and dispensaries can't be within a thousand feet of a school if we feel that it is necessary to distance our children from legal sales of alcohol

[26:01] then surely we can agree that they should be able to get to school without witnessing Matthews and stepping over hypodermic needles the current city ordinance concerning illegal camping does not include a 72-hour grace period provision however the city manager has informally adopted this guideline in the implementation of this law we are requesting that the city management update their guidelines to specifically exclude the safety zones from the 72-hour notice recommendation we recognize that Boulder along with the rest of the country is experiencing a severe drug and Mental Health crisis and that Boulder's unhoused population is vulnerable and in need of support but solutions to these complex problems are going to take time and in the meantime we cannot compound the problem by putting our children arguably the most vulnerable population into the mix the safety zone concept is not meant to solve the critical issues surrounding our community it is simply a Gap measure to Shield our children from the worst of them thank you thank you Terry now we have Michelle Rodriguez Evan

[27:01] ravitz and Robert Mathias I got hi guys um Michelle Rodriguez here um glad to see all of y'all I wanted to say I was here a couple of weeks ago it was the first time in a long time since I had been trying to get in here to speak I had no idea what the agenda of the night was and I quickly found myself surrounded by people that make it difficult for me to speak and I was um I was quickly made aware at one of our at our homeless Outreach that I frequent a lot by some very young people this week that um hi Miss Michelle you know I I saw you on TV the other night and I immediately kind of just grabbed my mouth and I was like was I behaving you know because uh it's very important that I don't step out of character and that I don't let what um people know or that I I teach people that have been through affect how I I act and behave in

[28:03] the public side and I just want to apologize if there was any disrespect and I'd like to ask for for a safe public forum to be able to um speak about the tough subjects that thank you dear that I I haven't been able to discuss and I want to have the most respected communication with my community and I for the people that don't know where I'm from I was out here on these streets the park was cleaned up in the last couple of days and I wish for everybody to be able to feel like they can be in this community safely without fear from the authority figures or anybody else we all should be able to get along the children especially their most important and shout out to the little person that that enlightened me that what I'm saying is being heard if not by the people I mean it to be by people that um are maybe going to make

[29:01] something out of what I'm saying uh but thank you guys I appreciate y'all thank you Michelle now we have Evan rabbits Robert Mathias and Alana Zuckerberg Evan ravich's North Boulder a few weeks ago former state representative Jonathan singer spoke here in his new job for the Chamber of Commerce saying the chamber wanted to work with the city for more affordable housing he's here again before posing as our pal the chamber should fix what it broke former city manager Jane brodigam admitted at a 2020 council meeting that she worked behind council's back to obtain so-called opportunity Zone status for Eastern Boulder part of the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy this will speed gentrification and reduce affordable housing emails obtained through the Colorado open records act so the chamber

[30:01] Works secretly with the city to make this happen chamber President John tayer who participated directly in the incriminating emails was on kgnu radio on October 7th and I questioned him he pretended that the opportunity Zone would reduce housing costs this is laughable and the city council's laudable efforts to delay and mitigate the opportunity Zone damage proves it the chamber corrupted whatever Democratic process still happens here to increase investor profits at the expense of the rest of us and its president and CEO lied publicly about the intentions and effects it should apologize the only way to undo the opportunity Zone would be to get Congress to repeal the legislation that's what the chamber should be working for not gaslighting us to cover up what it did and the new city manager shouldn't be partying with the

[31:02] chamber that corrupted the old city manager as the camera reported she did thank you thank you Evan of Robert Matthias Elena Zuckerberg and Jack of Mitchell well good evening my name is Robert Matthias I live at 980 Crescent Drive in the city of Boulder and in the 10th state house district I've lived in Boulder for 22 years split over a couple of periods starting in 1970. I'm here to support Juni Joseph and to encourage her to continue to represent my family in both the state house and here on City Council I'd like to thank you all for your service to my city especially Juni she joined the council while still in law school which itself is a full-time job she continued to serve while starting to practice law now she's serving well also in the State House Junior has made a lot

[32:01] of sacrifices to serve on Council but she has demonstrated her ability to handle it all many of you have full-time jobs besides city council why not Juni as you know Juni could make a lot more money as a lawyer than serving on these two bodies she is sacrificing that income to represent a population that is not represented by any other council member it's important that Judy continue on Council because she's the only person of color the only renter and the only person on Council younger than 40. those constituencies deserve representation here why would we get rid of that voice Junie has been the target of criticism for warring two political hats simultaneously but I'm thrilled that this Council has a direct conduit to the State House I hope that Junior is supported by the rest of you members of council and I'm sure there was a white male I would not be subjected to the same kind of criticism I thank Junie for her dedication to both jobs and for not

[33:01] allowing the vocal minority to take away her right to serve in both positions thank you thank you Robert now if Elena Zuckerberg Jacob Mitchell and John nestlage to avalina here going once twice um how about Jacob Mitchell no maybe I'm getting trolled here uh John nestlich he's here good evening my name is John nestlage I'm I've been here a couple weeks ago to speak with you about an incident that involved my child and I am here tonight out of a sense of obligation I'm obligated to be here because I owe Mr farnin an apology I had a

[34:02] conversation with David in the hall afterward I took the time to to visit with him he took the time to visit with me and I requested the police report and I look and I've learned subsequently that he did take actions that he had represented that evening that he'd taken he was looking out for four children which I appreciate and so on a human level I want to apologize to him and acknowledge his his actions the the bad part of this is that it doesn't take away from what happened and as a result of what David shared with me I was able to dig deeper I learned that the police being understaffed don't have a victim's advocate so they weren't able to keep me informed uh the idea was that I should be expected to contact them regularly for any updates or developments what we've learned is that they have identified a person they have not arrested the person but through identifying him and they he was apprehended in the library it's discovered that he is a registered sex offender and is at the moment still

[35:01] roaming freely among our community so just an FYI for any concerned parent I'm also here out of a sense of obligation because I am a licensed attorney and attorneys have a duty of Candor to deliberative bodies and tribunals so I want to make sure that you know I I let you know that there I did learn some things I've learned as well that the number of incidents that I represented were around the library area so it doesn't make it any better but there's still many many incidents occurring and this needs to be addressed we're also not well served by Hyperbole and exaggeration some of the articles that came out after the meeting two weeks ago representing that there were large contingents of uniformed and armed police here wasn't the case didn't happen I was here I counted there were four the rest were plain closed they were all in their seats thank you John thank you all right now we'll move to our virtual participants we have Sammy Lawrence Lynn Siegel I understand Carter Hilty isn't present so then Aiden Reed

[36:03] all right hello hello everybody I don't have a lot of time because she made this a short amount of time so I'm going to get through real quick first off love y'all hope everyone's doing well if not don't want to hear it anyways uh school's going well in my end midterms are amazing A's and B's you know it's awesome that being said first off to the NAACP member who garnered the award and awarded to Miss Spears good job congratulations second part shout out to Korea white as well who was a part of the UC Boulder uh African studies group wonderful lady let's check her out Michelle Rodriguez I see you and I hear you girl and I too agree I too agree with asari over to sorry that's on a different mindset and an aspect because

[37:01] say sorry also means to understand that there is more levels of damage but also to be aware as to what parts are played at times when people experience such Horrors it's because of others sometimes of themselves that leads me to as well to where my friends ate speaking up I am proud of it then and all of us should be championing him in the same way that we all should be championing those who are seeking to make it and to survive on the streets we should still not be having sweeps as a concern this concern of mine that still to this day we are still having these issues to where our homeless Brethren and comrades being treated less than and put in the part to where even the aspects that we are leaving them left behind in are impacting our

[38:01] children it's saddening however cannot continue to just allow those to machinate behind closed doors thank you all love you thank you Sammy now we have Lynn Siegel and Aiden Reed coming after Sammy I wonder if Waylon Lowe retired now I mean police abuse at least he wasn't on the list can you speak up a little bit I'm having trouble hearing you oh thank you so much um yeah I'm putting up the volume I don't know can you hear now much better okay yeah um concerned about Wayland Lola try abusing folks the police officer I was abusive that was hired from Denver that Boulder fired even with his background

[39:01] and then was um then abuse and me and I wonder where he's leasing now in another state um concerning especially considering [Music] um let's see um Tire nickel Tyree Nichols and um many others um the the issue with the police really needs to be legally determined with the city what the level of the the police oversight committee and what power they have first of all they're just advisory this is old news but for the council to get so involved in who's on the board when they've already designated the authority of them to choose their members um is really not okay legally Theresa

[40:02] hear that um the other thing I wanted to bring up is Excel Energy because our bills are outrageous I just went from 135 dollars to 278 the same time last year it was 135. um and these are things that Excel is not going to pay for a ground Loop heat pump that's going to cost me like 50 000 bucks and to get off gas and to get the hot water your time is up but thank you for your testimony gotcha uh our final speaker tonight is Aiden Reed good evening Council uh I'd like to thank those council members who voted to approve the police oversight panel last week as Tyree Nichols death reminds us tragically once again police oversight is ultimately meaningless we're not enforced and is not only necessary for a functional Community but is essential

[41:01] for democracy at Large when police are unaccountable they do not keep anyone safe for those among them who engage in and propagate misconduct I'm grateful that Boulder's police oversight panel can now move forward however I was dismayed to see the influence of the Boulder Police Union and groups like safer and delaying the approval process bias is not inherently bad and as others have rightly noted we all have our own biases the question is whether we allow those biases to Cloud our judgment and inhibit our work I am confident the police oversight panel will proceed with its work with the utmost grouplessness and discipline and I hope the council will do the same thank you thank you Aiden all right that brings open comment to close do we have any staff responses just a quick one mayor if you will community that come and share their personal stories however and whatever perspective is bringing but Forth please know we're hearing on the issue of um the complex issue of our unsheltered

[42:02] community and the impacts of horrible drugs in our community we hear you we continue to work on how to make it better for all and to make sure that everyone has a place in our community including those that are unsheltered as well and so we continue to work on it but I just wanted to thank you for sharing your personal stories thank you for this kind words Maria and then he uh city council responses I see Rachel I just wanted to offer Nuria the opportunity to correct um someone says you're partying with the chamber do you wanna clarify anything there I appreciate it I I try and frankly I'll say that I I appreciate our partnership and our relationship with the chamber I try very hard always to be remain professional I do not know what article is being spoken about but I do not end up parting with um uh the chamber or frankly anyone else and and I don't mean that that's a negative thing I go to events and if there's someone who has something very

[43:01] specific to ask me I'd be happy to respond to that but again I appreciate our partnership and the work that we do with the chamber and I honor that Nicole just I just had a quick question somebody mentioned that we don't currently have a victims advocate and I was just a little surprised by that I think I had seen this amazing room that that folks had built for the victim's Advocate to work with people so I was just wondering if you could clarify that I will confirm that but my belief is no that we do have somebody in that position and I'm happy to confirm that that could be that at a certain time there was a vacancy and I would have to go back and look at those records but we do indeed have somebody thanks for clarifying right seeing no other follow-ups then Alicia we could move to our consent agenda please send agenda consists of items a through G and I through n and for the record

[44:02] item H was removed by staff so before we go to to counsel questions or comments or anything I wanted to turn to either city manager or City attorney to speak about M and N if we could get a few words on those please foreign thank you I'm Erin Poe from the city attorney's office Deputy City attorney Aaron if you can bring that microphone down to your mouth please there you go yeah okay uh for item 3M the police oversight panel the purpose of these ordinance amendments is to provide greater transparency for the public and to make sure that the police oversight panel members are able to provide the information they need to so that the community is aware of what they are doing and why they are doing it and we

[45:01] believe that this aligns with what their practices have been um would you like more information well and just we're proposing to pass that by emergency I assume so they can take advantage of these changes immediately is that correct that's true yes and the emergency ordinance um is allowed for uh preservation of the public peace health or property and uh the belief is that transparency in this type of situation meets that definition and any other questions on this item seeing none if you could talk about end then a little bit please yes item 3n is regarding the ethic complaints that have been filed um one has previously been assigned to a special investigator clay Douglas and this is a request to add um Clay on is an investigator for a subsequently filed complaint as well as any other that may come of the same

[46:01] event and the reason for that is having one investigator would make sure that there are the same facts being found and also would be financially in time efficient Great And to clarify this is about anything related any complaints related to The Selection and appointment of the police oversight panel that's correct mayor very good I believe we've gotten two more complaints since you mentioned as well so this would be more efficient any questions on this okay see none thanks for those explanations Aaron appreciate it and uh if somebody shouts out Aaron you just might have to specify you know is it lawyer Aaron mayor Aaron you know prevent confusion all right uh any comments or questions about the consent agenda as a whole Rachel we had one on E which is um the summary of community Broadband discussion and the second to last bullet says Council voiced a desire to better understand the spectrum of need in the

[47:00] community including those who have no access to wired internet staff will add some Community engagement to the next phase of work and that confused me because I thought we clarified that we weren't really looking at the Spectrum of need that we had previously determined that there was that we were going to do a community Broadband so I wanted to clarify what staff's understanding was and also what council had indicated there Mary do you have any do you want to get back to us on that I don't know if the right person's here sure I don't think the right people are here but we will we'll take a look back at um at that I believe that uh the ultimate decision was to sort of move forward with option b certainly at some point maybe we'll get to option C there was one council member that spoke to option A but the clear Direction was was given to us and if there's something that we need to clarify in the memo we will happily do that okay I think it was just I again I don't want to speak for all of counsel in case I got it wrong but where it says Community engagement around spectrum of need in the community including those who have no access to wired internet I think we I my understanding was that we

[48:01] accept that not everyone has great access to wired but we still want Broadband for everyone so I don't know why we would do community engagement on something that sort of we've already agreed to if that makes sense and if anybody thought we were doing something different but yeah I had the same concern that Rachel did um Maria just for your clarification this is less about option ba or C this is more about the engagement I think there's really two two um cohorts in the community that we talked about that night one is people with no access to Internet and that's what the memo refers of minutes referred to and then we also talked about people who have no access to high-speed internet which is probably the really thing that we're talking about so I think it's really kind of a focus on what the engagement is I think the concern that we're raising is not so much whether the minutes are right but more we wanted to make sure that staff's not going out they're doing something that's different than maybe what council talked about that night so maybe you can go back and watch the video understood and we'll clarify yeah okay anything else perhaps a motion

[49:02] I mean if nobody's gonna step up I'll go ahead and move the consent agenda items a through G and I through n second we have a motion in a second this is a roll call vote it will require six affirmative votes since we have an emergency vote on the list you Alicia thank you sir we'll start this roll call on the consent agenda items with council member Yates um I'll vote I with with the I'm not gonna vote against item I guess was e that Rachel called out but I just would ask staff to maybe clarify that minutes when um after they've seen the video too but otherwise I'll vote Yes on the whole agenda thank you sir councilmember Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes councilmember folkitz yes friend I'm Gonna Keep it simpler than Bob and say Yes except for 2E no honey

[50:01] thank you Joseph yes spear yes to everything except for Jay which is a no thank you and council member weiner yes the consent agenda items a through G and I through n are hereby approved with a vote of eight to one except for the noted nose from council member Spear and Frank I think that's eight to zero except for the the two noted nose what did I say eight two eight to one eight to zero my apologies eight to zero did you have something Bob hey Nicole I don't want to call you um to put you on the spot but if if there's something on Jay that you voted against that you wanted to talk about tonight um to help staff in preparation for the second reading I did I did want to maybe

[51:00] give Nicole an opportunity to speak if you want if you want to thank you yeah I sent a bunch of questions to staff and I'm just kind of waiting some answers okay great on those so yeah happy happy to bring it up um when we get to second reading super thanks Nicole seems like a better I know we got a full full agenda tonight okay sure sounds good okay well with that if we could move to our first public hearing please all right let me see if I can read that right our public hearing is item number five on tonight's agenda 5A is the second reading and consideration of emotion to pass and adopt ordinance 85-15 amending Title IX land use code BRC 1981 to update the site review criteria as part of the community benefit code change project and setting forth related details there I am we have mayor we have exceptional pnds staff as always so I'm going to send it to Carl to get a start thank you neria good evening council members I'm Carl geiler planning and development services

[52:01] uh tonight we're going to talk about ordinance 8515 which is to update the site review criteria this is a revised ordinance last we discussed uh this topic was August 2022 at a study session so we've taken input from council members of the community planning board design Advisory Board we've revised the ordinance based on those comments and we're here before you tonight so the purpose of tonight's discussion is for city council to make a decision on ordinance 8515 so just to outline how we're going to go through the presentation tonight I'm going to start with some of the background which obviously council is pretty familiar with the background of the project but I'll just go over that again talk about the content of ordinance 855 I'm going to talk about the changes that have been made to the ordinance since we last discussed it and then I'll move into the

[53:00] staff analysis why we think it meets the goals and objectives that were originally applied to the project concluding with public comment and the staff recommendation so going back to 2018 um I'll I'll try to go through this a little bit quicker than we've done in the past but there were a number of projects that were being built at that time that raised concerns in the community in terms of the intensity the the height of the buildings the quality of the buildings and um some criticisms of of the site review process um so this began the community benefit project which started in 2018 and a component of that was the site review criteria to do an update um so we've we've done a lot of work on this project already Council will remember that in 2019 phase one of community benefit was adopted which added the additional permanently affordable housing requirements for any projects that propose a fourth or a

[54:00] fifth Story or floor area greater than a floor area maximum in certain zones we came back in 2021 with phase two which was a proposal for requirements related to below market rate commercial that particular ordinance did not pass so following that we we moved into the next component of the project which was to update the site review criteria really to make the criteria uh more clear uh more simplified to better implement the goals of the community Through the Boulder Valley Conference of plan and to try to make the site review process more predictable so these are the goals and objectives that were outlined for the project initially for the site review criteria so identify incentives to address the community economic social and environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan determine additional design standards for project requesting a height modification and identify other

[55:02] aspects of the site review criteria to further City goals and create more predictability so just a refresher on the site review process site review is basically required for for most of the larger scale projects in town so any that are in a certain zone of a certain size in terms of floor area or a certain size of a site or if there's a certain number of units or if an applicant requests modifications to the zoning requirements a site review is is required and most site reviews are staff level all those site reviews in order to be approved have to be found consistent with the criteria the site review criteria that's section 9214h all the decisions made by staff are subject to planning board call-up or citizen appeal there are certain projects that automatically require planning Board review and approval at a public hearing so any requests for

[56:00] additional density in certain zones or if an applicant requests to go over a zoning District height limit usually it's like 35 feet or 38 feet or 40 feet up to 55ft feet that's a height modification that automatically has to go to planning board so the graphic on the left just basically shows the community benefit piece where if an applicant comes in and asks for a fourth or a fifth Story that additional height bonus area or any far bonus area also shown in Orange is subject to higher increased permanently affordable housing requirements than our typical 25 percent of the number of units on the site or a increased commercial linkage fee so that's already in the code it's already put into the site review criteria so some of the criticisms we've heard about the site review criteria is the ambiguity that uh that's in some of the language um these are some examples providing

[57:00] relief to density what's compatible character of the area visual interest what are authentic materials these are a lot of phrases that are in our current site review criteria everyone has a different you know interpretation of whether they're met or not what to what degree so through this process it's really been about you know maybe taking some of these out but really flushing them out as to what does it mean to have authentic materials what is pedestrian friendly what is compatible we've made the criteria more descriptive to be more clear and add to the predictability in the process so that's a big part of this ordinance so the prior ordinance that we brought that we call it the May 2020 22 version of the ordinance we moved in the direction of trying to take what we learned from the form-based code which was more prescriptive requirements that we thought were successful uh in Boulder Junction and apply those to the site review criteria so the the requirements

[58:00] are more about you know is it met or is it not met there wasn't a lot of room for flexibility and this caused some concern in the community particularly the development community that it was too prescriptive so we did take it through the boards and and brought it to council and and that was the message that we heard so we've since gone back and and rewrote the the ordinance to be less prescriptive so I'll talk more about the details about that so in May of 2022 we took the prior version of the ordinance to planning board we did a very detailed line-by-line discussion of the ordinance um the board was largely supportive of the concepts of the ordinance back in 2021 however by May um the board was largely mixed on the on the ordinance some board members felt that the criteria were too prescriptive and others felt that it was appropriately prescriptive it was pretty pretty split um so because of that the board did not make a recommendation on that ordinance

[59:01] they asked that we take some of the building design criteria which were kind of the biggest concern uh in the ordinance to the design Advisory Board and get their input um there were also concerns about how staff wrote the bvcp uh Criterion they felt it was too limiting um that it didn't apply all the the bvcp policies as the current version does and that they felt like there needed to be more application of the bvcp through the ordinance there was also discussions about the energy conservation code references or criteria and the height modification criteria so we've been working on those so in June of last year we went to the design Advisory Board and presented them the ordinance um the design Advisory Board was generally complementary of the work that was in the ordinance related to the form-based code language uh in that it did set a good bar for design but they did have very strong concerns that it was too rigid that it was too

[60:00] prescriptive in that if it were to be applied city-wide that we might start seeing a lot of buildings that look the same everywhere and that was a big concern to them they felt like the criteria should be less prescriptive and written more like design guidelines but they also we also felt that a lot of the things that were from the form-based code are not things that we needed to get rid of but use in a different way and I think we got that similar read from from Council when we we talked to you all uh in August of last year so um when we asked Council about the ordinance the council felt that the ordinance was consistent with the original goals and objectives that were outlined for the project originally but there was consensus that it was too prescriptive and that we needed to do some more work um we went back and looked at some of those requirements I think Council felt that a lot of the form-based code language was a good language to use but used in a different way not make it so prescriptive so we've gone back to make

[61:00] a hybrid between the existing criteria and the more positive elements of the prior version of The Code Council did focus on the the bbcp Criterion uh just like planning board did I think there was a consensus that there should be it should be broadened a bit then then where it was but clarify how it should be used how it should be applied because when you look at a lot of the the bvcp policies they're not necessarily all written to be applied to development projects they're written more to like guide the development of programs or they're they're pointed at the city government or the County government so we we've we've worked on the criteria to make it clear of how the policies should apply Council also discussed the greenhouse gas emissions require government one of the criticisms was that it was too complicated it was almost like a page long and that it should be simplified and that actually many aspects of that particular Criterion should just be part of the energy

[62:00] conservation code so we have gone back and worked with our colleagues on that particular Criterion and we've greatly simplified that Criterion and we've taken most of those elements out and and they will be moving forward uh this year with an update that would incorporate the elements of like the embodied carbon reduction electrification a verified path to consistency with the code and I'll talk more about what element is still in the criteria so jumping into the ordinance itself this is a slide I showed last time these were the approaches that we took to the ordinance originally and got consent on these all still apply even though we've made it less prescriptive I've highlighted the area of change where it says make criteria more prescriptive and measurable we've kind of dialed that back obviously but many of these other approaches to simplify it or reorganize it in a more top-down approach try to emphasize important city goals we've that all still applies to this particular ordinance

[63:02] so going into a little bit of the detail obviously we've we've combed through the entire ordinance and re Rewritten it to be less prescriptive we've basically taken a lot of the approach that we took to the site design criteria which were written in a more descriptive Manner and apply that to the building design and public realm sections as well where we could simplify we've tried to simplify we've eliminated the public Realms section we've eliminated the alternate compliance section because there's not a need for it if the criteria are more discretionary again we looked at the purpose statement tried to update that to be consistent with the updated criteria and we've also like I said worked on the bvcp Criterion to reintroduce the on balance language that up all policies should apply but obviously in a manner that is only applicable to development review projects we reworked the energy conservation

[64:01] Greenhouse emissions reduction Criterion basically what it says now like I said it's greatly simplified it just requires that a building or an addition that's thirty thousand square feet or greater to either be Net Zero or be at least 10 percent better than the energy conservation code all those other elements that we had proposed previously are now in the work program for the update for the energy conservation code as requested by Council back in August we've reworked the housing diversity slightly that any project if it has elus it must have two housing types we've done some tweaks to the open space regs that that part of the criteria is largely similar to what you saw last time I think the biggest changes to the criteria really to the public realm and the building design section so again a lot of those ambiguous terms that I mentioned before have been described much better in this current version of the ordinance of what it

[65:00] means we've folded the public realm uh criteria that we had before into the building design criteria and the Landscaping criteria just kind of more organized to be more clear so basically instead of it being is this a very strict requirement that's met or not met we've we've kind of dialed it back to be a little bit more like how we have the criteria now so basically we have an intent statement at the beginning of every section that says this is the design intent that need to me that met in a site review and then in determining whether this intent is met the approving agency will consider the following factors and then everything gets considered on balance and that's the way it's applied today but we feel that it's still uh more predictable uh than than the current version because it's more descriptive there's a lot more examples in the language of how you meet that requirement so because we've made the sections a little bit more flexible there's no need for the alternative

[66:01] compliance section anymore so we've removed that we've kept a lot of the best practices language from the form-based code but Rewritten it's Rewritten to basically be more like like best practice rather than a requirement and we've also added some other design examples instead of just the form-based code requirements so there's a number of things that that a applicant could do to meet the intent we've reintroduced the compatibility language particularly for the larger buildings there still has to be a finding of compatibility if they are proposing a larger building and one of the main things with this project was to make to create more design requirements for uh taller larger buildings so we we've kept with that we've tried to just make the criteria a little bit more clear like if there's a height modification for a building that's only three stories and not subject to community benefit it's not going to have to meet all these extra requirements because in a lot of cases a three-story building might be just

[67:01] because it's like got a descending slope away from it that has a very strict height measurement and therefore it doesn't need to be held to that same standard but we have kept a number of the requirements of like maximum building length facade variation encouraging different types of of heights of parts of the building but we've Rewritten it again to to be in a more flexible application rather than the prior version of the ordinance a couple um new things the the roof materials um requirement we added so basically just avoids a situation where you might have like a gabled roof with like a kind of like a rubber membrane that would be visible from the street there are a couple projects that cause concern so we just said that if you have that kind of roofing membrane it can't be visible from the street so we've we've revised that we've also added some language about um we've updated the language on polls and Emergency Operations antenna it's

[68:00] already in there it's not really changing the intent but it's just making the language more clear and consistent with how the reviews are supposed to go in accordance with state law so that's just mostly a clarification we did talk about the acoustic studies one last time and there was a concern about requiring a noise study for certain projects so we've revised that to be that there's no requirement for a study but if a project is on an expressway or a railroad a big contributor of noise that there has to be certain wall all construction to dampen that noise and that's just a requirement that we already use now in the residential and Industrial Zone standard so it's something that's already in the code I won't go into a lot of depth on this particular slide since we've talked about it before but on the left you can see there's a number of ways that we've tried to solicit input on this project since 2018. the comments that are on this particular slide relate to the prior ordinance so again there were some

[69:00] members of the community that liked how the ordinance was better um trying to Foster more City policy compliance through the criteria but we also heard the concerns about too many shall statements in the prior uh version of the ordinance so in the new version of the ordinance we've we've been emailing Architects and folks in the design community and a number of folks that are interested in the criteria to get their feedback on the latest ordinance we definitely heard a lot more support for the latest ordinance from our site review focus group they felt that the language provided much more guidance for how a project should be designed and how hopefully that means less back and forth between the applicants in the city on trying to meet the criteria that it might be in a better place when it comes in the door we did hear some concerns just that there they that the additional you know greenhouse gas requirements like some of the additional requirements were still

[70:01] um arduous but in general we've seen a lot more support from from the site review focus group members so we brought the ordinance to planning board on December 20th again we went through a detailed line by line uh review it took over six hours but we have eventually got to a motion from the planning board where they recommended approval of the ordinance uh six to zero and they made the recommendation that staff revised the ordinance on any points of consensus so there was a lot of discussion just like on minor edits and word choice throughout the ordinance which we've updated there was a request to simplify the language in the purpose section which we've done uh broadening the BBC policy Criterion to include other policies beyond the built environment section which we've done and creating some more consistency in the language where there's any references to adopted area plans and guidelines and then in the community benefits section there's a number there's actually a alternative

[71:02] Community benefits section that we already had in the code there was just a request to add environmental as a possible consideration and we've done that so um based on all this input and the changes we've made we continue to find that the ordinance uh does meet the goals and objectives that were outlined for the project obviously with more discretion uh there's less predictability than the prior ordinance but like staff also understands that if you have more prescription in the ordinance there would be more design uniformity throughout the the community and that's not necessarily something that we want to see we feel that the ordinance does strike an appropriate balance to meet these goals and objectives um so there's a number of arguments that are are in your memo of why we we believe that it's it's a it's an improvement over the current criteria so we find that it's still consistent with the comp plan it furthers the goals of sustainability and diversity of housing

[72:01] types human scale building design and Community benefits so that's why we're recommending approval of the ordinance tonight again we have outlined some other arguments uh for why we we believe that this ordinance achieves those uh goals and objectives that were outlined we feel that there's an appropriate amount of flexibility and simplicity uh in the latest version of the ordinance and would have less impact to the smaller sized projects than the May version of the ordinance and we feel that it also accomplishes the requirement or the request for the additional design standards for for taller and larger buildings this is the suggested motion language that we've included in the packet um we did send out a hotline today which you probably have all seen uh we did meet with Aaron and Lauren today um to talk about some some edits um so we've listed those out in that hotline uh have them up on the slide as well if there's any interest in

[73:01] discussing those or any other potential changes so if there are any changes to the ordinance it would have to be something that's adopted on third reading um on consent so in conclusion if this ordinance is passed it would complete the community benefit project we're proposing an effective date of July 1st just to give people a designer some lead time so that they can start designing their projects according to the new criteria if passed uh and like we've heard from members of the site review focus group we completely agree that we will continue to analyze the criterias of efficacy as we move forward to see if there are any additional changes that need to be made moving forward so with that that concludes the presentation I'm happy to answer any questions thanks so much Carl for that fantastic presentation in for many many years of hard work on this project I look look forward to hopefully celebrating a

[74:01] little bit when we when we pass this but in the meantime questions for staff Lauren I had one that I forgot to ask earlier so I apologize for that but um I noticed that one of the comments from planning board was around having defined entries every 50 feet feeling more rigid than they would like and I I believe that's still in the final um version and so I was just wondering what the thinking was that we have revised the ordinance to to be a little bit more loose I I we we show the 50 Feet more as a best practice that may not be the right answer in every context we added some language that recognizes there's gonna be different contexts where that's not going to make sense but either way the way the the criteria are reworded it's more to factor to consider it's not something that has to be

[75:01] originally applied they don't have to ask you know for a modification or something if it's not met thank you because it is something that I notice in buildings in Boulder we have quite a few that have gone through this process that end up with key mark entries that are locked and closed at all times so I I feel like that ends up being sort of to the detriment of the built environment to have entries where people don't want them yeah other questions seeing none we could go to the public okay oh sorry Matt missed you go ahead no I'm on the screen that's the price I pay for being sick um my only question is just sort of a slight semantics one I saw that in sustainability on the uh amended section we seem to soften our climate language and so I'm wondering why we went from reduced greenhouse gas emissions to simply just address greenhouse gas emissions so I'm wondering because that's a pretty substantive change in

[76:00] terms of our normal climate goals it seems so I'm just curious about that so I can take that one because that was my that was my suggestion here so the the thing to address there was that so first of all it's in the purpose section so it's not regulatory but the um but the thing that I was concerned about is it said reduce greenhouse gas emissions but there is not yet a project to reduce emissions from and so any project that's built will inevitably have at least a little bit of emissions and so if you say well you were supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but in fact the project does produce a nominal amount and so it having uh spent many years in planning board of hearing sometimes people can get tied up in knots over language like that since you're starting off from potentially zero so I we came up with the word address I'm very open to other alternate wording uh to get at that intent I I appreciate your explanation I that the context helps me uh understand that I I built that I I just didn't know

[77:00] where it came from so thanks Aaron I appreciate that and thanks Aaron and Lauren for doing that work uh to clean this up so appreciate that thanks Matt and and thanks for staying home and not getting us all sick appreciate you doing that for the good of all of us um okay so go to the public hearing now we have one person signed up uh they will get three minutes to speak so Lynn Siegel you're up how come nobody wants to speak about the most important thing in Boulder Community benefit the problem that I have with this review is um these are basically tweaks to something that's a much more looming problem in town and that and largely I'm concerned about the density bonus and the community benefit of density bonus

[78:00] is is um you know on Democracy Now yesterday I heard there's 500 people using two bathrooms with two showers something to do with the um the refugee situation but you know the density that happened for example and I don't know if papillos is in the Oz but they went from density of 63 units to 165 units this is not beneficial for Boulder because what it does is it creates more units and drives up the price of housing of each of those units because there the the developers laughing all the way to the bank because he's got smaller units and he can sell or rent out to more and more people that the services have been removed because it that space But paleos has taken over service territory and all those new people need services so they'll need to

[79:02] be more services built for those people and when more services are demanded more housing for those service people are demanded or transportation for those people to get there to do to perform the services plus the land value goes up which is already Sky High plus you know I mean in papillas there's the fourth floor and the real disaster here is that mu3 was offered was diffied up to Ali gidfar with papellios it's a pure unadulterated City subsidy he you know this the council wanted for sale and the council wanted more density which I think is against their own better judgment and as a result he comes back with more density but no for sale you can't do it he's just going to do his cash in lube and the city council handed over mu3

[80:03] which gives him a penthouse a fourth story and swimming pool that none none of the you know paltry amount of affordable housing in that's going to be on site can even use this is what the problem is with Boulder with density bonuses um I I want to see a quantifiable metric of the community benefit they're they're actually producing linear time is up but thank you for your testimony all right uh public hearing is oversold close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion and I wonder if people might indulge me for a minute to just go over a couple of the the changes that we were whenever Carlos hit possible to get the redlined version up yeah let me see what I can do

[81:02] I've got it handy if you need it oh yeah that'd be good you can send it to Emily you got it yeah I think so Emily just sent that um sorry to sorry to throw a curveball here

[82:20] great thanks so much so if we could scroll down yeah so well that's good so the the first one Matt already asked the question about and so that's been explained the second one is just a typo yeah it should have been If instead of in uh the next one and this is again for me sitting through a lot of planning board hearings there was uh language about minimizing motor vehicle miles traveled and you know theoretically zero is the minimum and so sometimes people will say well if you do anything oriented towards

[83:00] a motor vehicle you haven't minimized it um but they'll probably still will occasionally be motor vehicle services so the the change the language to clarify it was with the goal of lowering VMT motor VMT I'll just go through these really quickly if people have questions they can call it out and then the the next one on item this item four down at the bottom was just clarifying language to make the sentence read better the plan will be complied with including methods that result in a significant shift away from sov use and then could we scroll to the next page please learn you and take this one yeah so this one was just kind of clarify framing it more around the intent of um All Roofing membranes not um that are visible from not allowing any roof membranes to be

[84:01] visible from the street level as opposed to just a particular kind of roof membrane and also because it had language about on a sloping roof which even quote unquote flat roofs slope so just clarifying some of that was Lauren and then this lesson there's a couple things in here one so you'll notice that there's a one and a two so that it was just to add Clarity that this clause about whether a building is located near a multi-modal corridor with Transit service or in an area of Redevelopment that those are one or the other of those two applies I did get a feedback from a planning board member that actually they intended the word near the nearer multi multi multimodal quarter they intended that to apply to both the multimodal corridor and the area of Redevelopment so when we added the word in here the the feedback from plain board

[85:00] members that that should be near instead to accomplish what they were intending um so I would I would propose changing that in in that to near based on their feedback and then my last the most substantive of of these is that I'm just going to read through this whole thing bear with me please so this is about when height modifications can be considered and it has some previous things about whether there are guidelines or plans that would allow for that and says if no such guidelines or plans are adopted for the area or if they do not specify anticipated Heights for the buildings then the building height you can allow a height modification if the building height is compatible with the height of buildings in the surrounding area and the building is located near multimodal Corridor or in an area of Redevelopment my other suggestion is to change the word and to or so that you could consider a height

[86:00] request if the height is compatible with the surrounding area or if the building is located near a Transit Corridor or an area of Redevelopment so that's my my the biggest of these little changes so there you go and I'm happy to take questions or comments on those ideas Bob I just want to thank Lauren and Aaron for for the extra work you guys put in to make those improvements I support all of them just a kind of process question if we were if majority Council agrees with those changes would you want us to pass this on second reading then and then the third reading on consent is that kind of the thinking that's the thought yeah it's not going into effect until July okay so well I'll support that any other questions or comments between the thumbs up okay I'm not seeing any other all right well thanks for going through that um with us any other comments about the ordinance Lauren do you want to make a motion we

[87:02] also had a request from the community to look at this after a year to sort of see um make sure that that if there are any issues that we can address them at that point is that something we would including that or is that just something that will have in the work Planner on staffs agenda we can make a note of that and bring it forward thank you great sure so I moved that um that we uh passed an adopt ordinance 8515 with the revisions reflected on the screen this evening contributed by Lauren and Aaron great and before thank you so much for that motion Bob in the second and I just wonder if we can get the actual the final language there because I'm a little worried about a lack of certainty yes Aaron

[88:01] I believe the language was adopted not amend is that correct and thanks to my colleague Helen panwig for picking it up yeah since we're amending on second I said on okay since this is an amendment on second reading so don't say adopt okay I'll say that again I I move that we pass in second reading ordinance 8515 with revisions suggested by uh colleagues um full groups in Brockett I believe that those amendments were actually sent out on hotline today as well so they're reflected both in tonight's presentation in the hotline Lauren but we wanted to make an additional clarification to those with the last of the revisions first item six with for near near instead of in into near and and to or is that clear enough yes great motion by Bob second by Juni any

[89:02] uh any comments do you want to speak to no great great job by both staff and and with a little bit of final assistance from Council Judy did you want to speak no nothing further thank you for all the work that you've done thank you for the work from staff and from both Lauren and mayor Brockett thank you very good so if we could uh then go to a vote on the motion please Elisha all right sir thank you let me get my vote sheet up we'll start this vote for ordinance 8515 with council member Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes council member Focus yes friend yes Joseph yes

[90:02] spear yes Winer yes and Yates yes 40 ordinance 85 15 was approved as amended and will be scheduled for third reading so much well I have to offer a few thank yous here that the community benefit project is finished oh my goodness how many years has it been Carl how many years seriously how many years has it been well I'm counting it in days no yes sir six five and a half was it was 2018 so yeah so four and a half ago so right up there anyway it's huge amount of work so much effort so many twists and turns along the way and then you've brought it to a beautiful conclusion here with this latest revision so just incredibly grateful to everyone on staff who's worked so hard on this as well as for the community members who've contributed to the process over the years and the planning board members too it's it's great to finally get box checked that's

[91:01] a big box to check thanks so much um but we're not done with you uh so we got 5B our second public hearing yes sir 5B on tonight's agenda is the continuation of second reading and consideration of emotion to amend ordinance 8556 amending Title IX land use code BRC 1981 to update the use table and use standards related to Industrial uses and districts and setting forth related details and with that mayor I said we had exceptional pndf staff uh someone who is not a stranger to you as you have seen Lisa frequently lately so I'll turn it right over to Lisa thanks nurian good evening Council I am looking forward to talking about some more revised ordinances with you tonight uh so we'll be focusing on the use table and standards ordinance you last saw this at your December 15th meeting so I have a few introductory slides but I'm

[92:01] going to focus really on just the revisions that were made since you saw it last in December but I am happy to take any questions on any of the other items as well oh sorry I'm Lisa Hood senior city planner all right so the use table and standards project is another long um long-lasting project that started back in 2018 we're now in phase two of the project you've heard about this before we adopted the first module the functional fixes back in June this is module two of the project or phase two um focused on industrial areas and then we'll move on to module three which is centers around neighborhood centers and neighborhoods once we are completed with module two just a reminder of the goals of this project it really was since its outset in 2018 to simplify the use table which is a really important part of the land use code and streamline the regulations where it's possible make them more understandable and legible they had gotten increasingly complex over time so

[93:00] trying to create more predictability and certainty in this really vital part of the land use code especially related to module two these bottom two goals are aligning the use table and the permitted uses with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan bringing those into better alignment and also identifying where there might be some gaps where the community might desire certain uses but the use table is actually acting as a barrier and making sure that we're keeping those in better alignment as well a reminder of the feedback that we've gotten so far like I like I mentioned this Project's been going on for several years so back in 2020 the council feedback that we received at the time was support for additional uses in the industrial areas such as residential retail and restaurants but also a constant theme throughout this work related to the industrial uses is the need to balance the protection of existing industrial with the introduction of new residential uses more recently in 2022 back in August we talked with you all in more depth about

[94:01] these projects or the the project and um the record or the feedback at the time was that residential was not appropriate in all areas of industrial zoning and that Council would like to see some guard rails put in place to protect industrial uses especially in the is or Industrial Service zones regarding office which is another major topic of this ordinance there was support for combining the professional and Technical office terms but again Council gave feedback that restrictions on office was still needed in order to protect those industrial uses that are there and not displace them most recently at the public hearing on December 15th the guidance received by Council was really focused on three main topics residential office and Manufacturing so what we heard what staff heard at that meeting was regarding residential don't prohibit residential in the IM zoning District as had originally been proposed and then there were kind of mixed opinions on residential uses in the industrial

[95:01] service is zoning districts related to office the direction given was to remove the proposed limit on ground floor office space that had originally been suggested prohibition and then some openness was expressed to a 50 000 square foot limit to an individual office use rather than the actual site combined regarding manufacturing you might remember that we discussed some potential unintended consequences with the proposed definition capturing some uses that might be desirable unintentionally I showed this slide last time so I won't go into too much detail but just to show you the public engagement that's been done for module two we had a group our planning board Liaisons we had two members of planning board who really um dug in with us on this um project and dive deep into it to provide feedback this summer and fall we also convened a use table in standards public working group who gave great feedback and input

[96:00] and guidance throughout the project we had a more general public questionnaire that was put on be heard Boulder back in September we've been regularly updating industrial business owners and other stakeholders by email and our planning and development services newsletter the draft ordinance was originally released back in October with the subsequent updates along the way and then the public hearings have been promoted over social media and the planning board public hearing took place in October on October 18th since we were last here on December 15th we've continued stakeholder engagement so we've been having stakeholder input meetings primarily facilitated by the boulder Chamber of Commerce through late December and throughout January as well as continuing Communications and updates over email so that brings us to the revisions to the ordinance tonight this is kind of a high level overview I do have some more slides where I add more detail on each one of these but again breaking it down into those three main topics that were

[97:01] talked about in December residential office and Manufacturing the revisions to the ordinance tonight regarding residential is that residential is now permitted by use review in the im or industrial manufacturing District as well as IG which was how it was proposed when you last saw it we've also now developed three options for properties to meet the location standard and I'll explain those more on later slides we have chosen in the revised ordinance to continue to prohibit residential in the is Industrial Service zoning district there is an option for live work units though uh related to office we've removed the previously proposed limit on ground floor office as directed by Council and then we've allowed offices by right up to 50 000 square feet for an individual use with a use review option for larger offices and then we've also reintroduced a the administrative Administrative Office use type that had previously been proposed for removal

[98:00] finally for manufacturing as I mentioned there were some concerns with that new definition and so we've returned back to the current definition with some minor tweaks and updating the name I just wanted to go back to a couple of these slides that just are the um kind of framing of the industrial districts and the policy background before I dive into the specific changes in a little more detail so as you know there are three main areas in Boulder that have industrial zoning and so that's really the focus of these changes tonight and for the ordinance overall so we're really focused on Gun Barrel East Boulder and North North Boulder which is where we have our industrial zoning our land use code has four different types of industrial districts we have and I've mentioned most of them already the is Industrial Service IG industrial General I am industrial manufacturing and IMS which is our industrial mix service I mentioned that one of the main goals of this project is better aligning the use table with the Boulder Valley

[99:00] comprehensive plan for the light industrial areas this really pulls from policy 2.21 from the comprehensive plan and those three guiding principles those top three guiding principles in the green box here so those are preserving established businesses and the opportunity for industrial businesses but also encouraging housing and fill in appropriate places and offering a mix of uses so that's really been the focus of all of these changes is trying to align the use table with those guiding principles in particular so I will get into the proposed revisions in a bit more detail starting with residential which is probably the most complex of the three kind of main topics going back to those guiding principles just some of the detail that is in that policy 2.21 related to residential it says that housing should occur in a logical pattern in proximity to existing and planned amenities it does specify area zone industrial General but minimizing the potential

[100:00] Mutual impacts of residential and Industrial that are in proximity It also says that housing in Phil should be encouraged in appropriate places such as near Transit along open space Greenways near other residential uses or Retail Services so the changes tonight to the revised or the revised ordinance tonight like I mentioned continues to prohibit in the is District the Industrial Service there is the option like I mentioned that to do a live work unit which is a type of residential but other types of residential would not be allowed so I wanted to explain that a little bit more in detail because back in December when I was here there were some questions raised by Council about how much land area is actually in that is zoning district and we did um I wanted to explain why we maintained that recommendation so we looked into the land area and out of about 2 300 acres of land only eight percent of that is actually in the is zoning District so it's a very limited land area that's in that district and looking back through

[101:01] all of the public engagement that's been done for this project and related to Industrial uses over several years the results consistently indicate that there's a strong interest in retaining Service Industrial uses so this is where we really think our staff really thought that it was necessary to hold the line for the industrial zoning district and ensure that that's really focused on those Community Services Industrial Services that people want to retain as I mentioned live work units would still be possible the other main part of the residential changes is that previously we had recommended only allowing other residential uses in the IG District so as I mentioned it's back the revised ordinance allows a use review option for IG and IM zoning districts rather than just IG and then we've worked on three options for the location standard that they have to meet so that is the Baseline that Pro so all properties are eligible for use review but they have to

[102:00] meet a location standard so it ends up that only a certain proportion of those properties are actually eligible based on their location but what we've done is tweak the options for the location eligibility in order to identify what locations are appropriate and so there's three options the first is the same option we presented in December that using the land use guidance from adopted subcommunity plans these are long long-standing projects that include a lot of public engagement over time to add if I where residential is appropriate the second is proximity to Transit so the way it's drafted in the ordinance is within a quarter mile of the Boulder Junction transit station lot lines and then the third one is actually bringing back the 1 6 contiguity requirement which is the current currently the only standard for locations so that's one-sixth contiguity from residential user zoning districts Parks or open space I have a couple more slides that kind of Show graphics related to that so I'll get into that a bit more later

[103:00] the bottom two bullets are actually the same as what we brought forward in December so still some tweaks to the standards for residential and in those industrial districts removing the minimum lot size some of the unique form standards and also continuing to require an environmental assessment noise mitigation things like that those have remained in the revised ordinance foreign so to dig in a little deeper to the 1 6 contiguity I wanted to create a graphic or show visually um how that 1 6 contiguity works because it is a fun little math problem because it is actually based on the calculation is the perimeter of the lot and the 1 6 of the perimeter has to be contiguous to a residential use zoning Parks or open space and so what that does it's actually based on the state Annex annexation law that's been in place for decades so what it does is it ensures a more gradual change over time so you can see the kind of the image on the left if

[104:02] light blue is industrial and yellow is residential how that impacts the eligibility of the parcels around it with 1 6 contiguity in that middle graphic only the middle that smaller parcel in the middle becomes eligible based on that geometry if you were to use something like direct contiguity it would be a much more wholesale change as certain Parcels develop into residential it creates much more eligibility at a just a faster scale so that's why staff is continuing to recommend using the 1 6 contiguity one of the reasons we wanted to bring that back as an option is based on the feedback that we got at the last or in December just ensuring that the properties that are eligible for residential today under our current code don't lose that eligibility based on these changes these changes are intended to be additive and add more Parcels into the eligibility mix so by keeping that 1

[105:01] 6 contiguity that allows all of the parcels that are currently eligible to remain eligible in the future and we think we we did contemplate whether um the direct continuity might be another option but I think that um you know the tried and true Matthew tried and true method um with the annexation law and the backing behind that um really ensures that it's more gradual over time as you can see in the graphic um and then another reason for the contiguity is that as I mentioned we have three different options so one of the main options is the location within an existing subcommunity plan and whether that gives guidance about where the residential is appropriate there's only a few areas that are not covered by sub-community plans I created this graphic just this is kind of the East Boulder area the the Shaded kind of shaded black areas you can see that those are the boundaries for the East Boulder sub community plan and the transit Village area plan so it's kind of more the southwestern portion that isn't covered and so by having that

[106:01] contiguity requirement that gives another lever or another option for meeting that location standard if you're not within a sub community plan um up in Gun Barrel it's a little bit um different because the gun barrel Community Center plan is smaller so that southern portion of Gun Barrel is not covered by the sub-community plan or the area plan so the contiguity gives another option for those properties to be eligible without being within a sub-community plan boundary and then my final slide related to residential is just kind of taking you through these different iterations of the ordinance and how they've impacted the parcels that are eligible so on the left side you can see our existing code as it stands today the parcels that are eligible have to be in the IG or IM zoning District we only use the 1 6 contiguity standard and that results in 71 Parcels or 16 of the industrial land or the IG and IM Zone land being eligible for residential today

[107:00] the ordinance that you saw on December 15th which we focused just on the IG zoning district and using the sub-community plan guidance that made 139 Parcels or about 30 percent of the industrial Parcels eligible for residential development with the changes that are the revisions that are proposed for tonight's ordinance it's back to ig and IM with the sub-community plan Guidance the 1 6 contiguity and the proximity to Transit as an option and that brings it up to 267 Parcels or nearly 60 percent of IG and IM Zone Parcels being eligible for residential development these can change over time as some Community plans you know the TV plan will come back and be potentially be amended which properties are um appropriate for residential the 1 6 contiguity as I showed in that graphic changes over time so as properties are developed residentially the ones that meet that contiguity are also eligible so it will grow over time but as it stands as it stands right now it's at 60

[108:00] percent so with all of these changes and considering the comprehensive plan guidance to balance both preserving those existing industrial uses with allowing housing infill but really in appropriate places it's a pretty significant shift from 16 of parcels being eligible to nearly 60 percent so we think staff thinks that this recommendation with the three location options strikes an appropriate balance between those policies I only have one slide on office so it's a little simpler than the residential um just going back to the intent of the changes related to office this is really a code simplification trying to combine the professional and Technical office use types that we have but also establishing a new strategy to prevent the proliferation of offices in the industrial districts there will be a limit or in the proposed ordinance this isn't a change from December but in is and IMS there would be a limit to 5000 square feet in size

[109:00] and then the changes to office in the revised ordinance tonight are like I mentioned getting rid of the ground floor prohibition allowing 5 000 or sorry 50 000 square feet Allowed by Wright for office and then the use review option for larger offices so those over 50 000 square feet can pursue a use review approval and then there's some additional standards related to the area remaining primarily used for industrial or r d use and then specifically for new construction that new buildings if they're being used for office now they're at least being designed to be adaptable for industrial or r d uses in the future so some of those design features are things like ceiling Heights that can accommodate an industrial use or loading doors and then finally as I mentioned before retaining the administrative office use type it's something that's in our code today it had been proposed to remove be removed but bringing that back to allow for uh some of those supporting office uses that might be on a separate lot but they support an industrial or r d use so

[110:02] allowing that keeping that in the code as well with some slight tweaks to the definitions the final changes are related to manufacturing as I mentioned there were some concerns about unintended consequences with the new definition so we've returned back to the existing definitions with some minor clarifying language but still renaming the two different types as light manufacturing and general Manufacturing so those are the summary of the or that's the summary of the revisions there is a suggested motion and I'm happy to take any questions for staff Matt can you hear us all of a sudden I can barely hear you um can you guys hear me it might help if my

[111:01] mic were on how about that uh Matt you're up uh I appreciate that I just had one question before moving to comments and that kind of had to do around the one sixth contiguity and it was mentioned about um the number of parcels gained from existing code to December 15 to tonight for one I I love the direction that we're we're increasing Parcels do you have a sense of if there was no one-sixth continuity and it was direct how many Parcels would then be eligible in that sense um I'm just sort of wondering what that uh Pi uh moves to when you think about direct versus the 1 6. um if it were direct it was about a difference of about 30 to 40 Parcels to use direct now but again I can barely hear you I don't know if your mic's on I'm sorry it was off it's all good um what was I saying it was so great um it's brilliant come right back to you

[112:01] okay thank you so yeah the difference of using con uh the 1 6 contiguity and direct contiguity at this point in time is about maybe a little over 30 Parcels but the issue is that with this graphic that I was showing that once Parcels turn over into residential use it's a much more drastic change in what becomes eligible rather than the 1 6 which keeps things kind of gradual over time so while it's not a vastly significant at this point in time it would um more quickly change the percentage from 60 to something much larger if we use Direct contiguity so for clarity though it would allow more housing more quickly than the current one six really it's just the the slope of the curve increases is really what you're saying correct okay thank you any other questions seeing none we can go to the public

[113:01] hearing we've got five people signed up to speak so each of you will have three minutes we have two in person and three virtuals so our two in-person speaking speakers are Jason Markel and Jonathan singer Jason you're up mm-hmm hello dear council members and staff my name is Jason Markel 5723 Arapahoe Ave Boulder Colorado 80303 I'm the vice president of Markel homes Marquel homes has been an integral part of the boulder real estate Community for 50 years and we promote the creation of inclusive multi-generational communities by building a variety of product types and we at Markel homes have a strong vision and commitment to help tackle the dynamic Boulder County housing crisis we believe that the current amendments proposed for the light industrial zoning have the potential to help transform Boulder's housing crisis with a few

[114:01] small changes I'd like to thank staff and Council on the communication and Outreach with all the stakeholders who have expressed a deep interest in this ordinance and thank you Lisa for all your hard work on this um we have an I am zoned property near the airport this hearing directly affects this project would add 111 efficiency living units into the city housing market but without amendments to the proposed land use table there's a large question mark hanging over this project whether it can be heard by planning board and city council uh our project is missing the mark with regards to one-sixth's contiguity requirements by one percent and may not be eligible for residential use on our IM zone property um we do not feel that an arbitrary number of 1 6 is essential 1 6 is an Antiquated number we believe and we should ask ourselves why not direct contiguity as we heard you know direct

[115:00] contiguity increases the amount of projects in the pipeline which there will increase attainable housing and affordable housing by Nature and so the city shouldn't limit the number of properties that can apply for use review if housing is a top priority one-sixth requirement is just another unnecessary hurdle we believe that the mere adjacency or direct contiguity to a residential zone or residential use should be sufficient to show the property has enough local amenities to support the proposed residential use on an IM property with the use review process that's already in place the city already has an effective mechanism to closely scrutinize and evaluate a variety of land uses they should put it to good use in this case it would give the flexibility in our case you know with one percent shy of contiguity you could see the merits of our project for what they are

[116:00] the city is in a housing crisis and we are all asking ourselves what can we do to combat this shortage of housing I firmly believe that tonight you have the ability to change the course of this housing crisis by letting more properties become eligible for residential housing in light industrial zones with these small tweaks to the proposed use table we would see an uptick in projects coming through the pipeline which will translate to more attainable and more affordable housing for people in need thank you for your time and consideration thanks Jason Jonathan singer good evening members mayor of Mayor and members of council I'm Jonathan singer I'm the senior policy program director for the boulder chamber and without um echoing the sentiments too much of your previous speaker I'm going to Echo the sediments of your previous speaker so uh I want to thank first of all staff for their tireless tireless work over

[117:02] the holidays and probably some other holidays that I might have missed as well and also the council I when I came here originally I said let's uh measure twice cut once I think at this point maybe third time's a charm um we're almost there folks we are almost there when you hear about the continuity requirement there is no perfect solution to any land use problem but I think there is an elegant solution and that elegant solution is using that use review process that use review process does provide significant guard rails in this ever evolving situation precedent is always good to listen to it's not always great to follow there's a there's a reason and a rhyme for all of these things right and so um I just will will close on on this um when you look at what the project

[118:02] history and background is we talk about simplifying the use table streamlining regulations were possible making use standards uh and use standards and table more understandable and legible creating more predictability and certainty and also I'm going to point out to one project goal here encouraging 15-minute neighborhoods through use table changes in all types of districts residential commercial and Industrial acknowledging Transportation barriers may exist using the use review process as that guard rail meets these goals meets that Vision I believe Danica Powell sent you an email that guide outlined the guidelines around the use review I'm sure she would be happy I would be happy to walk that through you with that through you as well but I'll just say third time's a charm we're almost there thank you again for your hard work and I look forward to proceeding and making the right decision here

[119:02] thanks Jonathan now we will move to our virtual speakers who are Lynn Siegel Kelsey Hunter and Jay Marcus painter well this growth but what's Bolder gonna look like a hundred years from now because all of this is going to be built out it's going to be much more than 59 and 267 Parcels it's going to be all the way out to Louisville Lafayette you know we might as well Annex you know more gun barrels but guess what Gun Barrel was for getting more sales tax revenue and we're not going to get that because the services can't keep up the environmental costs can't keep up the transportation all of the extra Transportation opportunities you're presenting that's for people to go

[120:02] further and further to get the services they want do they want to live out on the outskirts of Boulder I don't think so uh what What's Boulder here for the flat irons the open space the cost of that is heavy and this growth is not paying for it the services aren't there the transportation costs the in the the the air quality costs all of that so this is just this whole thing is tweaking again on the uh on on just growth overall um I took extensive notes here that go into the details but you know you give three minutes and you've got five minutes that's taken up with these things um on critical decisions you're making um I wanted to say

[121:00] that well and the Boulder Valley comp plan is not very specific you know it says infill needs to be appropriate well what does that mean and logical and to the amenities and the 15-minute neighborhoods yes Jonathan 15 minute neighborhoods are great but you got one 15-minute neighborhood and another 15-minute neighborhood and another one and another one until you have a whole sprawl that's what you have sprawl and when you have sprawl you have you have a lot of costs of Transportation because people are wanting to go where they can't go you know I mean they can't go they can go there but we can't pay for it we're in deficit with our Open Space Mountain Parks heavily and this this needs to be all considered before you approve these kind of zoning changes um and making you know I mean pretty soon

[122:01] nobody everyone's gonna have Amazon and we're just gonna have to have huge Amazon warehouses on the perimeter of these 15-minute neighborhoods or this old conglomerate cluster of 15-minute neighborhoods Amazon warehouses well then your time is up but thank you for your testimony now we have Kelsey Hunter and then Jay Marcus painter awesome um so good evening to city council and staff and the audience here tonight um my name is Kelsey Hunter I'm director on the development team at biomed Realty here in Boulder it's a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak with you again tonight and I promise to keep it pretty brief um I would like to express appreciation to the city council and staff and allowing us to engage in a meaningful manner over the past few months on this topic of the ordinance and land uses we

[123:00] are in full support of the ordinance we previously had a few concerns and they have now been resolved in tonight's revisions of the ordinance so thank you for that we are very appreciative for the encouragement of city council that allowed us for robust collaboration with staff so thank you to members of council as well we do believe this collaboration with staff led to an improved ordinance which is a great step to support our Innovation economy here we're very thankful for the time Lisa Brad and Carl spent working with us and would like to extend a big thank you as well to them here tonight we hope to continue to work with staff and Council successfully in the future and are very excited to continue to play a role in this Builder Community thanks again to both Council and staff thank you Kelsey finally we have Jay Marcus painter good evening uh Mark painter from Holland and heart on behalf of biomed Realty and some other industrial property owners I know

[124:02] I'm usually here to point out problems but not tonight I want to Echo the comments of all the earlier speakers thanking Brad and Charles Lisa and Carl for all their hard work on this and also thanking city council for allowing us the chance to work through some of the Practical issues here and find some solutions but I'm not going to belabor all that you've heard a lot of things already what I wanted to point out was what we were able to agree to and encourage Council to approve on and I know that there are there are issues with the continuity and housing uh Kelsey and I have been focused with staff largely on the office issues uh and that's what I was going to talk about tonight at the first reading Council expressed concern about the complexities of the 50 000 square foot limitation on office space per lot

[125:01] uh perlot being the important part of that for instance a multi-tenant building could go over a 50 000 square foot threshold on an aggregate basis just based on one tenant's expansion and so this was changed to an aggregate by user which makes more practical in enforcement sense and it's more predictable for the city for tenants and owners and so we are very appreciative of that change but the buy lot standard oh dear I didn't turn off my cuckoo clock I'm sorry no worries but the buy lot standard remained for evaluating uh accessory uses which from a practical standpoint didn't make sense for industrial zones often adjoining Lots in industrial areas are owned by the same uh party or Affiliates and just as often the buildings on those lots can work like a campus for a single user with r d uses being joined by c-suite accounting and other admin offices we discussed with staff carving out an exception from

[126:01] the legal lot standards so that administrative offices for research and development user could be located on a separate legal lot instead of being disqualified this was a big lift given the league a lot Concepts pervas and it's pervasiveness through the code but staff suggested reinserting the administrative use definition within industrial zones and with a couple of tweaks including removing the limitation of relative size which was critical to make it work this solved the stakeholders concerns and we very much encourage Council to adopt these specific changes as meeting the city's goals Outlets listed by Jonathan earlier and the stakeholders concerns of making sure we continue to encourage vibrant positive businesses that support the local economy and employees we were not successful at this point in Seeking a change to reviews for new tenants in existing space often full use review is required for a new tenant to move into an existing building we'd encourage Council to look Mark

[127:01] going simpler okay to a simpler conditional use review if possible thank you okay thank you for your testimony right with that I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for a discussion would anyone like to kick us off somebody's got to guess going there we go Matt oh all right um so uh I for one I just want to thank staff um in the community for their thoughtful work um really since we touched on this in December um I thought that there were some concerns and everyone quickly worked together especially over break that as was mentioned so just big credit to staff in the community for coming together and working to get this really to a great spot so that's really my first comment I I will sort of Center on um a recommendation to kind of remove that one-sixth contiguity and and largely because it seems like the primary justification is just to abide

[128:02] by gradual change and I mean real simply put we're in a housing crisis and I'm not sure any crisis is adequately addressed by gradual change um in fact I would argue from a housing perspective Brad the the ship sailed um over 20 years ago with regards to gradual change and so we don't have that card in Our Deck anymore to play and so we need to move much more expeditiously with regards to our housing so I I I'd like to recommend to my colleagues and staff to sort of think about removing that 1 6 continuity um and really start to think about how use review can just really kind of take care of some of those concerns going forward so I appreciate all the great work and uh you've done done great work so hopefully um we can move forward on that one sixth contiguity or at least remove it so I appreciate it thanks thanks Matt other thoughts Lauren I again I thank you guys for all your work on this this is one that I have

[129:01] struggled a lot with particularly the residential and the industrial areas um I appreciate you for spending a lot of time with me answering all of my many questions um balancing residential and Service Industrial in these zones I think is an incredibly difficult challenge um I appreciate all the different ways that you've looked at this but I would like to propose a slightly different adjustment to what Matt just mentioned um I'd like to propose the possible ability of bringing some of the residential closer to our city center by um sort of there's the one quarter mile radius around the transit Junctions station that we're looking at but increasing that to be a quarter mile within the the or adjacent to the

[130:00] Boulder Valley Regional Center which really goes along 30th so ultimately that would make sort of the whole West End sort of from where that Circle was on the map that we saw directly south all be um all have the possibility for added residential I think that that thank you for bringing that up so that would be kind of from the blue circle going straight down um to me that because that area isn't part of an existing area plan and is so close to the transit Hub of 30th Street and to Boulder Junction to me that's the area that I would like to see the possibility of added residential that I feel like our current set of regulations or the suggested regulations isn't um quite addressing

[131:02] and then in addition to that as we it's not quite related to the work we're taking on tonight but as we look towards the rezoning for the East Boulder sub-community plan I'd like us to encourage staff to look at increasing the amount of is zoning because I think that that um the Service Industrial that zone does the best job of protecting Service Industrial and I think that that is an important thing for this community to maintain and so I think that those this adjustment now and then the future adjustment would help align along with the regulations being suggested this with our housing goals and also protect some of the Service Industrial that's so important to our community thanks for that one other thoughts Tara

[132:00] so why would this is for Lauren question for Lauren why would you want it why couldn't you just what would be the pot the reason why you would want to switch it out why why can't why wouldn't you just leave the industrial is Zone as it is now up 30th Street why do you think it's a better idea to add housing there versus in East Boulder so the area along 30th isn't is it's IG and I am in the pink and blue and so that area I think is you know we're seeing a lot of the IG and IM Zone transition to Life Sciences instead of Service Industrial and so to me I see that not only is you know residential potentially a risk factor in getting in removing some of our service industrial space but also

[133:00] these Life Sciences projects and while those are you know good for the economy of our community they're not something that I want to see take over all of our service industrial area and so I think that by making those two adjustments yeah we can have our cake and eat it too to some extent and and by two adjustments you're talking about allowing residential on along the west southwest but also looking at future is opportunities in the East Boulder subcommunity plan yes and that second one is not it's not something we're doing tonight but something to look towards in the future okay thanks for clarifying Rachel I'm uh I'm just gonna support the staff proposal for tonight I'm I'm always a little bit leery of um legislating from the dice with last minute changes that we haven't vetted with the community or advisory boards um and and there may be Ripple effects that that at least I wouldn't be aware of although I know I'm sitting next to

[134:01] an expert which I'm certainly not I I think that we are probably at sort of good enough and don't want to have uh perfect be the enemy of the good on this that has been in process for so long I think that also the state is potentially going to make some changes on zoning that might really shake up residential opportunities uh Statewide and certainly here in Boulder so um you know to to the point we're in a crisis like I think that we may get some some separate help there as well and and that we can kind of go back and revisit this if we need to but I'm just going to support staff Rec thanks other thoughts anybody can I can I kind of call it of course this was just another question for Lauren which is that am I understanding correctly that what you're proposing is not necessarily changing kind of some of the work that staff has already done it's really just kind of expanding some of the areas where residential would be allowed sort

[135:02] of outside of of what's in the ordinance currently yeah what I'm proposing would be to add five words which would be so on page 47 line eight there's um it states the the lot or parcel is located within a quarter mile of the Boulder Junction transit station and I would propose that we add or Boulder Valley Regional Center do we have a map of that handy yeah so that we could know what we're looking at there I don't have the exact boundaries um but this this bright blue circle the colors kind of look kind of odd up there but that's the bright blue circle is a quarter mile so you can tell the radius of that Circle sorry you can't see my cursor um on the left hand side so if you were to kind of draw a line down from that Circle that's about a quarter mile but

[136:01] what is the eastern boundary of the oh I'm sorry it's right where this uh the pink Parcels start um below the blue circle so basically on the left side of the map where you see 28th Street and 30th Street and all the parcels there that's the Boulder Valley Regional Center I can so the the um Boulder Junction Transit area is at the North East corner of the Boulder Valley Regional Center so it would basically be kind of extending that radius self a long 30th Street I wonder Lauren if we're to maybe potentially consider that if we might be more predictable to to give like Street boundaries like something like um you know east of 30th North of Arapahoe south of Valmont west of the east or Pearl Parkway a not Pearl

[137:00] Parkway Foothills Parkway this is basically just that corner that would get that corner and then it'd be a little more easier to understand than the quarter mile of the pvrc we do have the bvrc is a mapped component and we reference it several times in the land use code so it is kind of a place that we can use so it's doable yeah okay fine I take it back Tara and I do you need to chew up your hand up what you think of all thoughts so I can hear the other side or if you disagree why would you disagree so us people with less experience can hear both sides sure so I think that it's something that's come up in our public comment as well as what to do with that kind of unspoken for corner so I think it's certainly reasonable it's something that we didn't feel staff didn't feel comfortable kind of making that policy decision because there hasn't been a

[138:01] plan adopted for that area of whether it was appropriate one way or the other so as you can see the contiguity allows kind of those Southern Port Southern Parcels to become eligible and then the expansion of the transit center allows some of the northern Parcels to become eligible but it does leave that kind of middle Zone and then a few of those Parcels along the boundary as ineligible but I think that certainly proximity to Transit and other services with that rationale I think that it's reasonable whether a quarter mile is the right number um that's typically a a common walking distance so that's why we did the quarter mile from the transit station so I think that that's a reasonable distance as well so it's a reasonable suggestion it's the conclusion I guess that was very delicately done sometimes um I'll call on myself um it's a bit of a tough one because we want to encourage more housing in the

[139:00] city but we also want to maintain some industrial land as well as an important use type in our in our city um so I'm torn between some conflicting priorities here I kind of like Lauren's idea here in what what's attracting me to it is that more central part of town right that we would be looking for additional residential opportunities where it is more centrally located and where you do have a lot of services already within an easy walk of that quarter mile so that to me potentially strikes a balance between saying okay you know every uh industrial parcel other than is is eligible for residential and uh while also finding some additional housing opportunities so kind of kind of interested in it other thoughts yes cool I'm just gonna say ditto to everything you said Aaron um that I I agree this feels like a nice way of bringing in some more residential and protecting Industrial anybody else want to weigh in

[140:02] um Brad yes uh Brad Mueller with planning and development services I'm I might be the only one in the room confused but I do want to make sure we don't uh go down this path without clarification there's the one area that's in the salmon kind of to the West there bounded by 28th and 30th and then there's the island in the brighter color um there is adjacent to the Parkway and I want to make sure we're all talking about the same land area sorry I'm not seeing something bounded by 28th and 30th and I thought that's what Lisa showed when she walked up to the map so here let me see it I just want to make sure we're talking about the same land area here that's like I can't Regional Center yep distance from that that would grab these

[141:00] Parcels think about there and make those eligible as well and for those following along at home this is basically north of Arapahoe and East around the 33rd Street area north of Arapahoe it's basically the area north of the Peloton to visualize it yep that was my understanding so all right thanks for the Indulgence appreciate it Brad we appreciate the clarification well not seeing any other hands up does somebody want to hey chatteris Chatters folks um well we should do it in a public forum here come on we got a meeting going anyway um so somebody else's question yes can I clarify it yeah um Lauren's suggestion was that in um was that in addition to removing one-sixth or separate um and and not inclusive to that because I just wanted to be clear that is there sort of roughly two ideas floating out there or was this an addition to one I

[142:01] just want to clarify that from Lauren's perspective yeah this would be separate to the one-sixth so the yeah because if we remove the 1 6 then essentially all of this would be it would be mute mood thank you you're terrible now that I know now that I know where we're talking about thank you Brad it seems to me that it makes I'm just going to say that I think I would leave it as it is it doesn't call out doesn't scream out to me make some residential here as an area I would actually rather see it in each folder personally well I mean I could do a couple straw polls or somebody could just make a motion at the World Council I'll make a motion to

[143:00] um move this ordinance forward with Lauren's suggested changes specifying the ordinance like the motion language from the yes yes 5B okay then I make uh sorry the motion uh to amend ordinance 8556 mending Title IX land use code BRC 1981 to update the use table and use standards related to Industrial uses and districts with Lauren's suggestion for for expanding or for adding those five words um can you say what those five words were Lord or Boulder Valley Regional Center to the end of um on page 47 line eight after the quarter mile to the boulder transit station

[144:00] okay motion a second do you want to add additional comments on those um I will just say I do like the idea of thinking a little bit about this area right now um as well as protecting or just because it is so close to uh um services and to Transit um this seems like a good way of getting a little bit more residential as well as keeping our industrial spaces available to folks who need them yes um I will support Lauren's um Edition at first I didn't understand it very well but after a little bit of explaining uh and understanding the benefit is to ensure more housing especially here in Boulder when we are dealing with housing shortages and other issues that makes it hard for community members to get housing so I will support

[145:02] that but it did sound complicated just coming up with it on the Fly thank you all right any other comments before we go for a vote uh seeing none no did you have some Rachel well just uh if we want to support the plan but not this amendment to it I'm not sure exactly how to vote no one I mean I'm I'm for the I'm for the general amendments but not this amendment to you to the new quote Yeah I mean you you have a couple choices I mean you could you could just vote no on the whole thing you could uh uh propose an amendment of your own to remove those additional words and we could take a vote on that so so moved I would like to vote on on the original suggestion as well then okay a motion to amend uh council member Spears motion to remove council member fogert's additional five boards very good

[146:00] Mary well didn't we already have a motion from Nicole so I don't understand how we can have two motions outside so by Robert's Rules you can have a motion to amend the original motion and it requires a second and so then what the way you you chain that through is you then vote on the amendment to the motion and then it either Alters or does not alter the original motion and you then after that's done you vote on the motion either as amended or the original one do I have all this right yeah may I may I speak to my motion yeah please well just that I think that there's enough confusion from the dice tonight on like what we're looking at and again we haven't heard from the community and I'm I'm I'm just so leery of tinkering with something that that staff didn't bring to us and that that I don't feel like I heard from community on so I I agree we absolutely have a housing crisis and we are adding a ton of options here through um through what we're doing tonight

[147:00] already and we don't want to lose uh forfeit our our disperse industrial spots too so I personally just need more information before I would want to move in in a direction that expands what what I think we were pretty intentional about um and and we always hear about Ripple effects after the after the fact and and I have no idea what those might be thanks that Rachel and Tara and then I'll Bob I want to agree with that and just say to me that seems like an area that is perfect for some of our industrial it is industrial for the very reason that it is industrial so I would like to keep I would like to go with what Rachel said but I have a question for for staff um if um if if um we we adopt the plan as you proposed that is with without the additional Amendment but we asked you to go back and take a look at that Amendment could could you bring that back to us in

[148:00] a month or two just as a standalone little mini adjustment I'm not asking to do a lot more work but I'm just I'm just what's what's in the role possible because I think Rachel made a good point about about we're kind of making some changes on the fly it may not be fair to you guys it may not be fair to the community and I'm wondering if we could adopt the plan as you propose now but also ask you to go back and take a look at this one last change that Lauren suggested and perhaps bring it back to us in a month or two as like a separate ordinance as a separate ordinance yeah the movie committing people do on consent I mean it's certainly a possibility but it is work and it would take time away from other things that we of course need to be working on um I guess I would suggest you know it's something we could look at in in more depth and maybe even bring it back as part of module three potentially that might be a a better way to just analyze that idea a little bit further and look at the implications of it it also takes time to put an ordinance together and there there's be community outreach that probably would make sense as part of

[149:01] that so I think the additional time would be warranted presumably you'd want to take that to lightning board too right and and I know on module three you said TBD but I think I saw 2023 after that so that would still Target for this year correct that's the goal obviously we're gonna have to look at some of the other code changes and and some of those are I would say more prioritized based on things we've heard from the council so um seeing how that shakes out when we move forward on those other items but our goal is to try to do it in 2023 Brad Miller again I would just endorse that excellent idea and and to put a finer point to it uh occupancy and adus are kind of right behind and even just the mechanics of getting to the board and all those things do unfortunately take time even for the smallest thing thanks folks Genie

[150:02] I was slightly confused by your comment you said you endorsed did you say you endorsed Bob's no I'm sorry I wasn't clear what Carl was suggesting about including that with module three I was I was agreeing that that's that's a maybe a good way to deal to address that issue without um uh causing problems to the schedule that's very tight and kind of lined up right now for some other counts of priorities yeah and I think what I heard from Rachel which gave me pause to as I was I had already given my support to this was the community piece it's not just the fact that hey staff please go back and look at this but it's more in what's the word in support or with Community itself right because that's a different proposal so I think that's where

[151:00] I guess that's what I heard you say that becomes an important issue as well as part of this discussion thank you and I'll just call myself to to I I was brought on board in part because the when Lisa said it seemed like a reasonable idea you know okay we haven't done a lot of Outreach on it but we did think about this some and it and it seemed like a reasonable idea that could be considered so that's I'm willing to consider based on that but any other comments before we go to about map and then Lauren just trying to just trying to clarify where we're at here so is there a Rachel's motion was there a second because I like where Bob's going so I'm just trying to understand what where are we at so I know what to be thinking about yeah so where we're at is there's a motion on the table to amend Nicole's motion uh to remove the five additional words that Lauren had proposed and that did get seconded so our next step would be to vote on that now if that motion is

[152:00] successful then Lauren's proposal goes away right now but we could then for afterwards say but could you bring it back at some Future Point I like where you're going Lauren so with the quarter mile radius around the boulder Junction transit station how much community outreach was done on that so that was something that was added in the latest revision to the ordinance the the comprehensive plan though does specifically say that industrial uses should be in proximity to Transit so we felt like there was that confidence yeah sorry residential should be within proximity to to Transit so we felt that there was the comp plan guidance which the comp plan has many years of public engagement on supported that more directly and do we have like how much Transit do we have on 30th Street yeah I mean so it was specific to the

[153:01] Boulder Junction transit station that's how that was written okay thank you all right let's see if we can wrap up here but yes Tara is waiting is there any way to do what Carl said I don't want to throw out Lauren's idea I just I think we need a little more information I just didn't so if we did if we brought Lawrence back to module 3 is this on the table or can I put it on the table or it's already on the table yeah I think I think if it if we if Rachel's motion is successful then we'll go back to the original staff proposal and at that point people could say hey let's do it in in module three which would probably get support if it goes that way I would guess um yes Nicole I would really like this to be done tonight whether whether we move forward with this or not staff you put in so much time in 2018 it's five years right um that is and I know it hasn't all been

[154:00] continuous but we have so many other planning related things on our work plan that all need to get done in theory before November December and I really do not like the idea of putting even putting something back in at a later stage that is going to take time that we've already spent a lot of time on away from some of these other work plan priorities so whatever the decision is fine but I really would not like to come back to this thanks for clarifying um and I do think it's like just a simple little change we made some other simple little changes to wording and stuff in the previous ordinance and so for me this this feels okay great all right so uh we got a motion on the table uh by Rachel seconded by Tara which would remove the extra five words and return the proposal to the staff recommendation can we do this with the show hands okay all in favor of Rachel's motion uh it's four and then all opposed

[155:01] uh that's wait Matt I didn't see how you voted uh I voted along with uh look like from here Rachel Bob in that first group okay so I think that makes it five that's five three okay so the motion is successful which means that the original motion goes back to the staff recommendation so that's the motion on the table now and so Lauren it was it was a valiant drive with a a clever idea um so now we have the original motion if we could just vote on that without further Ado which is to adopt the staff recommendation and this would be a roll call I believe yes sir and and for my own Clarity this is amending the ordinance and holding it over for a third reading yes okay just wanted to make sure yes sir roll call please okay please we'll start this roll call with you mayor Brockett hi

[156:01] councilmember fulcrids yes friend yes Joseph yes spear Winer yes Yates yes and Benjamin yes ordinance 85 56 is hereby past as amended and held over for third reading great well thank thanks everybody and that there was a little minor drama um maybe I should have straw pulled it but it was fun to do some Robert's Rules there that was we don't we don't usually go through all that Rachel well done I I don't know that we took a straw poll though on whether we want that to become part of module three I think okay so okay so I think now that the motion has been successful we can turn back to that question so it sounds like Tara wants to lead that yeah I would like to but I would like to put Lauren's proposal into module three same if I can call myself or then Bob I'll um so uh I'm interested in this as well but

[157:01] the with the understanding that it's going after the other Council priorities that we're really working to get on done by November so if we get to this in November December or so fantastic but let's get through the other Council work plan priorities and then take it up when when this is time and to your point Nicole like I don't want to delay any of the other stuff but when we get to it I'd love to see this idea considered understood oh so can we do a straw pollen who would like to direct staff to that effect so yeah six Lauren you're just willing to let your idea die yeah okay that was that was ironic okay no it's it's still there's it got proposal from everybody but the proposal original proposal and Nicole so thank you so much

[158:00] Lisa and Carl and everyone else who's worked on this this has also been many years in the making and uh oh my goodness the amount of boxes we got checked tonight and accomplishments made just congratulations just so grateful for all your work any other final thoughts on this Lauren one for two you won one earlier tonight yeah so thank you for that contribution 1 6 things we didn't so yeah um okay so we got one last item which is a matter under from mayor members of council and specifically Rachel friend in this case um do we do you want to read it in or oh all right Alicia item 8A is the discussion regarding the option of council member ride alongs with the Boulder Police Department I will be very quick this is just like a

[159:02] PSA um everybody probably knows that I like field trips and I go on as many as I can as a council member and so I um requested a ride along with the police department um and at the end of it I learned that I'm the only council member in kind of recent memory that has done that um and so you know versus rec centers and libraries and open space this is just not uh an area that we are you know making policy on and budget decisions on that I personally get a lot of exposure to like day to day and we've gotten a lot of emails about crime and policing so I just kind of wanted to see for myself um and and I have you know similarly pitched to council like when we were when early encoded we received invitations to go visit the Occupy Boulder encampments and I I suggested that people do that and just sort of it's helpful for me to get the perspectives on the ground so I'm hoping to do fire department next if they will have me and just wanted to say I was worried that I would be a burden and not welcome and so I asked Deputy Chief of

[160:01] Police Steve Redfern about that and he emailed back this is a quote from him by joining our officers for a shift attending shift briefings and getting a chance to know the human beings behind the uniform we believe it is is highly beneficial for both sides when you wrote along with officers a week or so ago I heard many conversations in passing about your ride-along and how officers were thrilled that you took the time to come out and see for yourself what a typical day for them entails I think there might be a tendency for elected officials to think that officers won't want them to come out that's true for me and ride along but in my experience it is the exact opposite so um I will say that the The Ride Along I did did sort of debunk some stereotypes from me in that in One Direction and I'm hoping maybe from the other direction back at me so just sharing out the opportunity thanks Bob well thanks for that Rachel I've done both on police and fire ride-alongs and actually another thing I would so I'm supporting what you're suggesting and the thing I would add on to that is I'm

[161:01] doing police walk alongs too because a lot of our police officers actually um do a lot of their work on foot and going along with them on foot sometimes is even more um direct interaction with with their daily lives look like they need the ride in the back of the car so I will also tell you that um when I did a ride along with the police department I got stuck in the back of the car yeah they went off and chased some bad dude and I was locked in the back of the car I couldn't get out well since we're talking about our experiences Lauren mayor Brackett and I we walked the hill with officers a few months back and it was a really great experience just learning about the work that the officers were doing in the community and especially in the Hill area as well with the noise issues that is happening there so yeah it was a good experience so yeah man oh thanks Aaron uh also thanks Rachel

[162:01] for bringing this up uh I'm scheduled to do my ride along on the 13th um so I'm looking forward to that um in just about 10 days time um I I'd like to take what Rachel sort of suggested here and try to think of maybe one step further that that there's a that we may be set up in our Council rules or expectations that over a two-year stretch in one's term that you do some number of ride-along ride-along singular or plural with um Boulder Police and Boulder fire and these are two departments that we have that um you know I think it's important for us to get some of that um on the ground understanding of and so I think that might be a worthwhile thing for us to put in as an expectation of the member account so that you will do that um once or some number of time in a two-year chunk of one's tenure or one's term on Council man and I'll just note thanks for this Rachel I I have done tours of police and fire but never actually done a ride along so I really appreciated you bringing this forward and learning from your experience I scheduled one for

[163:00] February the 17th so thanks for bringing this forward I'm looking forward to mine coming up here soon enjoy and I will say you know they can't be scripted like whatever calls come in is where you're going and there is a lot of time like walking around so and I don't know it was it was educational so do it if you'd like thanks for that all right um any final thoughts on the meeting it's only 8 40. I thought it was nine eight eight thirty eight actually so we'll almost set a record here I'll gavel is closed at 38 PM thanks for a great meeting everybody good estimate Paul [Music]