May 4, 2023 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

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

[1:01] thank you [Music] foreign [Music] foreign [Music]

[2:32] foreign [Music] [Music]

[3:12] thank you [Music] foreign [Music] foreign [Music]

[4:00] [Music] [Music] thank you [Music]

[5:26] thank you [Music] foreign [Music]

[6:07] [Music] foreign [Music] thank you [Music] thank you

[7:03] [Music] thank you foreign [Music]

[8:01] foreign [Music] [Music] thank you foreign [Music]

[9:02] [Music] [Music] foreign [Music]

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

[11:28] evening I think we are ready to get started all right um I'm gambling to order this meeting of the Boulder City Council for Thursday May 4th 2023. uh I believe now we're going to call to order and have a roll call Emily absolutely thank you so much mayor Pro tem we'll start tonight's roll call with council member Benjamin present

[12:00] mayor Brockett council member folkerts present friend here Joseph spear present mayor Pro tem Wallach here weiner present and Yates delighted to be here mayor Pro tem we have our Quorum excellent I believe our first order of business is a motion to amend the agenda to add item 8A a discussion on council's support of quote role of government unquote training for boards and commission members so moved second all in favor excellent we then move on to Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month declaration presented by council member weiner Asian American and specific Pacific Islander aapi Heritage Month in the

[13:02] United States started in 1978 and seeks to honor and recognize the lives histories and contributions of aapi community members aapi is a broad term for many unique identities including approximately 50 ethnic groups speaking over 100 languages with connections to Chinese Indian Japanese Filipino Indonesian Vietnamese Korean Hawaiian and other Asian and Pacific Islander ancestries this community has endured a long history of Injustice such as the page Act of 1875. the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 the expatriation act of 1907 the incarceration of Japanese American citizens during World War II the Watsonville Riots of 1930 the murder of Vincent chin the mass shooting of Southeast Asian Refugee children in 1989

[14:02] and the targeting of South Asian Americans especially those who are Muslim Hindu or Sikh after the national tragedy of 9 11. this month also observes the birthday of Vincent chin who was born on May 18th and brutally murdered in a hate crime in 1982. his murder fueled a national Asian-American activist movement that continues to this day we have seen a staggering rise in bullying and discrimination and hate crimes against the Asian-American and Pacific and Pacific Islander communities since the start of the covid-19 pandemic every day kids of all ages suffer from being bullied in schools and online across the country in the aapi community this problem is often compounded by cultural religious and linguistic barriers that keep these youth from seeking and receiving help and certain aapi groups including South Asian Muslim Sikh

[15:01] micronesian lgbtq immigrant and limited English proficient youth are more likely to be the targets of bullying acts of Asian anti-asian bias are wrong and they are un-American and they must stop the Boulder City Council will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with aapi communities in condemning denouncing and preventing these acts of violence we will continue to look for opportunities to heal together and fight against the racism and xenophobia that still exists in our communities we the city council of the city of Boulder Colorado declare May 2023 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month and encourage everyone to first of all read about the details of the history of these injustices because they were terrible and also to support to honor and celebrate by supporting organizations and causes that uplift and Empower aapi

[16:03] communities learning about their cultures and histories buying from aapi-owned businesses amplifying aapi creators Educators and activists and celebrating the accomplishments and joy of this community thank you council member next is the Jewish Heritage Month declaration and that will be presented by me Jewish American heritage month is an annual celebration of Americans of Jewish faith who have helped weave the fabric of our history culture and Society this year marks the 43rd annual celebration of the achievements and contributions made by Jewish Americans starting with the establishment of Jewish American Heritage week in 1980 and expanded in 2006 to Encompass the month of May Jewish American Heritage Month acknowledges achievements of American Jews in the fields of literature arts

[17:01] entertainment medicine business science government military service music and more Jewish Americans have played indispensable roles in our Civic and community life making invaluable contributions through their leadership and achievements Jewish Americans have advanced their Collective efforts for a more just and fair Society leading movements for social justice and working to ensure that the opportunities they have secured are extended to others unfortunately Jewish communities in this nation continue to be challenged by bigotry hostility discrimination and violence as we remember the lessons of the Holocaust our commitment to Religious Freedom in America obligates us to root out Prejudice and combat anti-semitism the jewish-american story is an essential chapter of the American narrative and we recognize honor and celebrate Jewish Americans who strengthen our

[18:00] community every day we the city council of the city of Boulder Colorado declare May 2023 as Jewish American heritage month thank you I think next we have open comment and who will be giving us the rules of the road tonight Brenda okay hello this is Ryan and I'm happy to cover those as we have the slides pulled up um I serve our community as Community engagement manager and I'm thrilled folks are here this evening to share their perspectives and and their thoughts I want to make sure that everyone knows that the city has engaged with new members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive Civic conversations this Vision supports physical and

[19:00] emotional safety for community members staff and Council as well as for democracy for people of all ages identities lived experience and political perspectives and the next slide please will look at a few examples of rules of decorum that are found in the boulder Revised Code and that will be upheld during this meeting All American testimonies should be limited to matters related to City business no participant shall make threats or use forms of intimidation against any person obscenity is racial epiphats and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct to the meaning are prohibited participants are required to sign up using the name they are commonly known by and individuals must display their whole name before I've been allowed to speak online currently owning audio testimony is permitted online and in-person participants are asked to refrain from expressing support or disagreements verbally or with Applause

[20:01] with the exception of support for declarations traditionally support is shown silently through American Sign Language Applause or jazz hands thank you thank you Ryan our first speech we will first do the in-person speakers and then do our virtual speakers the first three are Courtney Russell Darren O'Connor and Samantha weintrael left Courtney how are you guys doing I am I want to start off by saying I'm really humble about the opportunity to speak city council see you guys in Boulder I am when I was offered the opportunity to do so it was at the last moment I read the email and it was about something I'm very passionate about which is white supremacy and how it's being upheld by a

[21:01] lack of acknowledgment and a lack of accountability and as we work towards accountability those are that is the one thing that individuals in power do not want because it threatens their way of being in their way of life a little bit about the reason I'm so passionate about things like this is because I'm a black man I grew up in Atlantic Georgia and grew up in poverty and before I became a physician I was very stereotypical and so the criminal justice system I I have a few thoughts about it but as I grew when I learned in the Dei space I knew that police are not the problem it's not it's a symptom police saying is the issue police are humans just like you and I they have a job to do just like doctors are not the problem teachers are not the problem the systems that they live in is the issue and if we truly want to uphold if we

[22:01] wanted to uphold white supremacy let's keep doing things the way they've always been done but the way to address those is to address the systems that each of those things work in and today I'm going to be talking about solely about criminal justice and how it had an effect on my life negatively at first but now is so much love because I know that individuals have a job to do if we know about the history of policing it was to catch people like me it wasn't to create to uh for a public good as a protect and serve it did protect and serve individuals that did not again look like me and so the color of my skin has been weaponized and had been made to seem as though it is the problem Mr Russell yes your time has expired but I would urge you to send the balance of your comments by email to council I I appreciate you guys so much I love you thank you thank you

[23:02] [Applause] good evening Council Darren O'Connor here to speak on behalf of the NAACP Boulder County Branch tonight you'll decide what action to take either no action or removal of Miss Sweeney Moran from the police oversight panel as a result of special counsel Douglas's code of conduct investigation and recommendations however your decision is a much bigger one the decision you are actually making is whether you will increase Community involvement in police oversight and ensure that the that historically excluded communities have a voice in that oversight removal of Sweeney Moran will be a continuing exclusion of the communities that the police oversight panel is supposed to include here is why that is true Sweeney Moran was recommended by El Centro Amistad the NAACP and two Pop members that made up

[24:00] the selection committee tasks with making such recommendation when concerns about bias came up you sent numerous materials some in the community felt were concerning evidence prohibited bias to them the selection committee reviewed the materials and then confirmed the entire recommended slate of potential Pop members ultimately a majority of you approved that slate this process for recommendation and approval of Pop members was developed with the intent of including historically excluded communities in police oversight a vote to remove Sweeney Moran would negate all the work of the diverse election committee members members and would ultimately reverse any progress in achieving Community oversight of the police the naacp's goals in recommending pop candidates were to identify candidates who possess the ability to assess complaints offer remedies through propositions and through policy and training recommendations and by identifying areas of concern to the community via such actions incidents

[25:00] such as Zaid Atkinson experienced in 2019 could be avoided do the right thing and take no action on this matter tonight do otherwise and you will send the message that you do not value the lived experiences of those you claim to wish to include in police oversight thank you thank you Mr O'Connor wow those are tough acts to follow but thank you for the opportunity to speak my name is Samantha weintraubleff and I am here to urge Council to reject the removal of Lisa sweetie Moran from the police oversight panel as I understand and Darren just articulated the aim of this panel is to increase Community involvement in police oversight and again to ensure historically excluded communities have a voice in that oversight and yet because Sweeney Moran expressed some negative views on police she's now labeled as two bias to sit on the panel I think that's really just not fair if any member of historically

[26:01] marginalized group nominated for the pop is required to have no negative opinions toward police how will we ever cede power and increase actual inclusion of black and brown people in the oversight process the mistreatment of these communities as Courtney was articulating by police Stars centuries ago and continues to this day including in Boulder so it's of course understandable that many if not all would have at least some negative opinion of police but they should not exclude them from participation in the oversight process it shouldn't be about someone's previously held opinions of whether they can be a critical thinker and open-minded when forming new opinions and given the backing of NAACP and El Centro Amistad I have faith that Sweeney Moran will be bringing folks into dialogue who have diverse life experiences and perspectives is critical and I do believe police should have to interact directly with representatives from groups they have most often harmed because how else are we to increase understanding and Justice in our society a decision to remove Sweeney Moran would undermine the Public's confidence in the city's intent to include historically

[27:01] marginalized communities in oversight and instead it would be a continuation of a long history in which protection of wealthy white landowners of Boulder are maintained at the cost of black and brown people so when I learned how the police oversight panel members were to be selected I was really proud of the city's decision to have NAACP and Central Amistad select its members I'm here to stand as an ally with these groups and I ask Council to honor the process and do the same thank you our next speakers are Michelle Rodriguez Susan Duncan and Lupita Jaime hi guys Michelle Rodriguez AKA Rodriguez versus Lola Thai federal civil lawsuit um Chief Harold there's a lot to be said um first first off I want to read from when I I went to court with this lawsuit it says Court calls case attorneys David Goddard and Luis Toro for defendants who

[28:03] have been dismissed in the case in her appearances they showed up in person um for intimidation factors I think I'm not sure I was then told by my Pro Se advisor that um why were they there and I really couldn't answer that um and then last week in the park I had an incident a couple incidents I got some officers behaving good but um then I had an interaction with an officer Kessler who was present during your last policing of the police I think attempted votes or something but he um when I tried to address him he and he says oh you're Michelle Rodriguez and I said yeah the one in the middle of the lawsuit and he says no you're not not anymore and I've got them on video saying it I said did you really say that and he was standing next to officer Parker who's the known officer who testified against

[29:01] me twice in front of two six-person juries one ended in a mistrial the other ended in a guilty finding of false reporting on a police officer I still have yet to understand what I was convicted of but that police officer had a gun to the back of my head I know that much I did ask him for a card it was officer Parker he then I think conferred with officer Kessler and says did you did you confirm that lawsuit and he got him out of the park but how dare they function and flow around me on this constant intimidation I mean eventually there's going to be a day but just so you know I did my peer recovery class this week tomorrow's my last day and I got an extension to be able to handle that so I am still in court please chief thank you Miss Duncan I'm just I'm not sorry Mr Rodriguez next up is Susan Duncan Lupita Jaime and Deborah Foy

[30:04] is Susan Duncan here going once and she appears not to be here we will move on to um Lupita Jaime and we will be providing a little extra time as uh interpretive services will be used a

[31:05] diganos Queens recommendations adultos la policia Nosotros claramentes foreign foreign

[32:15] grasses hello good afternoon my name is Lupita Jaime I've lived in Boulder for 20 years I work with Amistad and I'm part of several Community groups and several parents groups in My Children's Schools I've always heard how the city the government the different departments want to build trust with the community and listen to our voices but there are still spaces such as this one where they're doing everything possible to silence us and end up invalidating our voices the city council has to consider the effect that this is causing and how our

[33:01] community feels when they express themselves tell us what message are you sending us if you refuse to accept the recommendations of our community members our community the children as well as the adults have always been monitored and harassed by the police we clearly know what bias is we live it every day it's unfair and atrocious that the guidelines that were written to defend the rights of our community are being used against us we don't think that criticizing the police because of their action should be a cause for eliminating someone from the panel the members of the panel were chosen because they demonstrated that they have the highest interest in the well-being of our community and that they're going to struggle for justice and equity although the police oversight panel was not created specifically to improve the trust that the community has in the police I think that by having an effective Community panel to supervise the police that would create the trust

[34:00] in the community for the police we are here because we truly want our community to feel safe around the police and that they have trust in them I am here because I want our children to grow up feeling safe around the police just like the white-skinned euro-american children do thank you thank you we have Deborah Foy Michael border and Terry bernick hi my name is Deborah Foy and our organization is the B chicas oh my name is Deborah Foy and our organization is the B chicas you may recognize us from our work to help establish pollinator appreciation month in 2015 and the annual bee Boulder Festival we continue to Champion for the health of our pollinators and our planet by addressing the leading cause one of the leading causes of pollinator decline

[35:00] which is the lack of biodiverse habitat the British Nomo May movement has done a wonderful job of raising awareness about the food desert created by acres and Acres of monoculture green lawns I read a recent estimate that there are over 40 million Acres of lawn in the U.S This is 40 million acres of land that doesn't provide food for anything often requires chemical treatments that cause further environmental harm and uses a tremendous amount of water for its upkeep instead of halting mowing for a month we want to encourage people to shrink their lawns and create more healthy habitats to support the more than 560 different species of native bees and other pollinators in Boulder County we've all heard how critical pollinators are in fact more than 80 percent of the world's plants require pollinators we would lose many foods like nuts fruits

[36:02] and vegetables the entire landscape of our food choices would be significantly impacted we want to change the mindset on having the Perfect Lawn to a landscape rich with native plants trees and shrubs with our shrink the lawn plant for pollinators Proclamation we hope to educate people about the many ways they can make a positive environmental impact and Inspire them to take actions that will provide food and shelter for the bees the birds for all insects address our warming climate and save our precious water thank you thank you our next speaker is Michael border hi uh it's Michael Broder and I appreciate the opportunity to address you I'm here to express my disagreement with council's intention to relax

[37:02] occupancy restrictions for single-family dwellings zoning laws that were enacted to protect the character of Boulder's non-student neighborhoods this proposed action can only be viewed as a blatant attempt to circumvent the will of Boulder's residence who voted down similar occupancy relaxations with their defeat of bedrooms or for people initiative in a recent election councils should take notice of the soon to be decided fate of SB 231 23 213 which includes a similar action and it should pay particular attention to the fact that Boulder was surprisingly one of the few if not the only municipality in the entire state that publicly supported the bill passage of this bill would eliminate home rule in Boulder and Empower bureaucrats in Denver to make land use decisions for our city

[38:01] I submit there is no correlation between building more and reducing housing costs it's never worked think New York City Washington DC San Francisco to name a few cities building more AIDS developers and landlords not the public consider the infrastructure constraints um of unbridled development and density one approach to providing affordable low and middle income housing would be a public private partnership in which the city approves housing specifically for this segment on land owned by the city example Boulder airport planning Reserve alternately what is alternatively what is being considered is to build until Boulder becomes overbuilt and undesirable place to live that would certainly make housing more affordable let's slow down

[39:00] and please please feel free to email the rest of your comments to council thank you and I apologize for mispronouncing your name thank you for your time okay next speaker is Terry bernick hi my name is Terry bernchich and I'm here tonight to stop ask the city to please put an end to the police oversight panel Fiasco the city council's primary responsibility is to create laws that reflect the community's priorities and values in that capacity it passed the ordinance that governs the formation of the pop when a complaint was filed alleging that the selection process was in violation of the law the city council appointed a highly qualified independent special counsel to evaluate the merits of this complaint after an extensive investigation he agreed that the law had been violated and concluded that the appropriate remedy would be to remove the individual in question and yet for some inexplicable reason this finding is

[40:00] being discussed as if the facts are still up for debate as our elected officials you took an oath of office to uphold the laws of our city if the city council can abide by its own rules how can you expect the community to do so the police oversight panel has a very important role to play in our community there's enormous value in continuously examining and optimizing our policing practices with a specific focus on equity and integrity but oversight means working within the existing systems to make them better it doesn't mean abolishing them all together having a stated abolitionist on this panel is entirely at odds with the mission of the pop and diminishes its credibility as an objective tool for police reform some council members have argued that an abolitionist perspective does not constitute perceived bias but the special counsel engaged specifically to address this question concluded otherwise so if the council wants a pop that openly supports an abolitionist Viewpoint then Own It Go through the process of amending the law to allow for the inclusion of members that are intent

[41:00] on dismantling our police force and then ask the voters to weigh in on whether they support this revised Focus for the pop but don't put this controversial position on the backs of an all-volunteer unelected group of community members that just want to see positive reforms and policing it's unfair to them and has made it virtually impossible for the pop to succeed in its current state please demonstrate straight to the voters that you support the rule of law by by following through on the recommendations of the special counsel thank you our next speaker is Liz Jansen yeah hello my name is Liz Jansen I'd like to thank those who collaborated with me on this declaration I'll be reading in a second Deborah Foy and the bee chicas rela Abernathy and cool Boulder and Dr Adrian Carper and the pollinator advisory committee and Taylor Ryman for helping us Shepherd this through

[42:01] shrinkle lawn plant for pollinators pollination pollinators play Vital roles in our ecosystems they are responsible for the reproduction of three-quarters of the world's wild plants and one third of our agricultural crops pollinators support flowering trees shrubs and flowers which provide food and shelter for wildlife and humans alike in addition to honeybees Boulder County has over 562 species of wild bees plus thousands of species of moths butterflies and other insect pollinators that require diverse and abundant floral resources a primary cause of pollinator decline is the decreasing availability of biodiverse habitat due to the simplified Urban Landscapes such as turf grass Lawns monoculture Lawns lack floral resources for pollinators require valuable limited resources Like Water for support and often use fertilizers and herbicides that can cause further

[43:00] decline in pollinator species alternatives to turf grass include trees shrubs and flowers which create a more diverse landscape and provide habitat for pollinators birds and other Wildlife planting native wildflowers that flower in Spring can also provide important nectar and pollen for pollinators emerging from winter these turf grass Alternatives reduce the noise and pollution associated with maintaining Lawns while creating a more resilient landscape using less water sequestering CO2 and helping to lessen the effects of our warming climate the city of Boulder recognizes the importance of raising awareness across our community about the value in reducing monoculture Lawns and creating biodiverse habitats to protect and support the pollinating insects who are vital to our ecosystems and our way of life thank you thank you so much the remainder of our speakers will be appearing virtually and the first three will be Trisha Holland Sarah vollman and

[44:01] Jude landsman hi everyone my name is Trina Holland thank you for the chance to speak tonight um I'll be speaking regarding the police oversight panel and the special counsel's investigation and recommendation that panel member Lisa Sweeney Moran resign or be removed by city council I urge city council to not remove Lisa sweetie mirand a stated intent of the panel is to ensure that historically excluded communities have a voice in police oversight however to follow the recommendations of the special counsel would Elevate his perspective on bias and the fitness of panel members over that of the selection committee which was intended to represent the perspectives of those very communities and included representative representatives of the NAACP Boulder County El Centro instad and members of the panel furthermore if any candidate recommended for the panel by historically excluded communities is required to have no

[45:01] negative opinions of any kind towards the police this intent will never be achieved in addition the special counsel's investigation failed to interview selection committee members yet claimed that they failed to sufficiently vet the panel candidates this represents a critical Gap in the investigation that resulted in the removal recommendation to remove Lisa Sweeney Moran would undermine confidence in the city's support for the panel and the intent to include historically excluded communities as well as demonstrate disregard for the selection committee it would also continue a long history in which white supremacy and protection of wealthy white landowners is maintained at the cost and safety maintained at the cost of the safety and Welfare of communities of color thank you for your time tonight thank you our next speaker is Sarah vollman

[46:05] is zero with us Sarah your mic is open you'll just oh we can we're in for a police oversight panel I do not want her to be removed and I don't see how people of color can be represented if no one is allowed to have negative opinions toward the police and we just need to have representation from historically excluded communities on the panel thank you thank you our next speaker is Jude landsman greetings Council uh I've come before Council I think at least four or five times since the beginning of this process to speak uh for uh police oversight and the necessity for

[47:00] it I've served on the selection committee I find it outrageous that we were not interviewed and read the special counsel's reasonings for that but I I fail to understand his logic I would really urge council members to search their conscience about what bias means and what bias means in the context of How It Was Written in the ordinance it it appears to be being misused as a weapon um who are trying to remove um someone who is has been outspoken to the community about policing issues as our first Speaker mentioned the um the police were not formed um for black and brown people

[48:01] the police were formed for wealthy white slave holders and so it is very unnerving and not a very good look to have um city council try and dominate the process try and heavy-handedly put their point of view or their agenda on the community it does not send a good message I am a parent I have raised six children of my own in Boulder County uh I want my children to be safe of course I understand people's concerns that they want the police to remain in power and they makes them feel safe what people do not seem to understand is that the police are not safe for every person in this community thank you our next speaker is Emily Reynolds

[49:05] good evening Council I speak tonight in favor of removing the flawed panelist Lisa Sweeney Moran from the police oversight panel considering the vast evidence showing her abolitionist anti-police bias it would be absurd to pretend otherwise if you don't remove her are you going to pay back to Boulder citizens all the money you wasted on the investigation only to ignore it's more it's more than clear findings the investigating attorney clay Douglas answered City council's questions in written form for example number one why were no selection committee members interviewed answer quote requesting the selection committee to explain the steps it took in writing is in violation of the police oversight code both the city manager and City attorney

[50:01] reiterated that neither the individual deliberations on the on the merits of candidates nor the details of the selection committee's confidential deliberations were requested that is to say despite the outrage of some speakers this evening no selection committee members were interviewed because that wasn't requested and it would be against the law and on and on and on with the questions and answers beyond the scope of the investigation that is extraneous to the investigation not asked to investigate that specifically prohibited from investigating that I urge you to consider how violating the Public's Trust on an obviously flawed panelist is going to work for you it will definitely lessen City council's credibility with the community please consider that the people would like an

[51:01] unbiased person on the police oversight panel thank you very much thank you Emily Melissa Shipman and Lynn Siegel mayor part time Melissa is not currently present in Zoom all right if she does show up we can uh enter to the back end of the uh of the speaker list Lynn Siegel is next Lynn Siegel where's the timer hello out there where's the timer hello Lynn this is Ryan the timer is displayed in Zoom uh it's under Lisa Cooper's frame as I mentioned in Q a you may need to to scroll use the arrow to look at additional frames depending on your screen there's nothing I can do to get the timer up

[52:00] can't get Gallery up Ryan it's been three and a half years can't figure this out hire someone from it that knows what they're doing Linda you have comments comment because I don't have a freaking timer then your time is running yep where is it where's my timer hello city council where's my timer Lynn I'll let you know when you have 30 seconds I need a timer to see Mark Lynn we want to run down the clock you're taking my time you're stealing it you won't give me a freaking timer go ahead Mark Lynn would you like to make comments

[53:01] this evening yeah I would but I want a timer I deserve at least to know how my my long my two lousy minutes are I've already offered to give you um interim updates that's not good enough so some art I want a timer listen until this time is done and if I may make a recommendation this is Ryan um if you go to your view you can adjust to the gallery view um I see gallery on my end and that may be something that you can adjust on your end to see gallery to see the number of people been there done that I do zooms all day long I don't have this problem with anyone else but the city of Boulder nothing not a good suggestion Ryan it doesn't work there is no gallery view to see any timer so we'll have an argument about the

[54:00] timer just like with Lisa Sweeney Moran we'll have an argument about bias in the community rather than actually doing the people's work for the last two years since the police oversight committee was created what a joke and where is a drug store in Boulder and now there's Alpine Balsam no drugstore oh we don't want any drug stores in Boulder we want is high-end Condominiums that's what we want in Boulder okay yeah Lynn your time has expired our next speaker will be Leslie Chandler followed by Rose Rosie Vivian and Katie Farnam I'm informed that Sherry Roth is not with us tonight hi can you hear me yes greeting city council and staff

[55:00] I'm here to ask that you make Public Safety your top priority as a long-term resident and business owner here it is beyond upsetting to see what is happening to our community see it this is largely due to the inadequate enforcement of our laws arrests are limited to the most serious crimes and those being arrested are often quickly released back into our community we have offenders here that are repeatedly committing crimes that impact residents businesses students tourists as well as our own unhoused population this has been going on for some time and it is not getting any better the hard drugs being bought and sold and used often visibly in our public spaces is growing increasingly concerning those using drugs are often dealing as well

[56:02] the eminent harm to our community posed by the recent arrival of xylazine I think I'm saying that right or drink poses a very real and serious threat I'm asking that you please prioritize the discussion of Public Safety with our Municipal Court Boulder Police Department and other co-responders now and supporting Lisa Sweeney Moran on the police oversight panel would be an outrageous step in the wrong direction right now you need to better support our Police Department rather than demoralize them thank you thank you Leslie next is Rosie Vivian Vivian I'm sorry hello can you hear me

[57:00] yes we can hi there uh please affirm the recommendations of our police oversight panel and show that you stand with the NAACP and El Centro Amistad police oversight is important and critical voices belong on the panel I think the community owes Lisa and the panel an apology for putting them through this unnecessary step in the process thanks very much thank you Katie I'm sorry Rosie I'm having a brain lock today our last speaker is Katie farnan thanks uh my name is Katie I'm glad to close it out today because I want to talk a bit of a global and take a global look at things we're spending time tonight deciding whether to follow the advice of the groups we've appointed to advise us and they've been clear about what they advise they've done this labor for free and they followed the guidelines that we gave them I know a

[58:00] complaint was made and there's a process you all have to go through however this is a time to say hey we've got real issues to tackle and this is not one this one could lead to a massive setback in trust that will take years to fix White Citizens do who do not acknowledge or experience discrimination by City run institutions don't get Veto power this is way bigger than one person named Lisa this is a flex don't let them use your power to set us all back on this work a few weeks ago someone speaking tonight said here that they didn't want the NAACP to participate in any City issues just think about that that is the flex meanwhile the work of this panel is under threat of delay 600 families a week are going to effa homeless kids are

[59:00] a growing demographic we're fighting to keep limiting people's housing options through occupancy rules at the state level and we're sidelining experts who've been willing to give us advice on all of this in favor of the comfort of a single overpowering demographic what are we doing what are we doing who are we listening to whose trust is about to be broken here how do we advance progress in Boulder not just power not just process progress thank you thank you Katie close the open comment and first ask if staff do you guys have any comments on what we've heard tonight thank you mayor potem um planning to have a discussion on the police oversight panel later so I will um not comment on that but I will say that I will follow up on Ms Rodriguez's recent interactions with PD and

[60:01] appreciate everyone for their comments tonight thank you any comments from Council it's not a question the question for you um you know we heard one of the speakers tonight just say that you know we're not enforcing our laws um there was I think a letter to the editor and the Daily Camera today or yesterday that kind of talked about how we're not enforcing the camping ban and I was just wondering if you if you could speak to that or um maybe city manager I don't know if that's a better question for you but sorry I saw saw folks in the audience and spoke directly to them but um I just I kind of keep hearing this from some of the community that we're not enforcing the laws that we have and so I was just wondering if you could speak to that absolutely good evening Council mayor Pro tem uh Steve Redford Deputy police chief I didn't read the article that you referenced council member um but we are enforcing the laws that we have on the books in fact we we

[61:02] have not ceased enforcing any of the ordinances that are on the books um obviously we're one part of the criminal justice system and and we can only control what we can control and and I know you know we hear frustrations about other parts just like we hear frustrations with our part so you know I will just obviously point that out that we're just one spoke in that wheel um but we are we have there have been no directives to our Personnel to not enforce any particular ordinance or loss and obviously any law that's on the books that's valid that is created by our legislature or elected officials we will enforce until uh things change so enforcement continues you know summer months do get busier as the weather warms up we have more 911 calls for service and so we may not have the free time that we have other times and officers end up you know just running call to call to call some nights and so there's not a lot of free time to go and proactively enforce things but we see our you know our run sheets every night and day of all of our activities and we are still writing summonses and

[62:01] making arrests as appropriate thank you appreciate that so remember any other comments from Council all right we now move on to our consent agenda um I'd like to float a an idea which is that we break this into two pieces the consent agenda items a through D and deal with that and then um move on to item e which is going to agenda obviously more comments I moved consent items um 3A through d second is this a roll call it is all right so we will start the roll call on tonight's consent agenda items a through D with council member spear yes

[63:00] mayor proton Wallach yes council member weiner yes Yates yes Benjamin yes council member folkerts yes and friend yes the consent agenda items a through D are hereby approved unanimously with a vote of seven two zero okay next we move on to item e uh concerning the findings of fact the conclusion of law from the special counsel um and uh I think I just want to throw in one quick admonition as we have essentially been put on notice that we were in a pre-litigation status with respect to this item I I just urge my colleagues to be cautious and careful in what they say um for that very purpose assume we have many comments anybody like to lead off

[64:03] I'd like to put forward a motion that's how we start this right or do you want to do comments and then emotion you're right motion first comments left I would like to motion that we move forward item E2 consideration of emotion to acknowledge and reject the findings and recommendations a special counsel and affirm the appointment of Lisa Sweeney Moran as a member of the police oversight panel second any comments yeah I'd like to speak with my motion I believe we should reaffirm our appointment of Lisa Sweeney Moran to the police oversight panel despite the recommendations of special counsel as Ariel amaru the pan the panel's former co-chair said this situation is layered and nuanced it

[65:00] demands precise attention to detail and needs to be treated with care I don't believe that our special counsel Douglas Claiborne accomplished that with his recommendations the findings did not contain any significant information beyond what city council was already aware of and his comments led me to believe he lacks sufficient knowledge of the history that led to the creation of this panel both locally and nationally when reading through letters and emails that we have received on this topic there are several concerns that have been raised that resonate with me deeply first special counsel Douglas Claiborne made the comment in his report that available evidence of Lisa Sweeney Moran's real or perceived bias or Prejudice could undermine public trust in the effectiveness of the oversight panel these concerns for me started before a round of panelists was ever selected

[66:01] and will continue regardless of our choices here tonight a founding member of the police oversight panel resigned in protest because she felt the panel was limited in its ability to hold police accountable following misconduct I myself have questioned if they have the authority they need to make the type of change that our community has called for we also have heard from several former from several former members of the police oversight panel expressing their frustration about the lack of support from the city and pushback from the police department these are issues we need to work through that are larger than the appointment of one individual but our decision tonight needs to be weighed on its own merits as our human relations commission so eloquently stated it is a mistake to conflate criticism of law enforcement with bias against the police everyone has biases and acknowledging

[67:00] our biases is important for accountability and working towards Justice Miss Sweeney Moran has expressed opinions about policing as an institution and has been vocal about her concern over past instances of police violence this Viewpoint should not disqualify her or anyone else from serving on the police oversight panel with a panel of 11 members there should be room for a wide diversity of appointments around the role of police in Boulder including opinions that are highly critical of law enforcement as an institution when I reflect on the interactions I've had with police officers most of them have been respectful and even Pleasant but it only takes one negative interaction with someone who is lethally armed and whose actions are implicitly endorsed by the government to change the trajectory of a life and Scar an entire community because of this considerable responsibility history of discrimination

[68:00] and after extensive deliberation Boulder specifically empowered non-profit organizations representing historically excluded groups to review and recommend nominees what men what message would we be sending our community groups if we reject the recommendations from the very groups we solicited feedback and input from finally singling out one individual is not a reasonable solution to addressing the appointment process this sets a dangerous precedent especially when according to their peers this panel member has not done anything during their service to Warrant their removal we must consider the chilling effects on free speech of any potential actions these are not just my concerns but when chatting with a panel member yesterday I was asked if Lisa is removed who will be next will it be me I question not only who will be left to speak but what they will feel

[69:00] comfortable saying if we follow special counsel's recommendations because of this I urge my colleagues to consider the concerns raised about special counsel's fine findings and appoint Sweeney reappoint Sweeney Moran to the police oversight panel it is critical to maintain a diverse set of opinions and perspectives especially considering the history of current challenges with police accountability and reform in the city of Boulder thank you thank you I'm going to speak in Spanish first then in English saber

[70:05] labor Siesta situations systemica aportes cuando otros attacking sus perspectives

[71:13] Samos Deepak invest the Las perspectivas Evo says the last common with a snowball gracias in English to me this is a decision about trust do I trust the communities who have experiences I do not have to know what they need better than I do and do I trust the members of the police oversight panel to address issues and behaviors that may impact their work if those issues arise I do and I will vote from this place of

[72:01] trust as Community leaders we should also be striving to build trust with communities that deal with systemic oppression when we ask people with marginalized identities to use their time and energy to give us feedback we need to be prepared to use their input and to have their back when others attack their perspectives otherwise we're wasting everyone's time and making people feel dismissed tokenized and vulnerable I hope we can do better as a community moving forward and make sure the discussions around issues of race Center the perspectives and voices of bipoc communities rather than the perspectives and voices of non-bipot communities thank you thank you would it be inappropriate to have us vote on this first because it could mood consideration of anything else

[73:04] it's fine you can move forward okay um all in favor of Co of council member I believe this would be a roll call vote okay very good okay we'll start the roll call vote on item 3E option two with mayor Pro tem Wallach uh no okay council member weiner uh no Yates no Benjamin no council member folkerts yes front no and council member spear yes okay the motion Was Defeated with a vote of five to two thank you would anyone care to make a

[74:00] motion with respect to E1 I make a motion for E1 um do we have any comments with respect to this motion okay thanks um I first want to thank everyone who took the time to speak with me on this issue I'm not going to describe conversations because I don't want to have anyone feel that I'm co-opting their Vantage points to make my job easier or my Landing gentler here just want to thank them and say that I was a very strong Advocate as a community member for creation of the pop in 2019 I believe quite sincerely in its Mission and value and necessity and in 2020 as a member of

[75:01] council when we were finalizing the pop ordinance I fought for city council to not weigh in on oversight panel selection I think I lost a straw poll one to eight there so we are exactly mired in the politicization over these appointments that I knew would happen in all of my research and conversations on tonight's issue I tried to view them through the lens of what does the least harm to the system of the police oversight panel I supported Lisa Sweeney Marin's appointment because she's a capable attorney she's smart she's insightful she's thorough and I think what she has been put through over this issue is deplorable and the community wounds this has opened up is essentially self-induced by Council and in my opinion it's pretty unforgivable I'm well on the record saying I think Lisa is fit to serve and I voted to appoint her and nothing in the special counsel's report changes my mind uh but the special counsel's determination is not appealable under our current processes and is finding

[76:00] concluded that Lisa should resign or be removed um to be honest removing Lisa feels like a slap in the face to the people who vetted and nominated her and Talisa herself who I am confident is doing good work and I certainly don't want to set the work of the pop back and I don't want to ignore voices of folks most vulnerable to police abuse of of discretion and violence it would be a vastly easier path for me personally to say let's take no action and to have voted in the last motion um but I I can't do that because I see a real potential danger in that path in light of the special counsel's findings I don't see how Lisa can stay on the panel without threatening the legal sustainability of all of her panel's findings that does not apply to other panelists there's no similar finding as to anyone else um but I think if Lisa stays on every panel that she is on that recommends discipline and if the chief agrees and disciplines will be arbitrated and have pretty strong evidence for reversal as an attorney if I represented an officer who is recommended for discipline on a

[77:00] panel where Lisa was one of the three panelists participating I would argue is that attorney that she's a panelist who has a finding from a purportedly objective third party saying that she had disqualifying bias and a conflict of interest and I would like my chances of reversing that discipline um we could roll the dice um and see if I'm right um and and see the Ripple effects of how the body's decisions would play out um and we could see if panels that she weighs in on were they recommend discipline and where disciplines make it meet it out see if they get successfully appealed and see if that results in officers who the city wants to discipline get their discipline reversed but I think that's really dangerous to roll the dice some officers involve nationally and some of the worst policing atrocities successfully mitigated attempted discipline that part is not theoretical it happens it's dangerous and it's antithetical to the very core of Pop's mission to have a police police oversight piano where a panelist is on record as recommended for removal and

[78:00] every panel that she's on is potentially subject to a slam dunk reversal I don't see how that moves us forward on either racial Justice or police oversight which I I believe strongly in what will move us forward is reverse is revising the police oversight ordinance so I'm voting to remove but want to be clear I'm not affirming any findings I just don't have an Avenue to erase those findings from the record and given this current structure however disappointed I am in it with it I see it as a danger to the viability of the police oversight panel if Lisa stays on and that's I feel the best decision I can make not to be a broken record but we need to change the ordinance ASAP we need to ensure that we set up our panel for success for a truly wide range of voices being invited to and feeling safe at the table thank you council member I said it very well Rachel and I share just about all your concerns I find this tough for me personally because Lisa is a friend of mine

[79:01] so this was not taken easily at all but for the but I respect Lisa and value her opinion certainly as a member of the school board from which she helps lead our schools which is um where my kids go to school um this is as Rachel put out my my issue is which I share which is it exposes the police oversight panel to to in some ways nullify their work which is the opposite of what we're trying to do I support the panel's work wholeheartedly and it is critically important that they have the Clean Slate from which to do the work and have that work be trusted and validated and I'm just really concerned that if we have an independent Viewpoint that says she should be removed or have resigned that that undercuts the very work of that panel it is about the work of this panel that matters the most and I think it's

[80:00] critical that we make sure that we maintain the sanctity of that work is just one person but the rest of the panel needs to be able to work and needs to be able to meet the needs of our community and to do the role that has been assigned to them and so it is with the heaviest place for me that I am in the position to vote no here and and offer her removal I will say that I'm really interested in finding ways for us to fix the ordinance and how we got here as part of that so I really look forward to that opportunity for us to get it right to get it fixed and to try to reestablish the trust and to solidify the ground from which this panel does the work and does the work representing those communities that need this work the most so this is a tough one but I'm hopeful that we can get to a better place when we come back to this ordinance and come back to fixing it and getting these things right thank you council member it's been a really long six months and

[81:01] really stressful and difficult for everybody involved but wanting to move on I just want to say that we have available some very qualified alternates including Arlette Barlow a highly qualified woman of color who I know all of them all of the alternates would do a great job and would represent the community well so I hope that we could go on and the work of the police oversight panel can continue to do its great work thank you any anything else okay at this point I think we're ready for a roll call vote thank you mayor Pro tem we'll start the roll call vote on item 3E option one with council member weiner no we did option two yes council member Yates

[82:00] yes Benjamin yes council member folkerts no friend yes council member spear no and mayor Pro tem Wallach yes the motion is approved with a vote of five to two okay I think next on our agenda is call up and check in the first item is Landmark alteration certificate application to rehabilitate and add on to building L the former nurses dormitory at the Academy of Mapleton Hill at 2543 4th Street a pending individual Landmark pursuant to section 9 11 18 of the boulder Revised Code 1981. see manager do we have any kind of presentation this evening

[83:02] I do not believe that we have yep yeah I like to call this up do you want to make a motion to call it up and see if there's enough votes yes okay I move that we call up um item 4A The Landmark alteration certificate with respect to the nurse's dormitory second would you like to speak to it no I think this is a pretty critical um consideration and I think the community deserves to be heard on on this one I know there's a lot of discussion around this particular property a few years ago and I think we should open it up to a public hearing let the community speak about this and hear from staff so I'd like to to have a hearing on this one councilman Benjamin anything further uh ditto what Bob said okay my comment will be also ditto is this a roll call or a this can be a show of hands I believe okay may I see a show of hands to call up uh the

[84:02] certificate application C5 I see two against the motion passes our second call up in check-in is a call-up consideration of a final subdivision plot approval number Tec 2020-009009 located at 2150 Folsom Street pursuant to a court order remanding the planning board for additional findings any interest in calling up seeing none we will now move on to our public hearings oh mayor Pro tem I can bring us to the next item very good please do okay all right next we have item five on the agenda which is our public hearing item 5A that is the second reading and

[85:01] consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8571 amending section 4-20-18 rental license fee Title IX land use code and title 10 structures BRC 1981 to update the regulations for accessory dwelling units and setting forth related details I will tell you I was really looking forward to reading that our director of plan thank you good evening council members we are very happy to bring this item to you this evening this is as you know one of your Council priorities from last year and and coming into this year we have uh really represented a robust discussion over many years in many different formats and of course you've seen this several times in study session as well as first reading leading up to this second reading uh I think it's important to acknowledge

[86:02] the wide range of communication that's come around this and the wide range of input that we've received both formal and informal so we're happy to bring it to you this evening and we'll kick it off with I think Lisa Hood's going to do the presentation planning and development services and looking forward to going through ordinance 8571 with you tonight on the accessory dwelling unit regulation updates so as you know we've talked with you all about this at several study sessions already but for those who may not be as familiar with accessory dwelling units or adus just a brief introductory slide these Graphics show all the different ways that we can have adus and Boulder so we have both attached adus and detached adus attached could be like an attic apartment or basement or an addition and a detached Adu is something

[87:00] that's in a separate structure but essentially an Adu is a small residence that's sharing a lot with a larger main house in Boulder the Adu has to be on a lot with a single family home and the lot must be owner occupied so the property owner has to live either in the main house or in the Adu itself but an Adu is always an independent and self-contained living space so it has a kitchen or bathroom as you know we've worked on the scope of the Adu update project with you over the last several months and this was initiated as one of the work program priorities for 2022 and 2023 with the express objective of increasing the allowance of adus in the community as we worked through the scope that led to four main points or main topics that are part of the scope of this project so the first is eliminating the Adu saturation limit the second is modifying the size limits the third clarification and simplification of the regulations and then also overall improving the approval process

[88:01] I mentioned we've been we've discussed this with you at two study sessions in November and January um back in January we discussed the saturation limits where Council supported elimination of the saturation limit as well as supported increasing the size limits and then we talked through many of the code clarification and process improvements with support from Council for those as well so now we're coming forward with the actual ordinance putting pen to paper to the actual ordinance and so I'll go through that in this presentation today I also did want to note that the ordinance does help to implement several policies in our Boulder Valley comprehensive plan related to the built environment and housing and local governance we've talked before in the study sessions about the public engagement plan for this project with the consult level of Engagement being the focus for this um so we've been doing a number of different public engagement strategies

[89:02] and opportunities over the last several months but we've also relied on the significant public engagement that was done at the last major update of the ad regulations which were adopted in 2018 and so there's a significant number of um touch points hundreds of touch points of Engagement from that point that were also really relevant to the work that we were still doing so we asked people about saturation limits and size limits at that time so we did use that engagement as well to inform these changes and there's a summary of all of that engagement in your packet that you would have gotten tonight as well over the last several months we've been meeting with many different groups in our advisory boards to discuss these changes and work through the scope and the actual changes we had a public meeting which I'll talk about a bit on a later slide we've had virtual engagement open on be heard Boulder for several months we've had office hours to answer questions and just have discussions with members of the public a couple of times in April and then of course we're at the

[90:01] the public hearing stage both through the housing Advisory Board had a public hearing planning board and then of course tonight just a brief summary of the input that we've heard to date this year as you saw in your packet there are a number of written comments that have been submitted over the last several months I would say they're fairly evenly split between support for changes and even people expressing a desire that the changes would go even further as well as some concerns about adus and these are generally centered around rental housing issues parking density and issues of affordability for the adus I mentioned that we had a public meeting a community conversation back in February which was called planning for affordable housing that's because we have a number of different housing related code changes as you know taking place right now so we were discussing all of those it was about 25 representatives of neighborhood organizations the university other advocacy groups and we came together and

[91:01] really talked about the issues and opportunities related to all of these housing code updates including the Adu changes there we heard support for the proposal again for the Adu changes and some desire to go further as well as concerns about adu's potentially not being used as rental housing or the affordable the affordability levels of adus we also met with our community connectors and residents back in January which is our group that represents kind of underrepresented groups in Boulder and provides that voice and they express support for eliminating the saturation limit increasing the size limit but they did want to make sure that adus are really being used for the people in Boulder that need that housing they also expressed a number of programmatic suggestions to ensure that the benefits are more widespread for homeowners with adus I noted that we went to housing Advisory Board and planning board for public hearing both boards unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance

[92:00] that's before you tonight so that was back in March and April and then I know we've talked about this in the study sessions before but just a reminder that the first step of this project was really going back to the last going back over the last several years of adus that have been adopted or approved in Boulder and trying to learn from the most recent round of changes to better understand and better inform these changes this year so this included looking at all the quantitative data talking to having a survey of Adu owners talking to people that had withdrawn an Adu application as well as going through all of our Inquirer Boulder Tickets customer service things to try to understand the main questions people have about adus so you might remember this chart um so uh this shows all the number of adus that have been approved since uh the Adu regulations were put into place

[93:00] in Boulder in 1983 so you can see after the most recent changes were adopted in 2018 we had a significant jump in adus and it was really that time between 2019 and present that we were studying in that evaluation the evaluation helped reveal the changes that had had shown to reduce the barriers to adus in Boulder at the last round and also helped inform what potential improvements could also be made to potentially reduce barriers and increase the number of adus in Boulder so that evaluation was really informative and directly informed the changes that are within the ordinance before you tonight I also mentioned that we did a survey of the Adu owners where we got heard from almost half of them and we talked about those highlights at the study session um and then we've also talked about the comparable City research that went into the evaluation so we looked at 34 different cities around the country that also have accessory dwelling unit

[94:01] regulations that are comparable to Boulder in some way whether it's also being a University City a similar population size similar population density things like that and some of the most relevant takeaways for what's before you tonight in the ordinance is that none of the cities that we looked at these comparable cities have a saturation limit for adus we did some further digging we found one town in Connecticut that does have a similar saturation limit but that's that's all we could find around the country in regards to size limits Boulder's maximum size right now of detached adus is smaller than most other cities that we looked at although many cities in Colorado tend to be a little bit on the smaller side more typically adus are allowed to be about 800 square feet and then there's a number of other highlights and summaries in your packet as well related to those comparable cities all right so getting to the focus areas so those four main topics that I

[95:01] mentioned that are the scope of this update project saturation limits size limits clarification and approval processes I'm going to go through each one of those in a little bit more detail and just kind of explain what the ornaments ultimately reflects in regard to those changes so first is the saturation limit I know we talked about this in detail at this study session but right now Boulder has a saturation limit and it only applies in the rl1 and rl2 Zoning districts so we allow adus in several other zoning districts without a saturation limit but in rl1 and rl2 uh there are there's a saturation limit that limits adus to only 20 percent of a particular neighborhood area which is a 300 foot radius so this graphic very much oversimplifies it but if there were 10 properties within 300 feet only two of those properties could have an accessory dwelling unit there is some Nuance in the code that also includes non-conforming duplexes and co-ops and

[96:01] things like that but in the simplest form uh 20 of properties within that 300 foot radius can have a saturation limit that means if you're the third property you have no way to develop an Adu so if the area is saturated at 20 there is no option for another property owner within that area to pursue an Adu uh the saturation limit has been in place since Boulder's first adoption of Adu regulations in 1983 understandably at the time accessory dwelling units had been um well they were they were allowed historically but with the onset of uh single-family zoning they were made illegal in most of the country for many decades Boulder was on the Forefront of early cities that re-legalized adus and so in the early 1980s understandably there were concerns about what impact the adus might have on single-family neighborhoods fast forward 40 years it's now been 40 Years of having Adu

[97:01] regulations in Boulder we have nearly 500 adus we have a much better understanding of the impact of adus as well as we've evolved significantly with the rest of our land use code and different zoning standards that are able to address and mitigate those impacts um I mentioned also that as part of that evaluation we looked at our inquire Boulder tickets which is our customer service portal where people write in and ask zoning questions or any type of question really we found that saturation limits are the number one question that's asked related to adus it's really common that people are very confused don't understand the saturation limit we really found through the evaluation that the saturation limit continues to be both a real and perceived barrier to adus in Boulder one of these these are all verbatim quotes from some of those inquire Boulder tickets but just one that's really representative we would like to consider putting an Adu over the garage of our home we need to confirm

[98:00] that the location is not saturated first how do we do that without submitting an application and the fee and everything so it's not something that people can look up themselves they can't find out if their neighborhood's saturated already and also uniquely unlike pretty much any other zoning standard the saturation limit changes over time so you might write into the city in August and ask is my neighborhood saturated and we say no it's fine you could move forward with an application but if two of your neighbors apply for an Adu in September and you try to apply in October you're no longer able to have an Adu so it kind of works in a way that no other zoning standards work so it's proving to continue to be a barrier for adus and that's why it's one of the the main focuses of this ordinance tonight I mentioned that other cities do not have saturation limits we were only able to find one in the country one small town that uses the same kind of saturation limit most other cities rely

[99:00] on their existing zoning standards and this graphic is intended to look as complicated as our code really is there are a number of different regulations that impact the design and location of adus so that can be things like maximum height of the principal structure it can be setbacks we have a bulk plane requirement we have the maximum length of a wall requirement as well as things like floor area ratio building coverage and I did want to clarify that um a property with a single-family home is subject to the exact same floor area ratio and building coverage as a property with a single-family home and an Adu so if you're allowed to build say 3 000 square feet on a property you can either put 3 000 square feet into a single family home or if you want to have a 500 square foot Adu you can do 500 square feet for the Adu 2500 square feet for the single family home so having an Adu does not give you more floor area on the property it's essentially fitting all of the same things or different things into the same

[100:02] size box if that makes sense all of the yellow standards on this slide relate to accessory structures or Adu so we have a number of Adu specific standards that also help to mitigate any potential impacts of adus so that includes parking requirements a minimum lot size we have design standards for both detached and attached adus a maximum size which we'll talk about a little bit later as well as well as the owner occupancy requirement which requires a property owner to be on site and then the occupancy limit the number of unrelated people on site is slightly slightly more flexible on adus in that more dependents can live on site with an Adu but essentially the number of unrelated adult adults is the same so there are a number of standards that we believe adequately mitigate the potential impacts of adus if the saturation limit were not in place

[101:00] so The Proposal with ordinance 8571 is to eliminate the 20 saturation limit that currently exists within 300 feet of properties in rl1 and rl2 the next major change is related to size limits so size limits uh vary based on whether it's an attached Adu or a detached Adu for attached currently you're allowed to build one-third the size of the main house or a thousand square feet whichever is less so the way that works is if you have a 1500 square foot house you can't take advantage of that full thousand square feet you're limited to the one-third so you would max out at 500 square feet for the Adu and a detached data use if it's in a separate structure the maximum size right now is 550 square feet as we talked about in the study session there is an option for people to build a larger Adu if they designate it as an affordable Adu which means that they are limiting the rent to 75 percent of area median income The Proposal in the ordinance tonight I

[102:01] know we talked about this in the study session but one of the things related to size limits is that our current Adu regulations have a unique way of measuring floor area and it's something that we ran into a lot in the evaluation that customers and Property Owners residents alike as well as staff get very confused by that being different and so the proposal is to just strike that unique floor area measurement and instead just use the typical floor area measurement that we use for every other building in the city but the big change is modifying the size limits so for an attached Adu the ordinance increases the allowable size to half of the principal unit or a thousand square feet whichever is less and then for detached it would increase from 550 square feet to 800 square feet correspondingly we did want to increase the allowable size for the affordable and historic properties which currently have an incentive like I mentioned of a larger size for an Adu so we increased

[103:02] in the ordinance the size for those as well to two-thirds of the principal unit or 1200 square feet for the affordable and then the detached would be allowed up to a thousand square feet so those are the changes related to size limits and then I did just want to I we went out and took some pictures because we've been allowing the affordable adus to to be um a little bit larger in size so just to put some pictures and size limits graphically visually for you these are a couple of the affordable adus that have been approved in the last couple of years closer to those limits that are proposed so these are 700 and 800 square footage used images from the street side and Alley side some other contexts some lots that don't have alleys the ones on the bottom are actually attached datus so those are both basement units the one at the bottom left actually had to go through a variance for the board of through the board of zoning adjustment to be able to turn their basement into an affordable

[104:02] Adu all right so the last section that I'll really focus on for the ordinance is the code clarification and we did go through these issues at the study session but these are some of the main issues that really Rose to the top when we did the evaluation and we're um we think could potentially have a significant impact in reducing barriers to adus so one of the issues that came up frequently was adus are currently required to be established within a year of their Adu application being approved that's really challenging with construction timelines right now and people get understandably very concerned that they're going to have their application expire it's it's just getting harder and harder to be able to do it within one year and we talked a bit before about the fact that adus are currently a two-step process so you have to get an administrative application approved for the Adu first before you can go through to the building permit and so

[105:00] um that's just a really challenging process I'll explain that a little bit more later also the public notice requirement because it has that administrative application and Adu also requires public notice of your adjacent neighbors and that gets really confusing for those adjacent neighbors because it's not actually something that they can submit comments for or really have any impact on it's also unusual because most types of construction don't have a public notice most almost all of our administrative applications don't have an administ public notice so the proposal in the ordinance is to change an accessory dwelling unit from a conditional use which requires the administrative application to an allowed use and in that way it can go from a two-step review to a one-step review so if you want to get an Adu you would just go straight to the building permit and there's not this first administrative step first in that way the typical building permit expiration timeline applies which wasn't really the issue that had been raised it was that one year with the

[106:01] administrative application and so people would just be subject to any the timeline that all building permits are subject to and also the change that that affects is that allowed uses do not require a public notice so there wouldn't be the public notice step as well so all of this streamlines the application process significantly to to bring it down to just a one-step process one of the other issues that was raised through the evaluation was that there is no flexibility currently for the height of existing structures if they're over 25 feet so the ordinance updates the detached Adu height standards and says that if a structure exceeds our 25 foot height limit and but it's already existing it can be reused as an Adu so this is helpful because then people can adaptively reuse an existing structure which is more environmentally sustainable and probably will have less of an impact on their neighbors because it's an existing structure so we're trying to provide that flexibility for

[107:01] those situations and we have had a number of applicants in the last year or so run into this issue there's also a confusing standard related to the roof wall ratio that's been in there since the 80s that confuses everyone then doesn't really have a purpose so we've removed that and then this one gets really into the weeds of um interpreting zoning code but right now we have a requirement that an Adu has to be separated with a lock from the the main house it's something that's kind of deeply buried in the land use code definitions and but people run into it a lot so we've brought that into the ordinance and it's included in the attached Adu standards another one I mentioned there's a detached Adu and attached Adu type in Boulder we actually have a third type it's the limited accessory unit however there's only one property in the whole city that's ever used this so there's kind of limited utility we've actually been already in contact with the property owner and they're fine with not

[108:01] being a limited accessory unit so this removes a lot of excess code language that's never been used other than for that one property and then finally we did discuss at length in the study session issues related to owner occupancy specifically related to llc's so what we did in the ordinance was we added Clarity to the definition of owner occupancy to explain how people can prove that their owner occupied even if it's owned by an LLC and so that's having over 50 membership of that LLC and they would have um specific documents they would need to submit to the city to prove that which is the same process that we do in a property zoned in a trust or something like that and then we did also add some additional enforceability and language about those documents and in the Adu standards which basically say that the city can request those documents at any time so right now typically it's reviewed at the time of application but there's just some additional language that the city can

[109:00] ask for that at any time and that could help with enforcement as well so those are all of the code clarification updates there's a number of other improvements just to the language and organization um of the overall standards just simplifying language and and improving the organization that we were able to do through all of those changes as well and then the final my final slide or the final the fourth point of the scope is the process improvements these aren't necessarily in the ordinance but they're facilitated by the changes in the ordinance so I mentioned the one step review this would be a very significant administrative Improvement for Adu applications and eliminate many of the barriers and confusions that confusion that property owners and applicants face when trying to pursue an Adu some other things like timing of addressing and the Declaration of use document will also work on if the ordinance is adopted as well as really beefing up our self-service handouts and

[110:00] videos for our online um for the the Adu page online making sure that people can better understand what the Adu regulations are that apply to them so if the ordinance is adopted the next steps would be to spend the summer working on the process Improvement changes preparation there's things like electronic permitting and all that that we would have to sort out and improve and then the ordinance does set an effective date of September 1st for these rules to go into into effect and I think that's it and I have a suggested motion but happy to take any questions thank you that was an excellent excellent presentation um really First Rate so thank you um do we have any questions for staff yes thank you I think thanks for the presentation super helpful um I just got some questions around uh

[111:00] just kind of information that you know we may track if these changes going to effect so some of the current concerns don't really seem to be about 80s per se but sort of the impacts of having a little bit more density around um and so I'm wondering is there a way that we can track the changes and things that may occur in relation to this ordinance in terms of number of parking complaints we're getting or things like that so that maybe the next Council in a year could get a little information item on it or something like that yeah certainly we have we do have um enforcement data that we can look at um it is we we did look at the enforcement data in the analysis for this ordinance it's a little challenging because they're all in different places um but we can certainly look at that and the conclusion we came to um even just looking we were kind of looking at the difference between areas that had saturation limits versus didn't and in talking with our Enforcement Officers we didn't see that there were significantly different experiences and areas that have a saturation limit versus don't have a

[112:01] saturation limit so we can look at noise violations trash citations things like that but I think that that's an important part and that's kind of been the the typical thing we've been doing with these incremental Adu changes is to see the impact and go back after a couple years and see so it's certainly something we can track over time thank you and just one more question how does this interact with HOA laws and and regulations and things like that sure so the HOA regulations there are if the HOA says that there are no accessory dwelling units allowed um then they're not allowed to do that through their HOA so I think that that would Trump I don't know if Carl has a better answer but I'm pretty sure the HOA would be able to Trump whatever the the city has because I know they have more detailed things like color and things that we don't get into um and if there was a violation of the HOA rule they would have to enforce it the city would not get involved

[113:01] thank you any other questions I have one um or two um remind me what is the difference in principle between having a larger Adu for an attached structure as opposed to a a detached structure what's what's the theory for the attached having larger I think because there's a perception um that an attached Adu would be less impactful because it's not a separate unit so people might not even know you saw the pictures the the attached units you might never know that there's a unit back there or on in the basement so and a lot of the time people are renovating their basements to be an attached Adu and so often that is half of the house if it's a one-story house so a little more flexibility for those versus building a new structure okay thank you if there are no more questions I guess we will uh uh do our public hearing on this matter

[114:03] and I believe we have six speakers two speakers are in person Peter baloran and Dorothy Cohen and Peter forgive me if I have butchered your name through that presentation my name is Peter barlaran and I come before you as an individual homeowner from the Goss Grove neighborhood Goss Grove is a great mix of Resident homeowners and renters including a significant number of college students from CU and the ropa the rush towards creating greater housing density in Boulder is a questionable goal that will not achieve its stated objective of increasing affordable housing I've lived in Paris and Tokyo and grew up in Washington DC and I'll say that the downtown parts of these cities particularly Washington and Paris have been left to the very very wealthy and the very very poor

[115:02] there are more effective Solutions out there but if the changes with respect to adus are a done deal I join other neighborhoods adjacent to the University of Colorado in proposing that we be Exempted gosgrove risks being overrun if you could see the view from my neighbor's yard it is blocked by a brand new and very large Adu that is about as close to their fence line as you can imagine their view of the Flatirons has been obliterated their afternoon sun is gone their privacy compromised noise in Goss Grove will only get worse I know serious-minded CU students kept awake by neighbors partying in the wee hours including on weeknights response to complaints has been that if it doesn't happen on campus it's not their problem relaxing limits on adus is going to pit

[116:00] neighbor against neighbor are all too often long-term resident owners against Anonymous LLCs and lawyered up out of town investors with Deep Pockets in addition to being in the shadow of Cu and naropa we are also adjacent to Boulder High and finding a parking space during school hours is already a challenge it will only grow worse if parking restrictions are lifted and more people are squeezed into the neighborhood one other factor to consider much of gosgrove is in the flood plain laying down more concrete and roof shingles means the next flood will be worse than the one in 2013. Goss Grove already does its part on affordable housing and building Community to include the less fortunate we're proud to host a Section 8 housing complex and one of only two Boulder County halfway houses the other being in Longmont please don't ruin our little neighborhood and others adjacent to CU

[117:01] for false promises that chiefly benefit wealthy investors I acknowledge your efforts and your efforts to build community cohesion and thank you for your time thank you our next speaker is Dorothy Cohen my name is Dorothy Cohen and I live in Martin Acres there's a huge variance between Boulder Boulder neighborhoods the city cannot use one-size-fits-all strategy what's appropriate in one area cannot be will be very inappropriate another I'd like to explain I live in a house that is 792 square feet on the closest um Martin Acres street across from CU Baseline where the law school and many other neighborhood houses of the same size I don't understand how you can have an 800 or 900 square foot building as an

[118:00] accessory unit when it's bigger than my entire house the size might work in large neighborhoods with a 4 000 square foot home but the neighborhood we're actually very bad looking in my neighborhood in addition to CU and other neighborhoods in the in the union Apartments directly behind me many of the units have three bedrooms and three occupants the apartments also provide one off Street housing parking per space per unit assuming that they would encourage the other two roommates from bringing cars to Boulder well they did bring their cars and my street gets overflow parking in the apartments I've even had people block my driveway we also get CU students and faculty driving into the street from the park and they don't even talk about fall Saturday CU football games see you fans from every everywhere Park on my street and walk to campus we often

[119:01] have people parked squarely across our driveways trapping us so we don't have we can't leave now what do we want why why do we want to wave off street parking regulate requirements to adus in my neighborhood 50 or more of the houses are rentals many are student rentals we encourage we endure parties houses noise constant disruption of the quality of life contrary to what council thinks it is it it did nothing and really to improve code enforcement folders compliant based system still place all the burden and proof on us we don't want to spend our lives documenting problems taking photographs videos and recordings plus many people like me are afraid to complain but out of rate out of retaliation it's hard for people to figure out who may have complained about the boulder system

[120:01] places victims in Jeopardy and now on top of all of this you're proposing a total deregulation of adus for my neighborhood you can't keep piling all the neighborhood least able to handle more those serving on Council may not live in a Major Impact Zone like I do but I'm asking you to imagine like that just because he experienced the daily problems thank you very much thank you our virtual speakers are Lisa Spaulding Ron de Pew Rosemary Hagerty and Lynn Siegel we will start with Lisa Spaulding do you have the slides does does anyone have the slides oh great perfect thank you Lisa Spalding University Hill

[121:00] ordinance 8571 would adversely affect the neighborhoods surrounding the university each neighborhood has different problems but all desire and deserve and overlay Zone exempting them from this ordinance until accommodations can be made and we know the fate of Senate Bill 213 which eliminates both parking requirements and compulsory owner occupancy next slide legal non-conforming up on that side good legal non-conforming properties on the hill created High population density and a low density Zone most blocks of the Hill are at the saturation limit due to non-conforming properties not adus lifting saturation limits would lead to even higher population density next slide this is a screenshot of the 800 block of 13th taken from the city's rental housing map rental properties are in green and blue and the red line indicates a short-term rental the

[122:01] properties with occupancy numbers are non-conforming which whether they're currently licensed or not next slide please the current combined non-conforming occupancy is 58. if the saturation limit is lifted 12 property owners could build agus bringing the total to 94. if SB 213 passes and occupancy increases to five the number of occupants would increase to 131 no parking would be required and off-premise landlords could build adus many homes would be sold to investors next slide please this is a screenshot of legal non-conforming properties in the 800 block of 11th and on the adjacent side of 12. the numbers are on properties indicate current non-conforming occupancy next slide please the current combined non-conforming occupancy is 166. if the saturation limit is lifted

[123:01] 16 property owners could build adus bring the total to 214. if SB 213 passes occupancy would increase to 284. last slide please if the saturation limit is abolished the population density of the Hill will overwhelm its already strained carrying capacity and neighborhood conditions will continue to decline if SB 2013 passes the University Hill Neighborhood will collapse and the student ghetto north of college will overtake most blocks south as well it's impossible to separate overpopulation from adverse impacts the noise trash and vandalism would require dedicated police and enforcement units stationed on the hill the city would never afford that please approve a temporary overlay for the neighborhoods around the university and maintain saturation limits on their health thank you very much and thanks for doing the slides Thank you Lisa next is Ron Depew

[124:11] is around here Ron is present that's muted oh go ahead Ryan start now I'm Ron Depew I live in Martin Acres I ask that you exempt the four CU adjacent neighborhoods from the adud regulations such that the current Adu rules remain in place for us I ask this because City changes that create a small pickup for most neighborhoods nearly always have terribly disproportionate consequences for us that's because speculative investors know that there's great money to be had this close to seeing you because of all the demand the housing with students so we'll get far more new adus Under total deregulation compared to anywhere else in Boulder CU adjacent neighborhoods are

[125:01] already under exponentially more strain and impacts with things just the way they are I wish more council members lived near CU as they could experience the party houses in noise the daily and nightly erosions of quality of life we're already seeing many families leaving our neighborhoods because they simply can't take it anymore that's fueling declines in the Boulder Valley School enrollments your Adu plan would worsen this since most families want the privacy of single-family neighborhoods without additional people living in their backyard or backyards next door or behind them the irony is that most other Boulder neighborhoods are relatively stable and tranquil and they're likely to get perhaps a 10 increase in adus from your ordinance when they can easily which they can easily accommodate whereas many parts of our neighborhoods are already at the Tipping Point of livability and we'll see a 25 percent or more increase in adus under this ordinance simply because of the unlimited market for CU students also we

[126:01] are a modest neighborhood where many of our houses are only 800 to 1000 square feet to begin with the relatively huge adus in this proposal dwarf and overpower many of the original houses in addition modest neighborhoods like Martin acres and East Aurora Baseline sub or among the last remaining neighborhoods where middle income families can still afford to buy there are still small houses some in the eight hundred thousand dollar range here you slap an 800 square foot Adu in the backyard that same property will go for 1.3 million minimum many families don't want to rent and you are removing the last remaining properties from Boulders for sale Market that would be affordable to them again most families seek privacy and aren't interested in elaborate loan schemes that require them to have strangers living in their backyards finally I'll just point out that this proposal is severely lacking in real affordability requirements it's a backdoor up zoning of single-family

[127:00] neighborhoods to duplex neighborhoods while some on Council want to impose duplexes on every neighborhood regardless of how the residents feel realize that in Boulder's inelastic demand sellers market for housing you'll simply get two really expensive units per lot instead of one thank you thank you next is Rosemary Hagerty mayor Pro tem this is Ryan and rosemary is not present in Zoom all right then we will move on to Lynn Siegel well said Ron well said and the guy in the white shirt the first one excellent um you know the elephant in the living room is cu and you this Council voted to double the size of Cu so is it any surprise you have problems now in the city with an already inelastic Market as

[128:00] others have described see you put so much pressure on the city everything should be done to cap enrollment and and to to deplete enrollment and see you that is the elephant in the bedroom or in the living room as I say um but as it stands something and I don't live around there okay but see you affects me on the North perimeter of Mapleton Hill CU affects this entire every square inch of this town and it certainly impacts those the the people that were speaking earlier tonight and that should definitely be changed in the immediate area all it's going to do is spread the problem out to me because you haven't stopped the real problem which is the size of Cu much of a good thing

[129:00] and you voted for it you wanted it now you got a problem I don't know exactly why adus were entertained tonight because you know you spend all this time and money and staff time working on this stuff when it's going to have to be Revisited after May 8th anyway but clearly what what is going on is this fight between the state and the City and now the state is trying to impose on the city with its University and you know the the first guy in the white shirt for some reason my name's up now I have the timer finally you know but I the first guy his name wasn't up on the screen and so I have to use four words to describe him the guy in the white shirt you know why can't I know my community

[130:02] members you know since the pandemic I'm not gonna know anyone new in another 10 years because I don't know who my public is I'm sequestered from knowing who they are that's a problem um so the Adu situation needs to be accepted clearly for for the university area and and for small living units there should be nothing smaller than 400 feet in Boulder for a person to live in and there's plenty of projects being approved for 300 feet and that's what's driving up the density and all the problems that you're talking about tonight with adus thank you Lynn oh you nope your time is up if you've got more comments please email them to us thank you all right with that we will close the

[131:01] public hearing and turn back to council for comments before entertaining a motion do I hear any comments oh mayor Pro tem this is Ryan I'm just saying that Rosemary has joined here if you uh would like to have her speak during the public hearing I am opening the public hearing and allowing Rosemary to speak um I appreciate you letting me speak I had a little trouble finding my link to get on so um I am not completely 100 opposed to adus being allowed in Boulder I they obviously already are allowed in Boulder I am opposed to this free-for-all of adus being able to put on without any dependency on the size of

[132:00] the lot without any consideration of how many edus are in the neighborhood without any consideration of parking I feel like and I believe historically one of the reasons why Boulder put some limits on adus was what happened with lower Mapleton um lower Mapleton Pine that neighborhood because it it was a free-for-all in the 70s and 80s and became this unbelievably dense neighborhood because there were no regulations and now we want to go backwards and completely take all regulations away again um I think another consideration I haven't heard a lot of people speaking talking about is I really fear that if we keep allowing people to do whatever they want to with their property as far as building adus is that especially if

[133:01] it happens with the smaller homes on smaller lots that we're just again removing lower level houses the cheapest houses in our community are going to be just have their prices increased and making them even more unaffordable and I I get the desire I mean I've lived in my home for almost 30 years I get the desire to say gosh I could build an Adu in my backyard because now it doesn't matter if I have a backyard anymore because there's no regulations around that and then I can either move into the Adu and rent out my house and make a lot of money but I don't want to do that because I don't want to take yet another home away from a young family that might be able to afford to buy my home at some time but if I bought but if I build an Adu in the backyard it's going to make it even more unaffordable and

[134:00] I just hope that we look at the big picture you know I'm not even and and I really hope that we protect the small single-family home neighborhoods that are already struggling so the hill Martin Acres where we just have so much density already and we're struggling with students we're struggling with parking we're struggling with trash that at least those neighborhoods get some protection from having to deal with a mass amount of adus thank you very much I appreciate your time thank you Rosemary and now the public hearing is really truly closed I'm going to turn this back to council for comments I think you had a question yes I did just one one more question for Steph sorry one of the commenters made me wonder about this um who is it that builds the adus because somebody mentioned you know it's developers kind of coming in building more 80s and things but if the if we

[135:01] have the owner occupancy requirement is it developers who are building the edus and um yeah start with that question so that because of the owner occupancy requirement it has to be somebody that's living on site so the property owner maybe their profession is a developer but they have to live there on site so um for the most part I would say it's homeowners who are either converting a part of their existing house or they're constructing a detached unit okay thank you and then I mean to that point too right if owners are having to live there then I mean this is feels a little different to me than if somebody were just to like build a big apartment building or something on their spot right because the owners there and I have lived next to actually right above in an apartment um party units and it's no fun especially if you've got little kids but if you own the place then it feels like um I don't know do we see fewer complaints than owner occupied units or anything like that or do you know it's not something that we've tracked necessarily

[136:01] um but we did as I mentioned earlier we did look at the enforcement data and there just wasn't any real difference between properties that have an Adu and other Residential Properties you get typical like snow shoveling issues and things like that at any residential property but and our Enforcement Officers really don't know the difference between properties that like just a single family home or a single family home with an Adu yep okay thank you inspired by my colleague council member spear I am I have a couple of quick questions um was any thought actually given to protecting the university adjacent communities and if so in what form absolutely so that was something that came up early in this project I think during our study session even we discussed that it also was something raised by planning board and early discussions as well so it's something we've been analyzing throughout this project they're kind of three main points for the reasons why we decided to move forward with an ordinance that doesn't

[137:00] specify or carve out specific neighborhoods the first is looking at all of those other cities around the country that don't have a saturation limit and use their existing zoning standards as the protection for those standards you know no other cities and we looked at a lot of other university cities that would have similar issues with college neighborhoods no one else uses a saturation limit or has to specify specific neighborhoods so that was informative secondly we as I mentioned the saturation limit only applies in two of our zoning districts we allow adus and other zoning districts so we looked at the difference between the areas that have saturation limits and the areas that don't have saturation limits so like our rmx1 Sony District allows adus but doesn't have a saturation limit we didn't see a difference in the enforcement issues in those areas that have saturation limits versus the ones that don't and then the third point is again going back to what I said before talking to our enforcement officers and they don't see a difference between typical residential property and a

[138:01] property with an Adu so kind of with those three things in mind and we did we University Hill was at our community conversation Carl and I went on a walking tour of University Hill it's definitely been a part of the conversation and we've been discussing it with residents over all of this process of this put putting together the ordinance but we really landed on their not being a significant difference for those specific neighborhoods in terms of impacts that we were seeing from adus just through the analysis that we're able to do and in an area like Martin Acres where you have small Lots small houses generally do these properties even have the far to permit adus that's a that's a helpful um clarification that I can make so um as I mentioned with that complicated slide with all this the standards there's the floor area that's allowed on a site so you can either do it with a single family home or single family home

[139:01] with an Adu so depending on how large the site the lot is they might not have the ability to you know max out the size of the Adu if their building coverage is already over whatever that limit is they can't add they can't take advantage of the full size so it depends a lot on the size of the lot and what the the existing structure is that's there so it kind of tapers and changes based on the existing lot and then one other point that I just thought of related to kind of the University adjacent neighborhoods is going back to the owner occupancy in neighborhoods where there are a lot of rentals that means that those rental properties can are not eligible for adus so there's actually fewer properties because there's fewer owner occupied thoughts thank you my very last question are you going to be tracking data on this is assuming we move forward with this this evening and can you come back to us in a year or two years and tell us what you found absolutely I think that that's the plan and we now have the you know all of the data that we tracked for

[140:01] this most recent evaluation and then if there are specific items that we want to be sure to track we can also add that on and be sure we're tracking it but I think the incremental approach that we've been doing with adus has been really helpful and informative okay thank you now we will turn back to council for comments yes um Macho first first off a great job on the presentation and not just the presentation but really the work and the thoughtfulness to get to this place um and so I want to thank the team going back years from when the adus were really just Cur you know when we did that Ras substantive Adu update I believe in 2018 um just great job and I think if we recall in 2018 that was done with the idea of monitoring and then understanding and do we want to evolve and here we are at a place where we've monitored and we've seen the value of it and the need to expand and this is why I think this is so great and the the considerations to remove those barriers and to be thoughtful and recognize the natural

[141:01] barriers that exist with all the rentals that we have in our community and some of these Lots not even being big enough to allow for them I think are naturally creating almost saturation limits in a natural setting while still lowering the barriers of entry for those that want to so I just commend the work of staff to navigate and really understand those nuances in a complex and detailed manner so I thank you very much I'll just say in general I love where this is at this is the kind of the exact Evolution that I was hoping that we would get to after what five years since it's real sort of modified Inception um so I I I love it um so I just want to say good job and I hope that we can get this done as I indicated in my hotline post I'd like to um first of all I completely agree with Matt you guys did a great job I think this is this is great work I was on the council five years ago when when we made changes and we knew that I think we even said out loud back then we know we're not getting exactly right and

[142:00] we'll probably come back in a few years and here we are so thank you so much for tracking things over the last four or five years and bringing us some um what I think are relatively modest amendments but important amendments to our Adu rules uh I think it was important that Lisa pointed out to us that um this won't go into effect until September one so we you guys need a little bit of time to to do some process and whatnot over the course of the summer that's entirely understandable I like to to move that we continue this hearing hopefully only two weeks it'll be up to CAC but we'll continue this hearing um as one or two the speakers pointed out there's um a parallel activity going on down in Denver um relating to um uh a lot of things but one of them is is adus and um that um football has bounced to lots of different directions over the last week or two as a matter of fact we've got one set of um of rules or Bill that's pending in front of the house and other in the Senate and they're completely different and they're going to somehow reconcile them over the weekend because the legislature adjourns on at midnight on Monday and so I think

[143:01] in the next four days we're gonna have a pretty good idea some of the things that the legislature has talked about doing with adus I think are just fine they're very compatible with what our staff recommends to us some of them are probably incompatible and may cause us to want to do something slightly different and so for that reason like I I asked my Council colleagues if we could continue this I think it's going to pass I think it's going to pass unanimously but I think it would be maybe not smart of us to pass this now and then get some surprise over the weekend about what the state legislature does and then have to go back and change things based upon what we see in the legislature we will know in four days what the legislature will do and hopefully that will allow us to go forward with what staff is recommended here but I'd like to continue the hearing for a very very short time just to get us past the legislative session so we're not we're not making this decisions in an atmosphere of uncertainty any thoughts comments then I'll speak to that um I think that's actually a reasonable suggestion I'm very concerned if we if

[144:02] we can't use parking um to incentivize affordability how exactly are we going to do that and we've had very good success so far with with getting affordable adus and I think that's a really important thing for us and and if we are not able to do that I would want us to discuss how else can we do that because you have to you you have to provide some incentive for affordability and parking I think is is a major issue um and this is going to pass in one form or another I just don't see that there's any particular harm in understanding exactly what we have to do and if we have to make any last minute tweaks in order to deal with whatever it is the state does and I you know I just I just think it's operating on a a better base of

[145:01] knowledge we're not going to not pass Adu reform it's just a question of is there anything we need to address going forward um with respect to things like affordability because we've had a great track record on that really good and I I would not I would not want to um disincentivize people from going down that route because simply because of State action and uh they will do what they do but if we need to address that I would like us to at least be able to do that as I said this is going to pass uh Bob said it's going to pass unanimously I suspect that's correct but I want to at least give us the option of discussing uh anything we might want to do to cope with overriding State legislation

[146:01] well Lauren is first I know I'm way down here I'm hard to see um I can't see anywhere so again just want to Echo what everyone is saying in terms of I really appreciate you what has been brought forward um especially all the boring bits those are really great all those parts that we're not talking about that are about sort of the code cleanup aspects I really appreciate that you guys went there and got those um I I hear what you guys are saying in terms of your concerns about what might come forward with um the how with what's going on than the state legislature I also I'm concerned about what's on our plate and in front of us for our schedule um and so since this is not going into effect

[147:01] until September anyway my inclination is to move forward with what we have because I do think that this is a really great package and with what I know now it yeah I fully support it um if things come up with what comes forward with the state legislature we always have time to address them before this goes into effect anyway and so I would rather have us do that if we need to and move forward with this as it is with what we know now you my colloquy I guess my question is if we have a busy schedule taking this up Anew would probably be more work than in two weeks taking a look at what we've got and dealing with it at that time I don't I don't know that there's a danger or a loss to us

[148:02] um they said it's going to pass and it's just it's just a question of whether we take the opportunity to review what comes out of the state and we you know depending upon there may be no bill who knows at this point but it would be useful I think for us to vote on this in in two weeks um and there's no that could be a rather quick conversation and I I just don't know that there's a downside yeah oh yeah no I do not um so a process question about sort of if we were to wait um we obviously have this package right here ready to go we've had our public hearing if we hear when this legislative session comes to an end and it's kind of no changes from the state level can we just pass this on consent do we do we have to have any sort of larger ordeal that comes with it if we wait two weeks

[149:01] or or do we have some extra process that has to occur I'm just sort of wondering in certain scenarios is this really just a streamlined thing of just vote Yes and move on rather than a drawn out process that may impact our work schedule so I'm just sort of curious about those process uh Forks in the road I'm happy to answer your question I hopefully I get I heard it correctly but it sounds to me like you're wondering whether or not they would if there's a continuation whether there would be an additional public hearing or if you would just go straight into deliberations and the answer to that is that is entirely up to the council to decide that so you could structure it in one way or the other and if I may add to Brad Mueller director planning and development services up we would obviously want to follow the will of council if this were brought forward in two weeks and taken off consent I would point out at that point we would probably recommend that if the council wanted to react to anything that was in the state

[150:00] bill but that would probably open up a need for a public process and those types of things which which obviously would be your purview as well um the bill as it currently is set up doesn't require jurisdictions to take action on it for two years so that may be something just for the the group to be aware of as well plus any litigation that follows so for clarity for two years we could do as we please yes okay as the Bill's currently written okay and Carl I believe is monitoring Carl Castillo so he can keep us honest on those details too Joni welcome thank you so much I'm sorry I couldn't be here any sooner than I am right now because I am at the Capitol and um it's the last three days of session so I had some other bills I had to attend to but I I am sorry to community members who felt that I should have been

[151:00] here earlier and I intended to but just the schedule did not work out but I'm glad to be here at this time thank you you're welcome so I think Brad you just asked some of my answered some of my questions but um I kind of just had a question around you know what what the timeline for any changes would be um if we were to pass this tonight for example um and then say something does happen at the State uh in the next few days I mean what what is or or if we weren't to pass it tonight right I mean is it possible that we would come back in two weeks and folks would have sort of assessed the legislation that you all would have had time to look at it think about impacts and give us another proposal in that time because that feels like a really short amount of time to me yeah yeah so I I think you know if we were to if you were to decide to bring It Forward two weeks from now um it certainly would give all of us

[152:01] time to understand what the bill said and be able to acknowledge its potential interaction with the ordinances we've brought it forward um you know the planning process though so if um direction for Council from that point were okay because it says this then let's do this I just wanted to alert you that that would then probably mean you know additional time we wouldn't uh probably want to rush to bring you some revised ordinance that struck a few words here and there because presumably it would relate to other things like um uh the fact that it maybe wouldn't be owner occupied or parking or some of the things that you've all identified so uh certainly probably no harm no foul in just simply bringing it forward in two weeks I just wanted to kind of think ahead beyond that to kind of some of the different you know ways that that would go at that point sure thank you

[153:00] oh Brad Brad don't go too far because I so I guess I'm just trying I mean I'm trying to understand the Nuance here um given that there might be a two-year Delay from any state action to take effect for 213. I got that um my question and maybe it's about how many adus are we I mean I'm wondering are do we hurt ourselves in terms of having our ordinance create affordability and create adus if we are sort of held up in process um versus like if we passed it tonight and said go and then we see State bill when the state Bill comes in and says okay we're going to have to change things and we got a long process are we going to have edu applications and anything like in that time frame and or is this such a long Runway that over the next five six months no matter what we're doing we're not really going to see an impact even if we pass something tonight so I'm just trying to understand like do we have an opportunity to unleash somebody to use while other things are percolating right through process or are we sort of holding

[154:01] everything in its current state in the meantime yeah I'm not sure I can quite answer that councilman because um that that's a bit of a policy answer to answer that other than we do regularly get applications for adus and we would anticipate those to continue to come in thank you that was all of my questions I just um just have a couple comments I think for me the the question that I'm thinking about is what's going to change in two weeks regarding you know the this this particular iteration of this ordinance we've got two years to adjust to changes and to to do kind of a more thorough feedback process if if that feels like it's needed so for me I don't really think that anything I'm gonna I'm not going to be sitting here in two weeks in a different spot so I I'd like to get this passed tonight and just let stuff cross this off their to-do list and we can come back to it if it if it feels like things need to change

[155:01] no no I'm sorry yeah and just to kind of piggyback on that I think that you know we again don't know what's in the house bill at this point and we don't know how substantial or not the changes we might want to make are and again we also all have a heavy workload ahead of us and it might be something that we choose to take up and postpone some action on something else but it might not it might be something that becomes the work of the next Council or you know there is time to address that whatever comes out of the state legislature and I don't want to put us in a point where we're having to make a tough call in the next couple you know that we could have avoided yeah I when when Bob suggested this I thought it made sense but now in hearing

[156:01] that it's going to be uh not much is going to be available to us to like quickly edit in two weeks and it's going to take two years really to know I think we're better off to vote tonight a little bit with a caveat I think it would be you know unfortunate if that being out there uh with well juny's here now so it's not going to be as as lopsided perhaps um you know I'm a little bit worried about like the potential of a something that we're all so so supportive of having like a four to three vote so I don't know how people are going to vote but I think that would be an unfortunate consequence so if that was going to change in two weeks I might um you know be okay with the delay but I just it doesn't seem like we're going to have much more information in two weeks so that means it's going to be potentially um a lengthy delay and and I'm very excited and want to reiterate gratitude to staff for great work and especially Lisa um so and Carl

[157:01] great job thanks might I suggest a straw poll or show offense Bob yeah I just wanted to react a couple things people said that they we won't know anything more in two weeks of course we'll know something more in two weeks we're gonna know what the state bill is because the state Bill's got to be passed or not passed between now and and Monday night at midnight so we're gonna know a lot more um and one of two things that's going to happen either either whatever comes out of the legislature and it could be nothing we'll have no impact on what we're doing in which case we can pass this on consent in two weeks easy peasy because we've done all the work or or something's going to Big come out of the legislature that's going to cause us to want to fiddle with this thing and the question is do we want to pass something now knowing that we might need to fiddle with it and I realize we'll have two years to fiddle with it or some months to fiddle with it so so why I don't understand what the rush is here to vote tonight I I think some I will vote no if we vote tonight I will likely vote Yes if we vote in two weeks so maybe you don't care maybe there's a majority of ones to vote yet I don't want to vote it against this thing I want to vote Yes on this thing but I want to vote with

[158:00] understanding and knowledge about what the state's going to do and whether we have to make some changes or not so I don't know what the rush is this is not going to happen until September 1 anyway and I don't know what the rush is to do something tonight as opposed to two weeks from now on consent so um I I'll just make a motion and see if it succeeds to continue this hearing for two weeks with a request to CAC that it'd be scheduled on the consent agenda in favor I'm sorry I'll second it then all in favor okay the motion does not succeed so now we are back to consideration of emotion to adopt the ordinance would somebody like to make that motion to adopt ordinance 8571

[159:00] do I need to read the whole thing yes okay thank you all right amending section 4-20-18 rental license fee Title IX land use code and title 10 structures the RC 1981 to update the regulations for accessory dwelling units and setting forth related details second so I will vote Yes because of the overwhelming advantage of what the staff has put together is is worthy of a positive vote um and I hope I hope that we don't look back two weeks from now and say gosh I wish we would have waited um nothing would make me happier than to be wrong about that so I hope the legislature doesn't do anything that screws up what we're trying to do tonight if it does then I guess we're just gonna have to come back and fix what we're doing tonight so I will vote in favor can I make a comment certainly thank you so much I had my hand raised you just didn't see me

[160:00] um I was gonna say even though Bob's motion fell earlier um I did agree with him because as of right now on the house floor there are debates that is happening and there are amendments being made to this bill so ultimately the bill I mean I trust that Carl Castillo is keeping all of us abreast of what's going on at the legislature But ultimately there could be change through throughout this process we're on second reading we're going on third reading there could be cow amendments so but we've already voted I will vote yesterday again because we're doing great work and that just ensure that staff continue on with the work and if they're strict uh if we have to trip the work as we're moving forward then so be it but I did agree with Bob's proposition at first thank you yes you may I just wanted to uh to to respond to you Bob I mean I definitely appreciate this perspective right we may be coming back and asking for changes

[161:01] um I think you know one one of the important things for me just given how full the rest of our work plan is and how quickly the time of this council is running out um I I would like to have some time to think about how we schedule this in if there are changes and um anyway so that's just just want to say like I'm not saying we're I'm not interested in changing things down the road I just I with how full our work plan is I would really like to be thoughtful about how we're changing that and not be trying to kind of rush to react to um to the bill so I think we've got you know we've got two years I think we've got a lot of folks here who are very interested in making sure that um that we're adjusting to the bill if we need to so anyway but thank you thank you for that perspective Juni I'm very very helpful any further comments is a roll call vote it is we'll start the roll call on tonight's public hearing with council member Yates

[162:00] yes Benjamin yes rocket or sorry Rock no folk Arts yes council member friend yes Joseph yes yes council member spear yes and mayor Pro tem Wallach yes and me I'm sorry about that and council member weiner yes yes okay ordinance 8571 is hereby adopted with a vote of eight to zero okay um city manager do you have anything further to discuss in terms of your matters not anything that's noticed for but certainly happy to take questions if there are at the end of the meeting okay I have one all right I have a question okay ask all right

[163:00] um uh council's I was hoping we could tackled this earlier in the meeting um we've been receiving a number of emails with regarding South Boulder rec center and rumors of its imminent closure it seems so I was hoping that uh perhaps our esteemed city manager could uh respond to those rumors and sort of help set some of the record and of course maybe some of that process straight for the community should they still be listening or want to watch this tomorrow in their lunch break and free time and other Great Moments to check out a council meeting I just ask a quick process question which is is I don't know that we've moved on to discussion or debrief and I don't want to I don't know if it's appropriate to do this under Matters from mayor and counselor city manager attorney so if you could just make sure that we're at where we need to be in the agenda for that question thank you for bringing that up and yes you are check it out thank you so I believe that we should save this for the debrief discussion portion is

[164:00] what you're saying yes so if you could hold that I am happy to respond to that after the matters after the next item that's on and this is discussion on Council support or quote role of government unquote training for boards and commission members is that all right if I if I speak to that mayor Pro tem yes you may all right um so this came out of the racial Equity committee um a couple weeks ago and um they were talking about how they're starting to roll out the role of government training that I think most if not all of us have taken at this point for board and commission members and that they were trying to recruit board and commission members to take these trainings and so one of the things that we talked about there was having a letter or email be sent on behalf of council to the board and commission members just encouraging them to take this training so that was kind of the question for Council is would folks be supportive of council

[165:01] sending out an email to recommend board and commission members take this training and if so how would we like to do that it appears that it's unanimous okay and have any ideas or preferences on how that is done second part of the question um is that something that staff can draft so that we don't have to spend like we've been in a situation before where we like fought over commas and periods and stuff and Council meetings we are certainly happy to do that if that is a will Council be careful of the comments however um do we have any other items can I mention one one more thing just about that but I think the trainings were starting up really soon uh the first one was maybe sometime late May or early June so I guess I'm I'm just wondering if if somebody is able to draft that if

[166:00] we can kind of all commit to looking it over and and getting feedback back relatively quickly so that this will be useful okay we defer to your commitment and I see lots of head nods so we will get that sent to you soon okay okay seeing nothing else um I'm happy then to get back to that question Okay I uh I I it's unfortunate that mayor Brockett could not be here tonight I am grateful for your Indulgence as I stagger through this meeting um and uh with that I'm happy to get to that question that Matt posed earlier okay thank you so thanks so much council member um Benjamin so the the reports of the demise of the South Boulder Rec Center are greatly exaggerated that it's not what is happening I will make sure that our director of Parks and Recreation sends out a hotline and more detail um but they are in the midst of Parks and Rec in the midst of sort of doing uh planning it is outdated building and

[167:03] certainly some of the questions are do we serve you well and what other things perhaps uh would you like to see in the rec center so there has been in the survey um I believe there is the word repurpose and perhaps folks have taken that to mean that we are doing something away we're doing away with the building and that is not the case but we certainly want to know that if there is more of an interest in one activity versus another then we'd like to know what that is so I will ask the director to send you a much more comprehensive note in the morning but please know that we are not indeed closing South Boulder Rec Center thank you very much can I just comment on on the repurpose word and just to emphasize like um I was surprised when when a Community member wrote that that was verbiage in in um the survey and I I do think that repurposing a building sure sounds like it could be uh you know in the context of a Parks and Rec discussion becoming something that's not Parks and Rec so that would be really

[168:01] helpful I think to clarify um really pointedly and I don't know if we can change a survey at this point but if we're really not looking at repurposing away from Parks and Rec uses uh I think we're we're freaking people out I don't know if anybody else had another question no all right I think that finally brings us to the end of our agenda and at 8 47 I'm gambling this to a close [Music] foreign [Music]

[169:00] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[170:06] foreign [Music] foreign

[171:00] [Music] foreign [Music] foreign [Music]

[172:24] [Music] foreign [Music] [Music] foreign [Music]

[173:22] [Music] thank you [Music]