August 8, 2024 — City Council Special Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:28] e e

[1:28] e e

[2:28] e e

[3:28] e e

[4:28] e e

[5:17] it's 6 o'clock we don't have Lauren yet I text her haven't heard back yet but if uh how about we well if we can start the recording please good evening and welcome everyone to the Thursday August 8th special meeting of the Boulder City Council I'm going to go ahead and call us to order and Elish if you could do the roll call

[6:03] please yes sir thank you and good evening everyone we'll start tonight's roll call as usual with council member Adams present Benjamin present mayor Brockett present council member falr present Marquis present shoard here mayor Pro Tim spear present council member wallik here and Wier present mayor we have our quum very good thank you all right I would now request a motion to amend the agenda to add item 2 C which is consideration of a motion to initiate and pursue litigation against the United States of America the Federal Aviation Administration and Michael G Whitaker in His official capacity is the

[7:00] administrator of the FAA to obtain a Judicial determination of the duration of the city's obligation to continue operating the gold municipal airport so second I got a motion and a second all in favor please raise your hand okay that passes unanimously the agenda has been amended so um and Madam I'm about to go to the consent agenda do you want to just wait a second uh so Elicia if we can go to the consent agenda please yes sir of course our consent agenda is item number two on tonight's agenda and it consists of items 2 a through 2C any questions or comments on the consent agenda go ahead mat uh yeah I just had a kind of a clarifying question this is sort of for Teresa to help clarify um was wondering

[8:00] if you could um really just maybe now that the the litigation is out in the public maybe just provide a little extra context for the community as to you know why why we're doing this and why now um because there's been a lot of questions about timing and hopefully that's something that that you could respond to that doesn't um interfere with with our normal sort of legal advice um for for the city and certainly with the city attorney's office yeah I'm happy to respond to that uh Council as you know you and instructed the city manager to contact the FAA to get information about the faa's position with respect to the city's Grant assurances and Grant obligations the FAA weighed in with that perspective and their um opinion was that those assurances and obligations last into perpetuity the city disagrees with that characterization and so we're seeking a Judicial determination about how long the Grant assurances in cumber the

[9:00] property at the airport I want to be very clear that that's the only issue whether to close the airport or not has not been decided and this litigation won't decide that um in fact what it will do is clarify whether the grant obligations last into perpetuity which will help us determine whether that our land is encumbered and whether we want to make future decisions around accepting new grants or not is that helpful absolutely I really appreciate that Clarity just we've been getting a lot of emails and there's a lot of maybe confusion as to the why so thank you for clarifying that Teresa greatly appreciate it yeah thanks so so much for that Teresa and Matt I appreciate that I was going to ask a similar question so what we're doing here is seeking Clarity rather than determining any particular future for the airport correct that's absolutely right great thanks for that anything else on the consent agenda team

[10:04] yeah and just a follow-up question do we have any rough idea about the timeline on how litigation like this might work unfortunately we don't have um any sense of that this was filed in federal court currently federal courts are setting trials for two years or so out um so you know it we we believe most of the arguments here are legal and are not factual so it could go faster than that but unfortunately there's just simply no telling all right not seeing anything else perhaps someone would offer a motion I make a motion to pass our consent agenda second we got a motion in a second uh if you can do roll call please

[11:03] Elisha yes sir our roll call for tonight's consent agenda items 2 a through 2C will begin with council member Adams yes Benjamin yes mayor Brockett yes council member fits yes marus yes shoard yes mayor Pro Tim spear yes council member wall yes and Wier yes the consent agenda is hereby approved for items 2A through 2C unanimously thank you and if you could take us to our public hearing please Elicia all right our public hearing is item number two three on tonight's agenda 3A is the second reading and

[12:00] consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8637 repealing and reenacting chapter 10-25 abatement of public nuisances brc1 1981 expanding the city's local nuisance laws to redefine public nuisance and create a chronic nuisance designation and amending chapter 10-3 rental licenses BRC 1981 to align with the changes made to chapter 10 -25 and setting forth related details SN you want to kick us off I will indeed um thank you mayor and uh before I turn it over to our director of planning and development services Brad Mueller I'll say this is work that is certainly familiar to you all uh it started uh just before I arrived in Boulder has been uh and actually even before then is there were conversations about this with um some of our partners on the hill uh but in Earnest with Council uh as

[13:02] part of a council priority um prior to my arrival and has continued throughout um but I'll I wanted to call out before I pass it on to Brad that um this is one of those efforts uh as I always try to highlight that is truly cross- departmental um not only has planning and development services really carried this and is why Brad will be um moving that forward and we have uh outside consultant Amanda Nagel who you have seen in some of our presentations and she has been phenomenal in hurting the many many cats in the city uh that have been working on this but commun uh Communications and engagement and in particular I will shout out Neighborhood Services um a variety of attorneys in our city attorney's office it has been tremendous in doing some of the deep deep data analysis uh police and fire Have Been instrumental HHS and here I especially call out our folks in community mediation and the resolution center and

[14:02] Municipal Court a big huge effort here as we have done a lot of work in this but today we bring forward um sort of one of the last pieces or one of the last stools in this or legs in the stools of the work um in terms of The Chronic nuisance ordinance so with that Brad I will turn it to you you are muted thank you I going to go ahead and ask the clerk's office to please share if you would screen share thank you Alicia well good evening uh council members we are very happy to be here this evening to be able to present this to you after the uh April 25th study session we heard the feedback that you gave us thank you and we're back now after uh incorporating those and and doing some additional iterative work on

[15:02] it as we committed to um as nria mentioned this is uh a project that has been as cross- departmental as I have experienced in my time in the in the uh City and really appreciated the uh the ever evolving group of folks that were heavily involved in this the uh two key folks that you'll hear from in addition myself are Amanda Nagel who is our consultant uh the city's consultant from unlocking government uh as the primary lead on this and Laura wit who is with the attorney city attorney's office as assistant City attorney uh who helped a lot with the um work as n me mentioned you can go to the next slide please so we discussed this in uh detail at the study session but just a quick reminder of why there was impetus around revising the various nuisances law that the city had historically had um on on

[16:04] one hand it was it was quite straightforward as a council priority but uh more importantly it was really in response to the feedback that uh the community was getting on a regular basis or a growing basis I should say uh in terms of the accountability for uh property owners and just really creating the predictability and consistency that's uh desire of all of our uh laws and rules within the city fundamentally this is about helping people about uh helping tenants uh neighbors who were also tenants and Neighbors on on different properties and you can see that this uh list of purposes really speaks to all that uh Clarity on what the escalation would be um uh recognizing that uh the clarity for accountabil and really taking a holistic uh look at

[17:02] the information uh that's available and treating it at an equitable way uh rather than the um somewhat uh random way I guess I would say under the the current ordinance can move to the next slide please uh there are many ways to look at when this initiative uh may have started in terms of the momentum but we'll start by going back to 2020 and there was uh a continuation and maybe formalization of some of the community conversation around that the um key groups that were involved at the beginning were the hill revitalization working group and the um neighborhood ass University Hill neighborhood association those um groups were able to identify various Nu nuisance behaviors and and raise up the issue which then in 2021 um got more attention uh as a large

[18:03] disturbance took place on the hill and at that point uh there was some limited data study done uh CU also became a close partner in the conversations uh the Boulder area realator or residential Housing Association uh became involved as well and um and the data collection started in 2022 uh nura introduced to council uh a comprehensive work plan for um all items addressing quality of life as a broader um broader topic uh recognizing that uh it wasn't just one thing it wasn't just an ordinance it wasn't uh just a uh enforcement matter it was about relationships relationships with the university with um properties on the hill and increasingly in recognition

[19:02] that um the these types of potential chronic conditions were existing um throughout the city and in in other parts of of in other neighbors um you had seen uh following that time work on Weeds and trash ordinance for example uh the development of a landlord notification system and other items that we talked about in greater deta detail at the time of uh the study session a couple months ago at that point uh a work item was identified and in 2023 we began in Earnest uh with the work of talking to various uh community members and agencies uh again won't identify all of them as as n spoke to much of that um but uh but working with those in an iterative way based on the data uh research that was available and also increasingly using the racial Equity

[20:02] instrument as I'll speak to in the next slide uh that resulted in work early this year of um working in particular with some Community member uh groups and the study session I talked about earlier if you could please Advance the slide thanks so as I indicated this is really just one of many quality of life initiatives uh that's being brought for you uh this evening uh we won't go through those again of course um but uh just keeping in mind that that really is the broader umbrella upon which this sit there was an initial idea that this could be uh managed as just a revision upon additional work and and looking at the peer communities which are part of your packet we recognized that it was important to uh overhaul it in part because of ambiguity and uncertainties uh as we discovered that the core team within the city expanded

[21:00] and became broader as different disciplines were brought in recognizing that it it touched on many different areas and as part of that too we identified a number of values and intentions early on uh to keep that core focus and we talked about those again at the study session in some detail uh I'll speak to the uh things that we learned about the ra uh use utilizing the racial Equity instrument in the next slide uh but just emphasizing the iterative dialogue that we've had uh since the beginning and um also detailing some of the changes after the study session here a little bit further if you could please Advance the slide the racial Equity uh instrument was adopted early in the process and iterated as is its intention it's it's meant to be a disruptor to inform uh the process to inform uh staff that are working on it um after the initial uh engagement that took place in the um

[22:04] middle part of last summer early part of last summer uh there was an opportunity to recognize that uh we could really facilitate more research and also uh additional uh conversations with the community Through enhanced or additional engagement uh the tool helped Focus us on a variety of adjustments you can see those in the final bullet point there uh which are some samples of that but those include such items as uh adding categories as it turns out a couple times uh for the number of dwelling units and the threshold of violations associated with that uh defining conflict resolution at early stages and and other mechanisms if you could please Advance again we talked about this a good deal during the study session about the orientation of uh the approach and philosophy towards um revising the

[23:01] ordinance but I'll just emphasize here again that it has always been wrapped in data whether it were component parts such as the landlord notification tool and education or the work that we did in in getting data from other cities um and recognizing that after the ordinance is adopted um any uh there'll be additional data in its application and administration and and even the organizational structure moving forward next slide please we also uh highlighted this chart at the time of the study session um I won't go through these all again in in great detail uh but I just will emphasize that the changes from the current code to the updated code are about making the ordinance and um tools more clear making them more effective than uh a history of administrative showed that it had been pre previously making more Equitable uh across

[24:02] different property types and throughout the city and ultimately just making it more predictable for uh for everybody involved next slide please we talked during the study session about the number of off ramps and and described that uh another way of um summarizing that is in this slide and the protections that are available to property owners who are engaged and at the end of the day uh the goal of all of our compliance efforts or enforcement efforts Citywide uh whether we're talking about uh enforcement on mismanaged storm water drains or uh building permits or what have you is to Mar to work excuse me work towards compliance it is not about penalties per se but we also know that there are a small number of property owners that uh simply are unresponsive who are not uh uh reacting or acting uh

[25:04] when they are given the single uh public nuisance uh violation uh citations and then as those accumulate to become a chronic condition not um not responding as well and so these added tools and Clarity are really intended to address um those property owners that are simply not being responsive we're not acting in uh the faith of the tenants of neighboring tenants neighboring Property Owners uh but in many cases simply ignoring uh the city's uh efforts to work with them we in we anticipate that the number of properties um that may be subject to this could be as low as 20 to 10 to 20 a year and you can see here again some of the key uh off-ramps for Property Owners such as self-reporting

[26:00] and um and the abatement agreement which we talked in again in more detail during the study session next slide please uh We've highlighted engagement a couple times but just to summarize it uh again the recognition that uh the basis for an ordinance a solid basis for an ordinance is historic data and using uh a sample size from the past to determine what that threshold of um the highest number of violator or repeat uh violators is and where that Tipping Point lie um so in that vein worked to um uh work with properties that may have historically been uh identified if they'd been under the current or under the proposed ordinance and then the various groups that you see in the in the first bullet point uh as well as uh engagement with CU who was an early

[27:00] partner in some of these uh questions and conversations uh there has been an ongoing project page on the website um for over a year now and and again I'll emphasize just the iterative nature of our conversations with Community Partners could advance to the next slide this is similar to uh a slide that we talked about also during the study session of what uh Was Heard and changed in the earlier um stages of Engagement uh again we knew that there was a history of confusion around um the nature of these uh nuisances U both those as public nuisances the individ in other words the individual nuisance violations and then the accumulation or The Chronic U nature of that and so changed that to uh provide Clarity and um did provide as as part of the ongoing communication and annotated orance so

[28:01] folks could understand those changes uh there were questions around the purpose and that led to the values and intention statement that we've referenced before there were concerns about the vulnerable po populations and uh understandably any unintended consequences and uh out of that uh became uh additional use and iteration of the racial Equity instrument as well as a strategy development for both Outreach and and the intent again and there was a concern about unfair distribution of uh larger developments which resulted in changes from the number of tiers and also um ensuring that the the uh units uh per tier were fairly distributed uh after the single family uh category next slide please there were things that were not changed uh as with any uh iterative process uh we felt uh there were there

[29:02] were comments about uh whether criminal Behavior or behavior in general um was appropriate in the property violations uh noise violations were one of the earliest concerns that were brought up as a nuisance and then a recognition that other types of behavior um were uh were appropriate as well so in working with um um the police department and and other enforcement considerations uh the recognition that criminal uh certain types of criminal elements uh were important to be maintained as we highlighted in the study session uh there's a very deliberate exclusion of uh crimes that involve victims and and we talked about that as you'll recall in some detail uh there were also uh suggestions about focusing on the dwelling unit versus the

[30:00] property uh we recognized however that dwelling units don't necessarily get to the heart of the property owners um and also that nuisances don't always take place on a property related to a unit an individual unit when you're talking about a multi-unit property um so that was not changed and then finally um there were suggestions all along the way about exemptions or exceptions rather for certain geog graphies certain types of residential uh certain classifications of residential those types of things and at the end we came back to uh our guiding philosophy of wanting to have uh Equity across um the application to all Property Owners um we did hear from the attorney's office that um that there may be some untested legal vulnerability about uh making exceptions for any um various types of of either geographies

[31:01] or building types and ultimately we recognize to that the intent behind the ordinance updates is to protect all property occupants not just some in certain certain properties so that was not changed as well next slide please uh there are two slides here that really speak uh very directly to the different uh iterations and changes since the study session both in feed in response to the feedback we received at the session and the additional engagement that we committed to afterwards uh these are fairly detailed but reflect changes since the ordinance that you saw at that time uh and they include uh updating the legislative intent language at the beginning to make sure that um the intent is around those particularly egregious situations uh we also recognized that um

[32:00] the abatement agreements uh could include terms such as reasonable uh out of respect for concerns from property owners who wanted to make sure that the city was being reasonable in in uh working with them on those agreements again I referenced the crime V victims exemption that was always part of the ordinance but also now expanding it to recognize that their other property uh or other um non-residents that are still regularly on larger properties such as the owner or the operator the parcel uh we also heard feedback about uh what was a preferred timeline or time frame for for the ordinance um particularly as a nod towards the student population and changed the definition of year to be the August uh August start time next slide and continuing on uh

[33:00] the um some property interests uh uh shared that there is a document called a doc demand for compliance uh that they were able to use to bring legal notice um to a u tenant that uh that there may need to be a change in their in their occupancy there and we were able to add that as a defense option as a remedy in and a great an abatement agreement uh there was also an additional defense along those same lines for owners who are already having in place a Affidavit of trespass there was some question about the nature of a violation in the um uh Clause related to violations that are unaddressed and so the term outstanding was added just for clarity there uh that is outstanding unaddressed uh violations and then finally and maybe

[34:02] most significantly was adding an additional threshold or tier rather for the um um thresholds required for the the number of violation so adding that in is detailed in your memo next slide please so where does that bring us tonight uh obviously uh we're coming forward with a recommendation to adopt the ordinance uh if Council does so choose to adopt it uh we recognize that the real work begins of uh implementing the ordinance and that starts with an education strategy uh we will have opportunities uh through the administration and operations element to refine some of our processes uh but as a key element we've really learned the benefit and plan to continue the coordination across cost departments for

[35:00] um all types of enforcement actions so that there's a good coordination and um recognition of of the work we are happy to provide a check-in with Council after 18 months and so our we committing to that as well next slide please with that uh the recommendation is for approval and you can see on the slide here the suggested motion which is also in your packet so that concludes our presentation and we've got uh a group of folks the large group of of staff that have worked on this to help answer questions which we're happy to do at this time thank you great Brad thanks so much for that uh very well done presentation and excellent explanation so why don't we do clarifying questions now then we'll go to the public hearing and then we'll go back to council for discussion so any clarifying questions from Council

[36:02] Members I got Mark and then Nicole uh yeah just a just a couple um with respect to the demand for compliance is there any followup to determine that those um that the compliance has actually been achieved or is that the ban for Compliance Document itself going to be satisfactory um I might ask Laurel to to help me answer that question Laurel wit um but I would say my understanding of the demand for compliance again is a tool that the property uh owner is able to use uh we would have we would have identified different or or the same violations and those would still be accountable under uh you know the enforcement actions that the city is taking uh but I turn to Laurel for any elaboration on that sure happy to thanks

[37:01] Brad um good evening Council my name is lwood I'm with the city attorney's office we did add in some language around this concern in the ordinance um and I'm just going to say the number for the record but it's 10 2.57 so the the defense comes into place if they post this demand and then whether or not the nuisance has been debated within 30 days um so that's the piece that's also tied with the demand they post the demand and it has to be abated for it to be a true defense we we also include it as an option within the abatement agreement in the definition of abatement agreement um so it's also a way that we can negotiate with the landlord um you know if you do this abatement agreement and the nuisance is actually baited um then we can see it as a defense or an off-ramp um as we've been referring to it um for chronic nuisance and does the landlord report back to us or do we inquire of the landlord whether they have in fact um remedy the uh uh the conditions that yeah I believe I believe that would be um on Code Enforcement to see if the

[38:00] nuisance has been Abad but I leave that to Brad if he has a different opinion on that yeah I'm I'm not sure I've got a a real clear answer for you council member because the notice uh of uh that the property owner is giving again might be under certain circumstances that could even be internal to the property and things like that so I think it's running maybe parallel I have to admit I don't have a strong understanding of some of those kind of private tools of uh of the uh you know rental property I might turn to see if Amanda Nagel has some insights into that or I believe Jen Ross as well they may they may have some better insights so Amanda I'll ask you maybe first if you do great I would just say um that um good evening City Council Members thank you so much mayor um I would just say that it is um on the property owner to show that they have complied um once

[39:01] there's been um The Warning Systems have gone into place and they provide the demand for um compliance as a part of their defense it would be upon them to also show that they have fully Abed the issue Jen is there something I'm leaving out there except Amanda can you also introduce yourself and you're welcome oh I'm so sorry I'm Amanda Nagel with unlocking government and have been um a consultant on this project as well as the series of quality of life Improvement projects that we've done um over the last three years pleasure to serve you guys and then Jen you have your hand up yeah can you guys hear me okay or yes so just introduce yourself and go for it great uh gen Ross city of Boulder um I run the Code Compliance division for planning and development services and our Code Compliance case for chronic nuisance wouldn't close until the abatement agreement is satisfy the demand for compliance portion of that is satisfied and we consider the

[40:01] property actually in compliance so we're going to have that uh case stay open until we've achieved compliance and then once we've achieved that compliance we'll close that code case so it's a procedural thing okay and and are all of the uh under the compliance agreement are all of the uh violations intended to be remedied or you know at some point if they drop below the threshold for chronic nuisance designation um you know can somebody just cure seven out of 10 and let the rest go once we and this again is going to be a procedural thing to to hash out a little bit later but normally with our Code Compliance cases we look for the entire case to be resolved before we drop them out of whatever threshold they're at so say

[41:01] we've issued them three notices of agency action which carry civil penalties on them if we had to if they dropped down and they kind of cured everything but they haven't quite cured everything in that case we wouldn't start again with like a number one notice of agency action we'll we'll keep our Threshold at now we're at four now we're at five so it kind of fits in that gen where we're going to keep it at that escalated level until we've achieved compliance I think it's appropriate by that by by the need to escalate to Chronic nuisance we really need to just get it all squared away and then start at zero again um and I know that the in terms of the conditions we can impose uh I guess it's part of the uh the uh agreement to remedy um we've qualified

[42:00] it with the words reasonable and legally enforceable um and I understand legally enforceable that's not problematic to me um but the definition of what constitutes reasonableness has probably been the subject of uh more litigation than almost anything else in in the the field of law um so do you have any concerns about the sort of the fuzziness of that term so certainly happy to have Jen voice in on that as well and I'll just point out we also have uh Chris Reynolds here with the prosecution team who might be able to speak to that as well yeah and I I you know I'd probably defer to Chris a little bit on the reasonable because um we we do look to our court systems we do look to our city attorneys to help us if we're getting into that fuzzy area reasonable um

[43:00] however uh I I consider our business practices already reasonable so I would hope to keep us in that same Lane of reasonableness thinking outside the box let's get this into compliance let's let's make this workout for everybody kind of like path I guess at the end of the day I'm fine with it if it turns out not to be uh workable we can always revisit it at a at a later time and tighten the language so those are my questions and thank you appreciate it thanks Mark and we got lots of hands up so let's see if we can move through these pretty quickly we've got Nicole Matt tasa Tara Ryan thank you um and my questions um are for St related uh they're also related to the um hotlines that came out today is this some okay time to ask those questions Aon please do okay great

[44:00] thank you and I'm Gonna Save my comments and praise um so you know staff I I see Brad you know you used the racial Equity instrument throughout used it repeatedly um to make sure that we were going to get feedback from a lot of different groups um especially those most impacted and I haven't seen any feedback um from all the groups identified or identified for engagement via that instrument um in relation to some of these um the some of the changes especially around exemption that have come in so for example the connectors and residents uh CU groups tenant advisory committee have we heard from them in the past few weeks about some of those stuff um up for discussion and were there any changes that they wanted that you know have not been put out via hotline or anything like that just do we know how they feel about where we are at um thank you for the question council member just so I understand it are you asking if um um some some of the groups that were well I will say all of the groups uh to

[45:01] some extent were uh engaged in the context of the racial Equity instrument are you asking if there were uh specific responses to that relative to the more recent exemption discussion I want correct yeah because I mean we heard like um we got you know a letter from BHP was signed by some of those groups and things but I don't think I've seen anything from the connectors from CU from the tenant advisory committee and I'm just wondering if that's because they haven't yes given us anything or if we just they had haven't had a chance to weigh in uh they've been engaged or representatives of them been engaged along the way uh I will say that BHP is is actually is representing a larger continuing of of housing interest so uh in that context they are but CU and uh the tenant advisory committee uh specifically uh have not reacted to that about uh exclusions of properties or or housing types uh but they would be

[46:00] plugged in enough to be aware of of those discussions yes okay thank you um and just along kind of a similar line around uh engagement there's you we've had a lot of uh diverse feelings in the last few days about um some of the things that have been proposed and I'm just wondering when we have this kind of situation where there's um two kind of different um concerns that are being elevated around a proposed change do we have any mechanisms in place to sort of identify which concerns are G we're giving priority to or kind of who whose final concerns have the the biggest priority as we're in the home stretch sure uh that is that is the charge of staff is to try to bring forward um both the staff recommendation as informed by uh that ongoing dialogue but also to to provide you know recommendation uh we also recognize though that some of those discussions will play out in in a public hearing such as this uh we we are happy to you

[47:01] know continue to give our perspective on on any of those final questions that come forward I do see that Brenda rittenau um is is joining us as well and might have some thoughts that maybe two questions together I'll just add to what Brad just mention you introduce yourself Brenda oh sorry Brenda written hour um with communication and engagement one of our community engagement managers for the city um and I'll just share that you know typically what we do particularly when a process and a conversation with you all has gone on over a course of months is we continue to gather feedback all along the way and you'll have all that feedback in front of you so if you're not seeing something in front of you it's because it's not something that we've received since last time we spoke with you um and what we like to do is just make sure that you're aware of all of the feedback that we've gotten staff will come forward with their recommendation to you but we do always try and make sure you're aware of everything we're hearing so that you can weigh that as you consider your decision

[48:00] tonight thank you I appreciate that clarification um and then I've just got a couple more um so around the this one of the things that I've heard come out as an area of concern and why um some folks would like us to consider something around exemption um is because there's a concern that you know of council changes of City management changes um folks who are not intended to get caught up in this ordinance may get caught up in this ordinance and I I guess my question is is the reverse also true so if we put forward uh some type of exemption or a special category for certain types of property owners what happens if those folks change and staff at these organizations transition and they don't really want to work with the city anymore um what happens you know if we get a company um like Blackstone or something that's a little more concerned with profits than people they take over um do we have any means to bring them to the table for problem solving if we've Exempted them along the way

[49:03] Brad uh I think it's a good obser ofation council member and I think they part of the reason that we've really tried to stick to our guiding star of treating properties across the city uh not just in certain neighborhoods and across property types ownership and rental for example but also large small and medium um without exception um we we respect and understand that some of the administrative responsibilities that we've uh say are reflected in the city's values and intentions around this um some aspects of of that are kind of a trust me nature uh but as has been pointed out that uh you know we as the city people can change but your observation is absolutely right that um part of the reason is holding you know Bad actors quote unquote uh to accountability and and those two can change and and that could include any properties if they were to be accepted

[50:02] and um I would anticipate then there would be a challenge because we'd be uh under ordinance change to to to treat them differently uh one thing that we haven't highlighted in in great detail in the current code but is there there is actually an exemption uh carved out for uh a neighborhood in South Boulder because of it being historically a student uh uh neighborhood and that that just seemed patently inconsistent with council's current values about treating uh all parts of the city and all properties similarly thank you and similar similarly kind of along those lines um if we were to and this may be more of a legal question if we were to enact some sort of exemption um for properties that are serving a particular population um I you know low income with additional vulnerabilities is there then a legal argument that could be made by not non Exempted property owners who serve similar populations that they should

[51:00] also be exempt like do we do we sort of put ourselves at risk of U being accused of of um not treating Property Owners um equally based on the populations they're serving because I think there are certainly some lower income um uh properties owners or property owners in the city who are serving lower inome populations that also have additional vulnerabilities but aren't necessarily um permanent Supportive Housing or providing a lot of on-site support and I'm just wondering what happens to some of those folks because I think about places where I hear a lot of concerns like sanand Centro or um The Nest where they're serving a lot of really vulnerable populations um immigrants and uh people who don't speak English and that sort of thing and just how do we make sure that we're not putting ourselves at risk of not being able to address those those concerns yeah I appreciate the the additional question Council M I think that's probably best to defer to the

[52:00] attorney's office on that so I'll kind of turn to some of them um I'm happy to start and jump in but Teresa please feel free to to chime in as well um I agree with you Nicole that if we start exempting um different populations there is an argument that somebody could come in and say what about me me what about me one of the things that we were looking at as we were crafting this ordinance is um this databased approach and the reason for that is that there has been some communities challenged because they didn't uh approach um who was included in the ordinance who wasn't what the threshold number was based on any sort of rational basis or why they got to those numbers so that's why we have a really data approach based based approach sorry um to this particular ordinance um and the same thing would be true of exemptions as well if we don't have like a rational basis like what is the argument for for excluding or including those folks and and maybe there is one I'm not saying that um and

[53:01] then there's also this slippery slope argument which I know all of you have heard before but um you know how how many exemptions do we do when when is it enough how many are there right if we exclude um permanently Supportive Housing as you were mentioning what about those who are in different communities throughout like how far does it go um so yeah so there's definitely that and somebody who isn't excluded but wanted to be could challenge us um maybe somebody who work in or is in a market rate housing could challenge us so um it does open us up to vulnerabilities yeah thank you um and last question I think this one might be for Nia but Brad I know your team looked at Best Practices around um but I think Nia while you were in Minneapolis um there was something similar that was enacted there um that didn't have any uh exemptions or anything like that in there and I'm just wondering if you have any Reflections on how that did it go wrong was it you know did it did it lead to some of the problems that that we're hearing about I know it's a different city but it is and

[54:02] and I appreciate that and um my former life and I uh I will say that um before I get kicked out of this group because once Brad came along they shuffled me out thank you Brad um uh this used to be what I did right and we did something similar and actually uh we went much more aggressively in that Community because we had a more robust uh rental housing license um Team um where there weren't exemptions um we heard similar arguments right and I will say that while I appreciate every Community is different and we are not trying to recreate here what is done in other cities we Face many of these same concerns right um there are there was a lot more scattered um scattered uh voucher housing scattered um site housing in Minneapolis we were concerned about those uh same challenges um where were we to exempt uh places and buildings that had 100% permanent

[55:01] support of housing versus others that had voucher-based housings across the city and what would that look like we chose not to make those exemptions precisely because of challenges we saw elsewhere in other communities um we fac challenges from some landlords who um went Council and suggested that uh they would not be able to rent to those that are hardest to house those coming out of uh incarceration those coming out of homelessness because they would not take the chance that we would um in our case we would tear them and we actually charged more money because they consumed more resources so they didn't want to be penalized with that stigma because we um put those uh tear uh we required them to show that front and center um and post those uh for all to see um it turned out that that was not the case that we did not lose um those units we did not lose

[56:03] um we did not have an increase in evictions for that reason um we did not see a decrease in development of those types of affordable housing units and again every Community is different so I don't want to suggest um that this is a cookie cutter mold um we also I will say that similar to this ordinance part of the approach is we took pains um to work with those landlords that worked with us we had a community that was um mostly Native American indigenous peoples it was a variety of apartment buildings in a complex that had over 500 um family units of our highest calls we actually saw it in the data it was very databased precisely for the reasons um that Laurel was mentioning um and we saw it in the

[57:00] data so we knew that it was a place to talk to we went proactively spoke to the property manager tried to get to the root of the problem and worked with them over time to create a an abatement program a management plan and continued to work with them for that reason they never came under um any scrutiny any kind of list or program because they were working with us and I think that is the intent here that if you are working with the city you will never be on that list and that is why I am perhaps less concerned with those folks that are providing some terrific services in our community that they will not be subject to um to being on uh the 2% of folks that we are concerned about here uh we have some tremendous folks in um in our community that doing TR great work and I have no doubt that they will continue to work with the city so my experience and I'm sure Brad can share some of his own my experience is that this is really

[58:00] aimed at the 2% of in particular my last experience was landlords that are not doing the work that we need them to do because by and large I always repeat the majority of landlords in any Community are doing great great work and they have nothing to fear from this type of um ordinance uh which is not intended to capture those that are doing great work I hope that helps yeah thank you so much that's that's all but thank you for letting me ask questions about the things that came in today very good uh Matt tasa terara Ryan Lauren and I'll just reiterate about trying to move through our questions pretty quickly I appreciate it I'll try to be brief um Brad could could you give me a sense of you saw in the meno that clearly staff was making a recommendation not to support an exemption for the 100% permanently affordable per permanently Supportive Housing the psh could you give me a sense of how many of those how many

[59:01] properties do we have in our community that meet that threshold of being 100% psh uh certainly my understanding is it is two properties and I've relied on Amanda and a few others to be sure about that Amanda is that something you can confirm absolutely thank you Brad um the number is currently two one of those was um in place during the data study period uh the years that we looked at the data one is newer um so does not have that historical data in place okay I I appreciate that um in in just in general I think there's you know the the question comes up to is H How would how are we going to and maybe ner answered a little bit but how are we going to manage with our chronic nuisance a population that has so such diverse and complex needs as compared to say you

[60:00] know residents on the hill um and how would we go about managing that because I think what what Nur has sort of pointed out was I would be worried that we would have this overex exendar being sort of hawkish um over over those properties out of concerns or or or things and so I'm just wondering like how would we go about managing different because it's it's fundamentally a different group with different needs and the impacts would be fundamental different sure thank you for the question um you know there's a broad answer to that council member and it it's just a a plain management one which it is harder to manage exceptions but it's done you know to be to be honest about it we we certainly have those in in other contexts um I think more Germaine to your question is that uh there are differences across uh the city across all violations so that that's a little bit of the the management of it

[61:00] but it would be uh challenging uh you know frankly to to recognize um oh when we're out in this spot we need to kind of treat it differently in this way um uh so I I don't know if that answers your question directly I mean it's it's um uh it certainly is a as a general rule and administering City operations that uh consistency is good um but there are obvious exceptions you know as well in our day-to-day activities okay I appreciate it but yeah just really just two properties that would sort of present their own challenges um if sort of left within the ordinance okay all right appreciate it thanks eron thanks TAA thank you thank you team for um the presentation I just had one question around the 18-month check-in um I was was curious if there had been discussions of um having sharing some

[62:02] data points earlier for example like the number of open cases the number of repeat offenders um Jen mentioned that there are different stages in the process so again I think there are several data points that um could be identified but I was just curious if there had been conversations um around around that and and kind of how you landed at that 18mon check-in spot yeah certainly thank you uh for the question council member Adams the 18mth really is in recognition that this is a Year's worth of accumulated violations so um you know acknowledging that it's going to take a couple months to get the first C violations recorded and get them in a system and that type of thing and that it would take up to 12 months for that even to be the The Chronic nature of of of The Chronic nuisance for ordinance to be relevant uh 18 months seemed like a reasonable check-in

[63:02] um you know iterative stages along the way really represents our day-to-day operations on the public nuisances and the individual nuisances and there are certainly statistics that we could share you know in in that context um and then those are the ones you know leading up to The Chronic um so we're we're always happy to hand uh you know share that information which is public data and and maybe even summarize it but that that's where the 18month concept came into play okay so I just wanted to clarify that there wasn't anything specific that prevented us getting information sooner than that oh absolutely not and you know we're always happy to provide information appreciate that that's it for me thanks thank you Tera two quick questions the first one is about a a letter we got from a property owner in regards to require versus um May do you do you know that

[64:02] letter I'm talking about Brad oh uh I'm not terribly sure is that one that was just uh today Council it was today at 1 140 one of the uh Property Owners asked if we could change the language hold on I'm pulling it up um I hope I can find it this fast uh using the term uh will versus the term require or may um I will defer to the attorney's office I believe that those words have the same effect in a legal context but uh Laurel is that something you can speak to I I do remember email uh council member was your question about whether we could honor that request whether you thought that that was possible um and also a good idea sure yeah I'm happy to answer the possible side of it so the original request this is from um Bara I believe I don't have

[65:02] the email up in front of me but um Bara had asked us to make uh notifying property managers a requirement as part of this um ordinance we had expressed in a hotline email just about some of the concerns around that mostly around being able to track down property managers um and so the response today was can we change it to will will in in the term will in um an ordinance um is also a sorry I'm talking um is also a requirement will still is the same effect as shall um so it's the same request to to make a a requirement to have Property Owners be notified um one of the other things that was followed up in a subsequent hotline from Aaron was a different type from the mayor was a different kind of language so um we've looked both at uh suggested language to try and do it as much as we can um and then there's also this one which was more of a will or required language to reach out to those property managers oh so what you're saying is you're on

[66:01] it we try to be think we try to be on it yeah yeah May if I can pop in here too t the because the the hotline that I sent and I apologize it came as late as it did but was intended to address the roughly that same concern and Laurel did an exceptional job and producing specific language that was that worked for the city um as well as potentially for the property and I did actually get after I sent that hot mail hot hot line I did hear from representatives of from Bara that they thought it generally um took care of their concerns great excellent thanks the second thing is in regards to my hotline and that is the I we can talk about it later but at some point and this probably we'll be doing our discussion I wanted to ask what staff thought about that but it could be Aon that this should happen after the public hearing I mean I think you can ask a

[67:00] question now I think that counts as a clarifying question okay can you weigh in on did you get to read my hotline Brad and can you weigh in on your thoughts on that new category for the 100% permanently affordable housing yes which is only two properties as we know right um I council member that thanks and I I do recall your hotline I think it gets to the uh you know broader conversation we had um regarding any exemptions and so our you know staff concerns still still are there um again we recognize council's um you know rights and and and potential in this regard but but our recommendation at this point is is to is to treat all properties equally thanks so much thanks Ryan then Lauren thanks Aon Brad

[68:01] thanks to you and the team for working on this for so long and there's so much here um and I just have one question picking up on the the the request to consider exemptions for um for support housing and uh forgive me because I this might be a very basic question but I'm I'm trying to uh understand what are the types of violation that the permanently Supportive Housing that everybody would be would be responsible for and I know on the the slides earlier there was some of the obvious things that had started from the hill external facing things weeds trash snow things that are exterior those things are mentioned in the memo on page 99 but I also in reading through the memo kind of feel like it's broader than that and it if I just sort of read it literally I what I take as the thesis statement is it includes violation of any state law or

[69:02] city code with a couple of exceptions which are crimes against people and traffic basically traffic violations and if I read that right more or less then there's a lot in there still that to me feels like it's beyond what I would normally think of as a nuisance just for example if somebody were uh chared charged with possession of controlled substance and nobody ever knew about that it was just happened quietly from what I can tell that would be considered a nuisance somehow that the property owner is responsible for but I feel like I must be missing something because I I don't I wouldn't expect that to be in a nuisance ordinance so can you just maybe clarify the intent I realize you maybe can't do a whole just restate all of the parts of the code and state statute it's included but can you provide like a thesis statement or or a state of intent or what what is a nuisance in terms of of

[70:00] type yeah thank you council member I think the answer starts in in part with the definition of of nuisance uh public nuisance and chronic nuisance that's in the definition section of of the code um I think a critical kind of starting point to for understanding is that it the scope that's defined in the update is essentially the same as what the the current code is uh but we did have discussions around that and I'll um maybe ping a large group here because we uh we we certainly did want to make sure we had robust conversation about that even up to an including our uh you know the intent document that we shared with you so I'll kind of look towards uh Chris and uh Laurel and Amanda uh maybe our representatives from police on the call as well they can they can kind of ping between themselves to help round out the answer thanks Brad I could take this one

[71:02] um and good evening Council Chris Reynolds with the Boulder City attorney's office I supervise prosecution and thank you for this question so um you're uh you're right that the definition of uh public nuisance it is decently broad to include violations of the boulder Revised Code public uh health code violations and then state law are some exceptions such as uh you know we're not going to count a public nuisance if there's you know somebody a victim of crime crime or traffic violations and really what this ordinance update is about it's it's not about you know singular violations of the law like one one count of you know possessing illegal drugs or something like that at a at a location it's it's about Properties Real properties that are associated with multiple violations over a period of time that impct imp the neighborhood under the definition of the public of public nuisance in the um in

[72:01] the ordinance it requires us to show that uh that there is an impact on on the community in terms of um public welfare and safety and so it's not really about you know that singular violation that you gave as a hypothetical but if there is a property that meets the um definition of uh you know chronic nuisance based on it size and the number um you know that's going to have an impact on the neighborhood and this is just another tool in the enforcement toolbox uh for the city to use to try to reduce the overall number of um public nuisances because you know perhaps we're going to want to take action against you know a property that over time we can show has multiple violations of the law that fit the definition so I hope I hope that provides some good uh kind of context to the intent of this thanks Chris just if I get a followup then so I just I'm really

[73:01] trying to sort through this idea of an exclusion and and look at it from the view of the property owner um say one of the permanently Supportive Housing providers it makes sense to me that they that that they should be on the they should be accountable for a lot of what I would normally think of as nuisance items but I I I mean I guess I'm going back to this example imagine somebody is uh they're a renter you know they're staying there they're charged with with possession of controled substance is that so I understand this is about the accumulation of of these things over time so does that if nobody if this happens quietly neighbors don't know about it but they're just charged is that is that a part of the scope so that if they that happens three times or four times that is something that the property manager is responsible for so um and Chris please feel free to chime in as well or Laurel but I think that gets a council member to the heart of again the definition which really

[74:00] speaks to it annoying others in the community that that's kind of one of the thresholds um if it's quiet it wouldn't you know it wouldn't be reported um if it's even charged quietly that's that's not going to be a nuisance to somebody and I don't know if Chris or Laurel you wantate on that the viol the violation has to occur at the at the property um and so if one property is associ with multiple violations you know typ a lot of times the way people get you know charged with possessing you know drugs somewhere else other than their residents um but if one resident is uh kind of like a a a a known drug house or something like that this would just be another tool on the enforcement tool belt um to use to to reduce the overall impact on on that neighborhood but the violations have to occur and be tied to that property it's not just that person's you know address on their license list that property when they get dinged somewhere else um outside of their residence because it's about um

[75:01] reducing you know nuisances at the actual um uh residential location Chris can I give a quick little example maybe to illustrate um if someone is using drugs in the let's say smoking weed in the privacy or their own home um you're not going to see that right you're not you're just not or somebody you know somebody if somebody is smoking so much quantity that the smoke is coming into the hallway or going into somebody else's apartment and that neighbor reports it and as such there are resources PD is called in that is then a nuisance but what they do privately is not right there there differences here so somebody who's individually um who may get arrested individually that is not by itself a nuisance it's when it impinges on other people and something is reported that is going to be an issue

[76:01] got okay so thanks for the qualifier now I understand it it is it does include about Annoying or bothering other people in some way Beyond just in infracity law or city city law okay I think that's all I have thank you very much thanks Lauren thank you and thank you for that whole line of questioning I found that really informative um in our memo one of the things that it says is that when considering a potential chronic nuisance designation individual violations will be carefully reviewed through existing established investigative processes to help ensure protection of Boulders most vulnerable while still holding accountable landlords and residents that are negligent and refuse to effectively communicate could you just provide a little more detail about what that review process looks like and who is going to be doing that review

[77:04] process um as it's currently envisioned and of course this is subject to operational changes administrative changes but as currently envisioned The Code Compliance division within uh our department Planning Development Services would uh would be the one um you know managing um violations from across the city organization that qualify and what it means uh council member to verify that um is is to the first part of your question uh means uh going and uh ensuring that there uh was a violation um and and that there was a the violation was found to have um actually been there and that it was uh in fact uh validated and then

[78:01] identified with a citation or or whatever the uh single public nuisance um count uh consequence is for that so that that's kind of the Baseline aspect of of clarifying that and then the contextual one and this gets a little bit more to uh the different populations is is it a property owner with whom we're is is willing to work with us and again that whether that's a individual owner occupied property or a or a rental property um working with that that property owner to uh make sure that or to see if they are working with us on that uh we recognize that um that there are going to be different circumstances for different properties and one of the guiding principles of enforcement uh overall in recognition is the the difference between treating property ownes equitably versus equally

[79:02] and we know that um while every property uh at the end of the day needs to come into compliance um through whatever mechanisms um and that those can differ quite a bit uh from property to property there is still uh a requirement that they be treated equitably and the requirement to to ultimately resolve those violations but they don't necessarily get treated equally in terms of the time frame or the mechanism for uh resolution that type of thing uh we've talked through some of these uh situations again with uh some of the Committees uh I would turn to some of the others on the team um Brenda Elizabeth Amanda who might have some specific examples they could share and if not that's okay too I don't the camera closed Elizabeth

[80:03] Crow deputy director of Housing and Human Services just echoing what Brad says it's it's about um you know for for community members for example who are um who we know right are experiencing systemic disparities um already right kind of in our safety net system for behavioral health issues or any one of a number of other issues if we already are working with those that Community member if we're already working with a landlord or property owner if they're already participating in some of the programs that we offer and and several of them are mentioned in the memo um that's a very different response right than we might make to you know another property where a landlord or a tenant is just not engaged and doesn't seem to want to be and again you it's really Brad and and the enforcement team to to manage that situation but from HHS perspective we

[81:02] really um we we either already know or can tell very easily whether or not it's a Community member who's who's already in those um experiencing or needs that safety net those safety net Services thank you Elizabeth and I'll just piggy back on her comments real quick just to emphasize a point I made earlier about this being cross departmental so you know while there will be a point person or a point Department rather uh we have a very clear understanding and expectation of working with each other on those including housing and Human Services and uh police and others thank you for that um how public are those decisions going to be because I could see there being concern around like having that discussion publicly but I could also see a desire you know if you if you want to

[82:03] know especially as this program rolls out I'm sure there will be a lot of concern around you know how are the things the violations that my property might be getting how is the city going to treat those and you might be looking at other examp trying to look for other examples of how the city is treating those on other properties are those decisions going to be things that a property owner could look up and understand better how they fit into this whole context um thank you for the question in kind of the context of that I I would say council member that there's there there's kind of a lot of different answers to that question um the one most uh you scholar bureaucratic I suppose one is that all of these records are open records uh for the most part when there are violations and those those types of things um and

[83:01] and certainly as it become as it relates to a specific property owner they're they're the subject of it so they're going to know about that um they know that there's going to be uh escalation on individual uh public nuisances if they are accumulating they're going to know about that as well um as far as kind of the context of properties knowing properties um um I don't have a a real quick answer for that we don't Envision a dashboard or something like that per se um as I indicated through in the presentation we anticipate this being a very small number of properties uh 10 to 20 um so that that by itself suggests that you know there wouldn't necessarily be a lot of comparing but the other thing is that that's the very precise reason reason for the 18-month check-in too is we can make sure uh and we have an obligation

[84:00] that we're monitoring this and it's um roll out to see what those kind of differences uh if there are any are emerging and uh to the degree they are then then we're going to Daylight that for Council and we'll have daylight it for ourselves to make sure that there were adjustments um I I guess I would turn to any of the team members to see if they'd like to elaborate on that Lauren did you feel like that was enough I think that's sufficient unless someone has something that they feel like wasn't brought up um and my final question um how do what makes us feel confident that this won't encourage Property Owners to dis to discriminate in their rental practices are we at all worried that we might see an uptick in rental agencies increasing screening requirements and

[85:00] making it harder for residents who don't have a strong rental history defined housing sure uh I I think uh number one is uh the administrative commitment to make sure that's not the case but probably more compelling is the history of enforcement on single violations already and you know the years and Decades of that where we have not uh seen systemically Property Owners uh to the best of our ability to discern it uh changing their behavior about um uh who they rent to because of individual violations and there are certainly you know hundreds of properties that have been uh cited for variety of things some of them you know frequently in in some cases in the past and to the best of our knowledge there isn't that um it is also um significant to recognize that

[86:00] all records of uh any notice of violation are public um it is also um probably important to recognize that um as part of the overall process we're going to be um you know daylighting that again over time you know the only thing I'd add to Lauren is um I just got to say that it's just industry practice and and cities all over the nation do this and it's something to keep an eye on but it is and I will say that when cities do this it is not intended to be punitive to landlords it is really a measure to protect the those that are vulnerable because the dynamic the power dynamic between landlord and tenant is not equal

[87:01] and there are vulnerable tenants vulnerable students vulnerable people that are not at the same power Dynamic and most of these laws are truly intended to serve vulnerable tenants right this is not an intent on on us to really try to um in any way um cause harm right and I again want to just lift up so many great property owners that are doing tremendous amount of great work because I know I hear that too right um that this is not meant to demonize Great property owners and um and landlords that are doing terrific things in community but when you see this Across the Nation um you just don't see what you're what you're concerned about and I get it right but the real real ity is that industry practice tells us that this is not something that causes um the kind of concern that you

[88:03] that you're mentioning um because it really is a tool that is aimed to address a different kind of problem not intended to hinder um good tenant landlord relationships yeah and I I understand and appreciate all of that I think it's just um it is a significant change and we are hearing a lot right from our property owners around concern and um yeah I I do appreciate the tenant protection aspect of this sure thank you all right think we've gotten through the questions so let's go ahead and move to the public hearing uh Elisha can you share the public participation guidelines before we start that please of course sir thank you so very much and good evening again um to everyone that is attending end in we appreciate your presence here I will now go over the public participation at City Council meetings the city has engaged

[89:02] with community members to co-create a vision for productive and meaningful and inclusive Civic conversations this Vision supports a physical and emotional safety for community members staff and Council as well as democracy for people of all ages identities lived experiences and political perspectives for more information about this vision and the community engagement processes please visit our website at bouldercolorado.gov Services productive D atmospheres the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this Vision these will be upheld during this meeting participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online currently only

[90:02] audio testimony is permitted online only one person is allowed to speak at a time unless an accommodation like an interpreter is required our remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to City business no standing in or otherwise blocking the my apologies that one should not have been read no participant okay that one is in council chambers and will move to no participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any persons next slide anyway ofinity other epithets based on race gender or religion and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the meeting will not be tolerated thank you again for listening and thank you for joining us thank you

[91:01] Elicia all right we have two people signed up to speak tonight they are Devon Edgley and Renee Bashur each of you will have three minutes so Devon can you get us started please good evening mayor Brockett mayor proem Spear and members of Boulder City Council my name is Devon Edgley I am the policy program specialist at the boulder chamber speaking on behalf of the chamber tonight a special thanks to council member wallik for support and continual work on this since the Riots of March 2021 also a special thanks to City staff for all of their amazing work the boulder chamber supports the passage of ordinance 8637 but we also support the requests

[92:00] made by those who do the work directly in this space such as Boulder housing partners and element properties and support the remarks expressed by council member wallik in his hotline post we are advocating for a simple surgical exemption from ordinance 8637 for the multi-unit properties that are 100% permanent Supportive Housing projects specifically Bluebird and Lee Hill who offer robust on-site services this exemption does not mean zero standards for permanent support of Housing and all the tools currently utilized by these psh multi-unit properties should still remain in place to keep residents within and outside of the community healthy and safe we want these types of multi-unit housing in Boulder and we know that people living in these units often have behavioral difficulties we should not create additional barriers for housing develop Vel Ms that strive to provide services for individuals who need the opportunity for support to improve their life

[93:00] circumstances the need for permanent Supportive Housing is acute the boulder chamber is requesting City exemption for psh units from ordinance 8637 that offer multi-unit uh properties 100% Supportive Housing projects thank you City and council members for your hard work and for your time tonight please let me know if there are any questions thank you and now we'll go to Rene Bashur hello city council members U my name is Renee bour I live in uh Dakota Ridge I own a business in the holiday neighborhood and I'm speaking today as a representative of the North Boulder Alliance I'm speaking to express our strong opposition to excluding any properties from the new since ordinance ordinances provide framework for local governance to help ensure that the city operates in an orderly manner and they are there for everyone to abide by we

[94:02] believe that all Supportive Housing properties need to be held to the same standards as other entities in our community it is our understanding that City staff is spent years creating this nuisance ordinance and that the city staff has expressed that they are against any exclusions from this ordinance because having any exclusion would be unfair to the residents who live on the property and the surrounding neighbors so our question for anyone on Council who supports the exclusion is why are you going against the recommendations of City staff and what measures will you put in place to protect residents and neighbors we've heard that some council members support the exclusion for some properties because they expect that some of the facilities would not be able to abide by the ordinance if this is the case why would councel and staff ever put a supported or transitional property in a commercial or residential area and if the city is going to build more supportive and transitional properties in the future and there is any concern that the property would not be able to comply with the ordinance requirements then we would recommend that the

[95:00] property not be placed in a commercial and residential area in closing the North Boulder Alliance and I want to thank the members of council and City staff who've been actively engaged with the North Boulder Alliance and addressing the issues that we have brought to your attention we look forward to working with each of you in making Boulder a safe and clean City again and for those who support the exclusions of specific properties we look forward to learning why and what propos osal you have for protecting the residents and surrounding neighbors I thank the council members for your great questions I thank Ryan and nura and all the staff for the years of hard work I especially um appreciated when Ryan mentioned that part of what they were looking at with the nuisance is representing the values of city council to treat all properties equally I question um Matt had asked a question about comparing these two properties to the hill and how the hill was very different from these two properties but one way in which the hill is not different is the hill has neighbors and

[96:01] businesses just as North Boulder does I appreciate you taking into consideration our um strong opposition to excluding any properties I believe what Nuria and her team have put together is excellent and I think we should follow the recommendations of staff I appreciate all of you so very much I'm so grateful for the work that you do thank you for your time thank you all right that wraps up the public hearing so we now go to council discussion um I guess I would ask counselors if anyone has any proposed amendments uh to the ordinance that they would like for us to consider before we maybe move forward with a vote on the ordinance itself Matt and then I've got one appreciate appreciate that Aaron um yeah I mean I I I will I would like to propose that we exempt 100% um

[97:01] permanately Supportive Housing it's it's two properties um we know them well we partner with them well um we have great relationships with who operates them and so any issues that come up the city is on top of um but I think it would it might put the city in an awkward position if they're having to evaluate um those changing conditions under the guise of this chronic nuisance ordinance um and so again it's just talking about two properties um and so I think that's a reasonable thing for us to consider um I do know that we're going to check in in 18 months um so we can obviously re-evaluate there but um we're doing a lot of work to get psh into our community and so uh we would like to have as few hurdles as possible uh uh in order to achieve that so I'd love to propose 100% psh exemption on this ordinance very good why don't we uh deal with each one of these as they're proposed um so maybe I could ask um to only raise your hand if you'd like to speak to Matt's proposed amendment um at this time

[98:00] so um chair did you want to speak to that uh yes um I am going to disagree with exemptions because I was moved by many of the arguments by staff but I will suggest instead that we have another category or rather an amendment for another category for the two psh uh properties and just sit down they can sit down with the staff and the property owners and I would say Nuance the that Amendment a little bit more so that they're more comfortable with it I I understand and highly regard the two Property Owners the that um at leh Hill and also at Bluebird so that is if they're still uncomfortable I feel like more work can be

[99:01] done um but I don't think we should exempt it for the many reasons that we heard tonight thanks I got Mark TAA laurena I'm actually going to agree both with Matt and or with terara I don't really uh care about the methodology but I think we need to do something uh to recognize the uh differing status of those two properties um we received a lot of of emails in the last day or so after I um submitted my Hotline in fact I I think I've uh attained the exalted status of putting out a hotline and not having one supportive uh response from the community and that's that's really pretty hard to do um but I want to address a couple of the issues that surround this entire subject one is we got a lot of emails that um uh complained that we were requesting an exemption for BHP and

[100:02] the shelter that's not what they're asking for that's not part of the conversation um we also had a lot of examples of uh improper behavior that were cited to us um from people who are not at the facility and that's not going to be the responsibility of the landlord so we we need to move past that the larger issue is that this city has encouraged uh developers to build permanently Supportive Housing um and in which case we are housing by definition the most difficult people in the city to house um and it's a little bit anomalous that we encourage them to do that um but then do not want to provide them uh any mechanism um for not being tagged as um a chronic nuisance and if we do that um

[101:01] I am hard pressed to understand um how uh the community at large is going to be better served by U compliance of The Operators uh with remedying the nuisance which will largely be um evicting Troublesome tenants and making them homeless again I don't I just don't know how that leaves us better off than we are uh before so th those are all factors to me um and again the methodology of of whether it's an exemption if that's really problematic to people and do it in the form of of a of a new category but I think we need to recognize that these are properties that we wanted built and now to put them in an easy Jeopardy of being design ated chronic nuisances just does not seem right to me um and my last comment

[102:01] however is to say I'm I'm supportive of the basic uh intent of this uh ordinance and I said so in my hotline that I am um uh very very impressed with with the the the drafting of it uh it was really well drafted and really well vetted um I think almost every group in town has been um consulted uh in one form or another um and and this is as ready for prime time and ordinance as I can remember um it is simply this issue that I think we need to to Grapple with and and the concept of um we do not want to create anything other than uniformity among all properties um does not really recognize the fact that these are not uniform properties are different theyve intended to be different they're difficult um and if we want to house these individuals we need to recognize

[103:00] the difficulty um and and what it takes to do so otherwise we will not see more of them because it's just going to be too hard so I'm hoping we can come to a different resolution on that and again whether it's U Matt exemption um and or Tara's redefinition and reclassification of those and we're talking about two properties um either way can work uh but I urge us to do something and again it's it's um it's something we need to do otherwise we are not going to be housing these people um it's not going to be worthwhile it's not going to be be too difficult so thank you and uh uh those are my comments thanks Mark and I will we will St all this as well so if you rather just raise your hand at a certain point rather um for the straw pole rather than make comments that's also an option for you TAA thank you so much um I agree and

[104:02] Echo a lot of my colleagues comments um one you know I've often say accountability is love um and that means for all of us um however I have significant concerns that an equity tool has been used extensively and has resulted in a policy that treats everyone the same that is the opposite of equity and so um I agree with the idea of having either a new category or some kind of of you know um mechanism however I'm also wondering because these are are are um entities that the city has fiscal and you know um contractual relationships with and so that's another reason why I almost feel like there are already things in contract with some of these um entities that you know are around some

[105:02] of these issues uh related to Chronic nuisance and so if anything I almost feel like they might being they might be over regulated in this instance because a lot of the work um you know the conditions and requirements for them to even be built in the first place required a lot of you know similar types of of regulations and so um my concern is actually over regulating so again my request would be um yes some kind can we check to see what is already required of these um entities that may align with what already exists um and also again fair is is not equal treatment um especially when again we're dealing with different populations that we have asked that we have recruited for that our community has asked us for um and so again I I also just wanted to lift up I'm noticing an overregulation in some areas and enforcement in some areas um but you know again I think of The

[106:00] Chronic nuisance of construction of megga homes I see violations all the time I'm wondering how they're enforced um I'm also wondering about our human relations and just what we have in the human right relations code um and the in the general enforcement and monitoring around that as well um thank you thanks I got Lauren Nicole Tina and then myself um I share a lot of the concerns of my colleagues and I just wanted to put out a potential third option um which would be maybe that we just increase the bracket that the psh is accountable for so in we have those five size brackets and maybe it is um pushing them up one bracket from where they would otherwise lie so that there is uh you know kind of to recognize the challenges that that they uniquely face

[107:00] for those populations at the rates that they're um housing them and so just creating a little more flexibility there and re-evaluating that at the 18month Mark thanks thank you Nicole um thank you um so I I I'm not in of of um doing an exemption and I just kind of want to lay out my reasons why see if I can pull anybody else in um I'm really concerned that an exemption would open up an Avenue for properties that are far more problematic um to claim that they should be exempt too um based on the populations that they're serving um the other thing that I see is that our 100% permanent Supportive Housing providers are already exceptional Partners um we're all working together for the benefits of the tenants the tenant neighbors and um the other neighbors in the area and I'm concerned that we're ignoring the idea that ownership or if ownership or directorship changes that could change

[108:01] the situation and then we're really left with no ability to encourage people to come to the table for continued partnership um this ordinance wasn't created to um Target these properties or kind of get at them and I feel like the changes that staff had made over the last um six months or so in response to their concerns in response to our concerns um have further they ensured that these properties are not going to be targeted in this ordinance um and I I just you know to the point about um you know treating properties the same versus treating giving them what they need um I really see these properties as as uh being treated with what they need already um they're not really uh being treated the same as other properties in the city even with uh without this ordinance in place we do so much work with them there are so many points of connection and this ordinance isn't going to change those Partnerships they already get far more attention and treatment as they should um than any other property in the city and that and

[109:00] stuff please correct me if I'm wrong that that's not going to change with this ordinance because the whole goal is to encourage these connections that give property owners and tenants what they need to be successful it's not meant to be a one-size fits-all um solution so I would rather take the opposite approach and go forward without an exemption and then at our check-in see if it's something that's needed versus making this change now um especially without having gotten uh feedback from some of the other groups that were um involved in uh crafting this ordinance um who are not uh the ones that are that are directly associated with this permanent support of housing that included some tenants and and other folks in the mix too um so anyway my thoughts um but thank you thanks I got Tina then myself and Ryan yeah um thank you to staff for working on this and um and of of course I wasn't there when it all started five years ago uh but I appreciate the level of thought and engagement and I just wanted to Echo a lot of what Nicole said

[110:01] about um what I heard was that the equity tool resulted in how we're treating compliance differently for different Property Owners based on what's going on um not that we are treating each property owner the same and I feel like that will be applied from what I'm hearing from Brad and his team uh to the to the two PS PS buildings um that being said we I think of course are all supportive of more development of p psh and what I would like to do is do a check-in and also um if we could ask staff to let us know if this does become an issue with their ability to build more um quickly on so that we can course correct if we feel like this ends up not being the right um Direction but given the depth of experience that nuura has Brad um but also that our psh partners have uh but I I I would prefer to start without an

[111:00] exemption and then see what we can do um and the other thing is if we do pursue an exemption or a different tearing or a different threshold I would like it to be a thoughtful process with engagement not only with the developers in the city but also with the residents of those housing um housing developments so that we're making sure that we're protecting the safety of those vulnerable tenants as well thanks thanks T so I'll call on myself and we'll go to Ryan so I I am interested in in some kind of a carve out for the 100% um except Teresa whenever you put your hand up I always want to hear what you have to say immediately because it's always very relevant so why why don't you go ahead and then I'll come back to my side uh thanks mayor so I legally um I have some concern about creating another tier the tier are based on data that we collected over a number of years and they drive the categorization we would open ourselves up to Legal Risk by treat by

[112:01] creating a category that is unsupported by data um so I just encourage you all as you think through this too um to to perhaps move away from that option and and toward another solution that's helpful so would you say you have fears for Tears well [Laughter] wow thanks for uh humoring me there um Lauren go ahead well I was just wondering if ask real oh doing that okay with Teresa yes are you doing that to yes okay I was just wondering if that if you have those same concerns if we were to look at something like what I was recommending in terms of pushing the psh 100% pH psh projects up one tier does that have the same

[113:00] legal concerns as creating a new tier entirely yes I I would share those same legal concerns because we do actually have data on the one psh property and what that data showed us is that they would in no way have qualified for chronic nuisance um and so so the data actually doesn't bear out the concern that the council is expressing here do other people want to call on this very specific issue yes ter understanding that that is so Teresa is there a way to um have not an exemption but uh not a tier but or not a category but maybe something else whatever you want to call it so that um we can I mean 100% to me 100% uh permanently affordable housing is a different category in the sense that it you know it deals with a population that

[114:00] needs would you could say medical assistance so to speak um as I referred to in my hotline so I don't so I'm wondering if there's something that we can do to alleviate the fears if the problem is is yes we're on Council now you're our uh attorney now and we have great Property Owners uh now for those two properties but that may isn't the case so uh in the future which is why I don't want them to be exempt but I also feel like something should be different I just don't know what it is because I'm not a lawyer I wonder if there's an approach around the abat agreement that we could consider um I think we should let you all finish your conversation and and maybe let us um think about this a little bit on the on the back end and I just want to mention because you mentioned medical calls that that would not be included in this oh I didn't say they were included in this I just meant that it was a certain population that was unique y

[115:03] okay just want to clarify that is that okay if I ask my question now um oh um so so around the what you're speaking to Teresa does that concern extend to an exemption or carve out as well if there were just a whole this doesn't apply to them because if there's um if the data that we have suggests that this doesn't even really apply to um to the psh properties is that problematic at all you know um I I would have some legal concern about it but not the same level of legal concern I don't believe it would carry the same level of risk as creating a category that's not supported by

[116:02] data is it my turn to quaqua in here I think so quaqua approved wonderful so um I appreciate the data conversation right because I love data but the issue is you said five years and there you know the sample size is not very big of two and not all both of them were open for five years so only the one that has data only one you know that's not valid and reliable so there that's just something to consider um but I also am wondering about the question of the um current requirements that we have I'm thinking more so for all roads on this one as well um I just I I have to honor that there are I guess what I'm um where I'm you know we say datadriven decisions and every data is information there are people who have come and written us

[117:01] letters um saying one thing and then I hear colleagues saying the opposite and if you know I I have to honor the lived and learned and experience of those who have operated and who are in the you know these various situations and so um you know again I'm just curious if there you know I honor that you know there are incidents that need to be addressed and there is a potentiality um I honor that there could be changes in um ownership of those properties but again I I'm wondering if there are already requirements in you know the contractual relationships that the city has with these types of entities I'm also wondering in Li of an exception if there's a possibility for increased monitoring at the three at maybe at quarterly Cadence at Ground some of these cases open close repeat offenders Geographic areas so that um you know we

[118:00] can more easily and quickly turn I think IP is another um alternative to um having things on the agenda um and perhaps there could even be some internal thresholds that we can identify um that would lift up when we need to revisit it as a as a council of a whole thank you okay thanks Sasa then I'm I'm going to come back to me and then Ryan will get to you on the just weighing in on the the overall question um of some kind of exemption um I am interested in in some kind of exemption for the 100% uh permanent support of housing uh developments um I have a i Tara's idea could work for me um the straight exemption from Matt could work for me um I think I have a preference for the simpler of the just big straight out exemption um and I just want to note that U one thing we haven't talked about is that we heard from service providers that um not having an exemption could be chilling for the development of future 100% psh projects which I think are

[119:00] things that we need a lot more of and then I'll just mention that the the letter from service providers was um important to me and I'll just list the providers that were on that letter which was the boulder shelter imagine Center for people with disabilities element properties together emergency family assistance association thisle community housing Boulder housing partners and the boulder chamber um who are organizations most of which work in this space that was compelling to me um and then after we hear from Ryan we'll go to some straw poles to get this pinned down right make a few points and then my my my case um I think from building and advancing permanently Supportive Housing is some of the most important work that we do and I would like us to avoid as many barriers as we can to that and also recognize that the that that permanently Supportive Housing in general is is reduc ucing nuisances on net in in the city and that's that's very important um I also think that we need a standard of

[120:00] care for neighbors and residents uh of permanently s housing themselves um we we need this both just just because but also to enable the services that we're providing to flourish and for the community to flourish with them as we go and um so I with to me this what what to do about this one has really centered on um what is the definition of this of of the the type of the complaint and is it something that we can expect perally support of housing providers to be able to manage or is it something that is outside of the scope what we can expect them to manage I got some clarity with that I'm not I I not it's not as tight as I would like but um I I I think in general this feels like a case where we have expert staff including nura who has prer this um that have a recommendation that I'd like to defer to and they've

[121:01] made I've also heard good arguments today about the potential unintended consequences if we try to you know make exceptions and um I'm also queasy about making a big change at the last minute I wish this would have come we were having this conversation like a month at least ago just kind of just came in so I would like to keep this staff recommendation um with the hope and optimism that this is manageable for per support of providers um including with thoughts like can they have an an internal line that they engage with residents and neighbors to call with the promise of Speedy service you know for remediation see how that works um and then I would also suggest if possible I don't know if this goes in the code if it's too late for that but some additional direction from staff just just drop a thesis statement a little more about the kind of of of action that we're trying to regulate I think that in general with

[122:00] investors um the regulatory uncertainty is is the bigger problem than this the specific items itself and sometimes and some of the feedback I've I've gotten in researching this is that the is that some of the community is literally just not clear of what they're on the hook for so if we could provide administratively some intent language around look this is really what we're talking about I think that um would hopefully be helpful um and then I would like to come back at 18 months or the whenever the check-in is and um adjust if things look different than my optimism is aiming for thanks Ryan I'd like to get to straw Pooles but Mark do you have a burning additional comment Ju Just One um you know it's clear that that you can't treat two groups of similar uh in condition differently but I don't think we're barred from treating groups that are different differently and the the the argument for um creating some sort

[123:00] of Safe Harbor for people who are providing this kind of difficult housing uh to me is is is persuasive um uh until um tageous comments I would have been happy to see um the suggestion of Tara go forward but if that's not going to do it um then I would go with the exemption process and we can put whatever guard rails we want on that um but uh this is different housing and this is specialized housing and I do give great weight to the service providers who have said hey this is a problem if if if you don't create any kind of Safe Harbor here and so I I usually like to defer to staff but not in this case because I I think there's a great argument to be made that different housing has to be treated differently thank you thanks I'm really going to try to get to the STW

[124:00] hold but ter if you need so Teresa I can't vote for exemption but I also can't vote for non is there a path forward for me to present right now that will work for me because um you pretty much that don't do my idea but can you remind me what you were talking about with the batement um well you know I'm not I'm not sure that it's a fully formed thought to be honest with you um it it it does occur to me that there's permanently supportive housing vouchers scattered throughout the city um and so there there's more in some ways raising a new legal concern for me which is if we're treating um folks who happen to reside in particular places but are similar situated differently um I have some concern about that uh what is the path forward um listen Council

[125:00] Council can make a decision that is legally risky I want to be clear I'm not the exemption is also legally risky though or did you just say my specific thing was the most legally risky well I started with you Tara and now I'm now I'm talking about everybody you know um I uh the the tiar is is clearly riskier um the exemption runs some risk as well council is free to make a decision that is legally risky that is permissible I want to be sure that we don't misunderstand me to be saying that you cannot do something it's not what I'm saying um what I am saying is that I wouldn't recommend it um it it sounds as if um we're headed toward exemption I guess you know I would um I would I would look to my colleagues to see if we would need some additional time to and some additional Clarity

[126:01] perhaps Teresa um I I would say uh Mark as you were talking I I understand there's a desire to perhaps think of permanent support of housing differently there's a difference between uh units that are 100% permanent Supportive Housing of which currently we have but in the future we may have more so that's a thing but we also have scattered sites we have individual units there could be challenges on that end as well because we are treating that differently than 100% so just things to think about as you're in that process um and I just want to note too that under the current data which is what is driving us neither um Bluebird or uh BHP fall under the C ategory of chronic offender um and so as we're having the conversation we're currently having I just want to note that the criteria would not have put them in that

[127:02] 2% if I can Cate Nua I I we have the world's greatest staff I would I would look to you um and Brad and and everyone else to um uh work out the rough edges of what we're discussing tonight and come back to us with something that um you consider to be maximally uh enforcable and resistant to challenge um and as I said there can be guard rails um that's you know that's I'm not suggesting anything to the contrary but I think it would be appropriate in this case to send it back to you guys uh if if this is the will of council and I don't know yet we haven't taken the straw pole but uh if it is um um uh you guys are the experts tell us what absolutely so why why don't we get to that aention straw pole so here's

[128:01] what I'd like to do is we have two proposals out on the table for an exemption or the development of of an additional category for 100% permanent support of housing I'd like to straw hold both of them if neither of them gets five votes then we won't do either of them if um and then if at least one of them gets five votes we'll take the one that gets the most votes and if they tie we'll have to Circle back um Brad what what you got uh just real quickly I it didn't get a lot of uh discussion but I just wanted to remind or ask whether an exemption as as uh reflected in an exemption for permanently affordable housing in the abatement agreement whether that was something you wanted more discussion on or just the two items um I think the the two that we really have on the table are these two and I think if they if neither of them is is has majority support we can okay thank

[129:00] you so I I'll put them out there in the order in which they were spoken to so um if you could raise your physical hand if you would like to see an exemption for 100% from the Supportive Housing projects I got four all right and now we'll go to what Tara was talking about is would you like to see an additional category for 100% permanent Supportive Housing projects and that that gets us up to to eight all right so um it looks like we're interested in an additional category um which would need some definition about what that category what would be different in that category so I think now we need some additional process around that um Terry you brought this forward I might just uh start with you before I get to Matt's s um just to say you brought this forward what do you what do you think should happen next in terms of developing what that different

[130:01] category would look like well I think that I agree with what Mark said look the expert the people people that have been working on this on staff and the uh two specific properties should sit down as my opinion and I believe that they're the experts at this not me so I'm not going to come say what I think is the best thing or not the best thing I'm happy we're considering our category and I'm happy that I'm just happy that we came to this conclusion I I believe in the creativity of staff and our providers appreciate that Matt you have a thought on that yeah just process-wise um obviously 100% exemption would have been just a clean language it's a sentence right so that could have allowed us to move forward quickly that's not the case that's fine but if we're embarking on an on an open process to figure out what this Nuance new language is my only

[131:00] question is based on what I know the next recommendation is from mayor Brockett it's a clean surgical change to the language that we can still get this ordinant passed and on the books but my concern is how long is this process to figure out what this Nuance is if it's going to be a month or two I would might suggest that we just we try to pass this ordinance with mayor brockett's suggestion and then come back that I'd hate for this to extend out into 2025 um because we owe the rest of the community this ordinance that we've been working on for 5 years so I'd hate to have it delayed um so I just want to sort of ask a question on timing right you have a thought on that yeah I think some clarity about what uh we're all talking about in category would be helpful I'm gonna ask one of my colleagues to pull up the tier chart for screen sharing it's not about tiers okay that's okay that's helpful but so maybe a little more clarification about what category means then would be helpful we're we're a little confused and T I'm going to come back to you even though because you said our brilliant staff can figure it out but I think they need a little bit more of the

[132:00] starting point there there okay there must be a reason why there is push back from those two sub from those two providers so what is it about this current iteration that they think they would like to see a few different changes at the same time that I do not want them to be Exempted because I'm very concerned and Nicole put it really well uh we have to worry about the neighbors within the properties and that they have a way that they can you know they can live peace peacefully and peaceably so um I'm cons so I guess I don't have any more information other than there has to be something in between exemption and exactly the way it is now just for those two properties I don't know Aaron help me you always help me Aaron come on something short of exemption but something to

[133:00] acknowledge the uniqueness of properties that are providing a of psh yes I that is exactly right you're so good with words that was that was very good area that was very well but and also I agree with Matt that um we the community especially on the hill has been waiting a long time for this so I was wondering what people thought about the timing of all this as well that's what I wanted to just put a button on is can we save this this thing it's still opaque to do it but come back when it's ready but not hold up the passing of this ordinance given the likely addition of the suggestion you're going to make May rocket that's very surgical simple to do and already been vetted by city attorney's office so we can move this thing forward I just want to separate them so this we're not throwing the baby out with the bath water and waiting an extra three four months yeah and and you know for example the abatement agreement that you all were talking about before could perhaps be an aspect of that um so Brad that's still

[134:03] pretty vague but you know Nua I think phrase the intent of it well um you're welcome if if I can maybe just uh speak a little bit to one one possibility that would uh allow things to move forward uh as some of you are expressing and still address I think the intent and that would be to do a year exemption and then we could put um put more form to what that looked like uh throughout the year and then and then have that as an amendment to the ordinance that would be another one so so you're saying to exempts for for a year to give time to develop a a

[135:01] separate pathway for 100% psh and maybe Teresa tell us if the language is exemption or it is a pause on enforcement with regard to PSA or to the properties if that gives you less legal heartburn so that it still applies to all but we pause in enforcement until we work this out for a year I don't know what gives you less legal heartburn a pause on enforcement gives me less legal heartburn it also um I think that it allows for better data collection that we're still collecting the data but not enforcing I I have a thanks for that I got a plethora of hands I'm GNA go if you all don't mind to Jen first to get her professional opinion before I come back to council members thank you um sorry my videos giving me a hard time right now so um I I feel like you that is a that is a great suggestion um that we put kind of a

[136:02] moratorium on enforcement and if you guys want to put it in writing that that's great I honestly feel like it's going to take us a little bit to get this program up and running in a way that is satisfactory in order to even enforce the ordinance um so you know 6 months of this is actually going to be just figuring the program out getting the you know the bumpers in place and and that kind of thing anyway so um and also I want to just reinforce what we've said a couple of a couple of times but just to make it really clear that we take this absolutely seriously we we think outside the box when we think about like here's this property it's having issues how do we get this property into

[137:01] compliance what works for this property what works for the people who live at this property because not everyone is exactly the same not you know if if we have somebody who has um some mental health issues that we need to address in part of our our thought process that goes into what we already do you know outside of chronic nuisance outside of public Nu so this is already on staff's mind on how we move forward with each individual property throughout the city we have our basic guidelines of the ordinance like we have to enforce this ordinance but how we get to that compliance can be can look very different property to property already so just to to give you a little sense of ease maybe um and if we're already in a process working with you know a permanently

[138:02] affordable you know 100% permanently affordable property they're never going to reach chronic because we're already working with them so there's already a provision in the ordinance that says excuse me if you're working with us basically we're not going to go with you know even if you have tons of violations we're we're not going to go to Chronic because we're already in a process with you it's a double dip it doesn't work for us so just I just want to make everybody's heart feel a little bit better that uh you know we are already thinking about these concerns we've been thinking about them for a while and and I appreciate you guys being this conscious of it because it makes me feel like we're doing our jobs the way you guys want us to do our jobs so it's great to hear thanks for saying that that's welcome although I spoke a lot can I just cqu

[139:00] off of Jen for one second I'm so sorry okay quick and then I'll getar okay quick is is what if we just passed the ordinance as is and then worked on the amendment since she's convinced me that we don't have to worry and then work on that Amendment or that uh special iteration uh in the next six months or a year that's is another option okay I well we also have the just the possibility of saying more torment enforcement per a year as well Lauren do you want to speak to that I would like to speak to that thank you Erin I think that that to me makes a lot of sense partially because one of my concerns is around um the lack of data that we have for these types of properties the fact that we only have you know one propert and not for that long of a duration I think having this extra year to collect that data would help significantly in um understanding if we need to have concern around creating a new

[140:03] um threshold or not so okay that's great so I'm going to put something on the table but I need one Qui quick clarification Teresa uh is direction for a year long moratorium on enforcement good enough or would we have to put it in the form of a motion direction would be sufficient and we're just talking about um for the 100% psh moratorium an education period for the entire city so just correct so I and Tin if you don't mind I'll get to you in a second but what I'd like to put out on the table then for a straw poll is moving forward with passing the ordinance as written while giving direction to City staff um to have a moratorium on enforcement of 100% permanent support of housing All City staff also investigates what a longer term approach to those types of projects might be so that I I'd like to drw hold that see if you want to get a word in here

[141:01] yeah I just have a clarifying question when we say a moratorium of enforcement that doesn't mean that we allow any Behavior Uh in those two properties for one year or tell me just how we're going to deal with let me be more clear with what I said thanks for asking that a moratorium of enforcement of The Chronic nuisance ordinance but all other ordinances in the city would still apply and so yes forbidden behaviors would still be forbidden right so if if I'm a resident um at one of the two properties it's clear to me what my recourse is if if I'm having an issue with one of my neighbors and I'm feeling vulnerable I know what to do it may be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday so yeah I think so okay so uh if people that I'm going to put back out on the table that if you remember what I just said I'm going to ask for a show of physical hands for people who are supportive of this

[142:02] Direction all right I I got a seven I think so looks like we have oh eight um um so looks like we have support on on that and I think we then can lay this issue to bed and if I can call on myself here to go to the other proposed change if folks saw my hotline um from this afternoon um again apologies I didn't get that out a little earlier that's to add that the the city would do its best and would Endeavor to notify the um agent property manager um in addition to the owner and you saw the specific language just to offer another Avenue for will'll make sure people are aware of the enforcement actions if people want to do additional comments you can raise your hand or I can just go to a straw poll to see if people are interested in that Tina yeah on this one um just a question

[143:01] for staff do we feel like we ended up at the right place where it's not a requirement but it's a if it's feasible and doesn't take a lot of time we're going to notify the property manager as well as the owner yeah that's our current practice council member um this is questions about how to make it more affirmative uh to the degree possible but uh absolutely but not a requirement right that that's what the proposed language parses Nicole I just wanted to um I this is fine with me I just wanted to thank the city attorney's office for um kind of doing this this last minute review and making sure that it um is covering our needs as well so thank you absolutely very grateful for that work um so all in favor of adding that as a change pH schal hand right I got a unanimous on that one all right well if if people don't

[144:01] mind I think I if it's all right I might just make a motion and then we can go to General wrapup comments so I will go ahead and move uh that we adopt um ordinance 8637 repealing and reenacting chapter 10-25 abatement of public nuisances BRC 1981 expanding the city's local nuisance laws to redefine public nuisance and create a chronic nuisance designation and amending chapter 10-3 rental licenses BRC 1981 to align with the changes made to chapter 10- 2.5 and setting forth related details with the additional changes um that I sent out on 30 this afternoon um that's the motion and then we'll do the direction I think after that second okay I got a motion in a second and again we'll do final comments after the vote but um this would be a roll call vot I

[145:01] believe sir yes sir it is a roll call vote the motion as you presented it for item threea the ordinance 8637 and we'll start that roll call Vote with council member Benjamin yes mayor bronet yes council member F yes Maris yes shoard yes mayor Pro Tim spear yes council member wallik yes Wier yes and Adams yes or as 8637 is hereby adopted as amended very good and then I'll note that we also had um almost unanimous Council interest in um a moratorium for

[146:02] one year of enforcement on 100% permanent support of housing properties while City staff also looks at ways to maybe have a special approach to those properties in the future all right does anybody have uh any final comments before we wrap this item up got Matt Nicole I'll be real brief because I didn't get to say it but I just want to say thanks staff for five years in the making of putting this together it predated my time on Council um so just thank you for all the work and all the Outreach for everybody who's been engaged in this to get to this place it is we've been caught up on one small thing the rest of it as Mark said earlier is a great ordinance so you guys should take a lot of pride in the work you've done um and Community should be happy that we've gotten to this point um and looking forward to its implementation and some of the peace of mind and predictability that it will um create as it gets going so great job Steph thank you so much Nicole um yeah I just wanted a chance to to give my thanks that I promised earlier um to me this ordinance is

[147:01] really reflecting a balance of many different perspectives in the community um and it's clear that it's grounded and a shared desire that we all have for the best outcomes for everyone um it's not going to impact that many people or properties but the impact that it will have is really significant and I just want to say huge thanks to everyone across the city and in the community who helped us shape this um this is just a beautiful Testament to compromise and collaboration and just thank you to everybody involved for working so hard to balance our City's diverse needs and address everybody's concerns very good Cara first I want to apologize for talking so much so thank you for allowing that and I just want to say for those people that are concerned about um the uh us we us considering how to go about um uh working with the PS 100% PS that remember they did not fall into the

[148:01] chronic nuisance category and so give us Grace while we figure out what to do so it's best for everybody that's what I wanted to say thanks Tera I'll just wrap up to Echo Alo thanks I this is an incredibly complicated ordinance we ended up talking a lot about one uh small aspect of it but all the it's just so well put together what what did Mark say he's never seen one more ready for Prime Time thought that was well put so just extraordinary work both the technical work so city attorney's office the planning work and then also the engagement with the community and all the modifications and tweaks that have been made over the last six six to 12 months in response to community concerns so just huge huge thanks all the way around and then then I'll also thank my colleagues um I I I like it when we're able to talk through different ideas and and come to a conclusion that nobody knew exactly where we were going so I appreciate the deliberative nature of this body and how we all work together well to find solutions to

[149:00] things all right staff any final comments or questions on this no just thank you and a big thank you to the team it was truly a a a cross- departmental in a way that uh is is maybe unmatched so thank you I'll just give a little shout out to Jen Ross I think you just saw a little bit of her heart on her sleeve and I just that is the kind of um work that she does out in community and I want to lift that up because she's an extraordinary person and she's that leads with her heart and I hope you know that that is what is what we're trying to do and just want to recognize that well said yeah Jen loved your words thanks for all you do okay well with that we'll bring this item to a close um and we can roll right on into our last item which is a matters item we could please Elisha yes sir thank you our last item on tonight's agenda is item number 4A Matters from

[150:00] the city manager and it is the project update on access management and parking strategy better known as amps code and policy enhancements thank you e and while we are back with pnds I'll say this is another one of those uh cross departmental efforts pnds will kick us off but transportation and Community Vitality are deeply involved in this work as well so Lisa I will pass to you thank you Nia good evening council members I'm really excited to bring this project forward to you all it will feel like an introduction but you'll see there's actually a long history to this project and a long story uh backstory to it as well I'm Lisa Hood I'm a principal city planner with planning and development services and then I'm joined by my co- project leads it's haglin with transportation and mobility and Sam bronberg with Community Vitality we're going to give you a background on the project and then we'll talk about the um

[151:04] three Focus areas that are part of this project that align with the three different departments and then we're hoping to have a discussion with you all about our recommended scope that we for each of these three Focus areas that we included in the memo and get some more feedback and and direction as we move forward through this project so I mentioned there are three Focus areas the first is the off- street parking standards then our transportation demand management requirements and our on street parking management strategies I'm always a big fan of a visual so to see these three Focus areas kind of allinone um the first being off street parking so when we talk about off street parking that means parking that is on private proper property it is regulated by the city through our zoning requirements in our land use code so there's a certain number of parking spaces that are required for a uh each

[152:00] type of business or type of Housing and those need to be accommodated on the actual site the private property compare that to our on street parking which is what the city manages with our own public RightWay and so how we manage the parking on our public RightWay is the on street parking part of this project then we have our TDM the transportation demand management that is really all of the different strategies that the city uses to try to um have people move around the community efficiently whether that's through walking biking transit or even driving so all three of those Focus areas are what we'll be talking about tonight I mentioned there's a long history with amps the access management parking strategy it was initiated back in 2014 so your last item was five years this is 10 years so this project goes back 10 years it was adopted by City Council in 2017 and there's been a lot of great work already done to implement amps that you some of you may have seen

[153:01] the shiaka access management program or Camp there's also a lot of acronyms involved with this um there's the Civic area parking management and TDM program the neighborhood permit parking or NPP review which is now under the residential access management program or ramp and then the parking pricing study there are two outstanding projects that haven't been completed for amps the UST stre parking standard changes and the TDM plan ordinance for new developments so those are part and parcel of this project tonight but that doesn't mean that we haven't been working on those two items even though it hasn't been completed there's been work that's been um undertaken for the last 10 years on that so in phase one of the project in 2014 we simplified and reduced the off street parking standards for some certain uses around the city we added bicycle parking requirements to the code and then in 2016 we had a second phase

[154:02] where um we did develop some some um recommendations for changes to the park off street parking standards at that time council did not choose to adopt those changes and actually requested um additional data collection there's been a lot of focus on parking supplies and utilization data throughout this project and so Council requested that we collect more data before making any changes to the parking requirements at that time phase three was uh started in 2018 and 2019 where we completed another round of data collection on parking Supply and utilization reinitiated the project we were gearing up to bring um information forward to council and to our advisory boards in Spring of 2020 but something else happened in Spring of 2020 and the co pandemic actually caused this project to pause indefinitely um that uh the the the

[155:00] pandemic had a lot of impacts on our staffing at pnds and things like that but also it just impacted everything about the world related to the parking um the parking situation in Boulder and so in the coming years we kind of waited we wanted to see as we returned back from the p mic what the um situation would be as you know people go back to work and the world kind of gets back to it its new normal and so we waited until about the end of last year to start this project up again we've been working over the last few months on the parking the off street parking side of the project and we're hoping to complete um this project by uh about mid next year um to do that and it's also an item that's on the staff plan as well you'll see in your packet that we have a few questions for you tonight um just related to we're hoping to get your

[156:00] feedback on the recommended scope for the three Focus areas that we'll go through tonight and then any other comments or Direction on engagement strategy the project timeline or other topics so with that background I will jump into off street parking standards the first of the three Focus areas some background on off street parking requirements so again those are the ones on private property the first parking requirements in Boulder were introduced in the 1954 zoning code and so our first zoning code um actually in 1928 didn't have any parking requirements but like most cities parking requirements were added after World War II um one of the early intent statements that shows up in the zoning code says that the parking requirements are intent Ed to prevent undue congestion on our public streets and to ensure the traffic carrying capacity of the streets by making sure that parking is kept off the streets um in Boulder like many cities

[157:02] around the country parking requirements have significantly impacted the urban form and development and the history um of Urban Design over the last 70 years it's also impacted the mobility options that are provided to community members throughout our country um if you look look at any almost any zoning code around the country it'll look similar to what Boulders is for the parking requirements typically there's a required number of parking spaces per square foot of the use or some other metric um it can seem kind of scientific because it's a mathematical equation for a lot of these things or ratios but a lot of times it's really um looking at existing conditions or looking at what other communities have used or just the history of what the parking requirements have been uh the memo stated that Boulder hasn't really undertaken a comprehensive look at every single parking requirement or comprehensive update to our parking requirements in the 70 years that we've

[158:00] had parking requirements there's been slight tweaks and changes and things like that but um we haven't looked at it holistically but some examples of how these parking requirements work so they're assigned by use in Boulder we also have some differentiation between zoning districts for example a retail use in our business Community Zone that's 1200 or 12,000 Square ft would require 40 parking spaces again accommodated on private property um that's because it's a 1 to 300 square foot ratio compare that to a residential use say there's a 50 unit building with two bedroom units and three bedroom units um there's different parking requirements based on the units in one of our high density residential districts that would require 87 off street parking spaces over time we have made tweaks to the code recognizing that some cases and uses and locations um simply don't need the the amount of parking that's required by the code and so there is

[159:00] this flexibility that's been included for parking reductions and that's been tweaked over time but applicants can request a parking reduction to reduce that number that's required the max that they can uh reduce it administratively as 25% anything over that requires additional um applications and screw as part of this project we've been looking back at those parking reduction applications over the last 14 years or so and we found that about 40% of the major development projects that you've seen around the city included a parking reduction so almost half have uh pursued that parking reduction flexibility to reduce their parking requirement parking reform as a topic has really become a significant uh part of the conversation related to plan and Zoning in the last uh few years especially since 2017 when Buffalo New York was the first major city to eliminate parking requirements Citywide there's a great site called the parking

[160:01] reform Network that does um some tracking of these parking reform changes and they've noted that 78 cities in the United States have eliminated all of their Min minimum parking requirements for all uses Citywide they also note that over 900 of those cities have are 900 cities in the US have reduced their parking requirements in some way and I did want to note here that Boulder does have some areas of the city that do not have minimum parking requirements So within our general Improvement districts like in downtown and University Hill Boulder Junction um the there is no parking requirement in certain areas and um Boulder actually was quite early in that kind of location specific eliminating parking requirements with the general Improvement districts being back in the 70s and 880s states have also taken note of parking reform so 22 states have introduced some kind of legislation to tackle the issue of minimum parking requirements and 10 of

[161:01] those states have passed legislation so far you might be familiar with um how uh Colorado is actually one of those States so this year house bill 24304 was passed by the Colorado State Legislature the bill states that cities are prohibited from or local governments are prohibited from um having minimum parking requirements if a property is at least partially located within a Transit service area and this only applies to certain types of uses it's multifam residential development or adaptive reuse so that's using an existing building for residential uses or mixed use with a significant amount of residential the state is going to be developing an official map of these Transit service areas but our city staff has done some initial estimates and you can see the map on this slide um that 81% of the parcels in the city would

[162:00] actually um fall within that Transit service area where the house bill would uh apply um the state Bill also states that compliance with the bill is required by June 30th 2025 so that aligns with the timing of this project um very similarly I also just wanted to highlight that some of the rationale in the bill that the state had included um included some studies that they referenced that found that local minimum parking requirements increase the vehicle miles traveled the greenhouse gas emissions in the community and also development in housing costs so you might have heard these um these stats before but uh at in a study of metro Denver they found that structured parking a single structured parking space costs $25,000 um and then even just surface parking adds $10,000 per space and so that adds um to the cost of housing for

[163:02] um both the developer and then ultimately whoever is living in the housing as well and so that's the real impetus the both the environmental um the environmental issues and then also the housing costs that are causing parking requirements to be such a big conversation both locally and Statewide I mentioned that we've already started some work on the parking element um our Focus area so I just wanted to highlight some of the work that we've been doing we completed comparable cities research at the end of last year so that was included in your packet uh looking at about 30 different communities and what their minimum parking requirements are if they have any um for some specific uses um I will note that we completed that at the end of last year and since we did that Longmont actually eliminated um all parking requirements I think just a few months ago so one of our closest neighbors has eliminated parking requirements um but we've been doing that and then the parking Supply and utilization data collection I mentioned

[164:01] that's been a big part of this project throughout the 10-year um to the 10e length of this project I will talk more about that in later slides we also as I mentioned have been researching all of the different parking reductions and looking back at various major development projects we drafted a project Charter that's also attached to your packet um that we're hoping to refine based on additional scoping with you all tonight uh we also initiated the first few steps of the racial Equity instrument collected um thought through the data that we can use to inform these decisions and ensure that we're advancing racial Equity through these changes and also we um thought through the benefits and burdens obviously the state um based on kind of the information that the state was including in the bill there are benefits to housing costs and environmental conditions to reducing um minimum reducing or eliminating parking requirements but the racial Equity init

[165:02] uh instrument at least the first iteration also allowed us to look at what the potential burdens or um potential unintended consequences might be of eliminating or reducing parking requirements so some examples that we thought through through the instrument included um thinking about the people that really rely on safe and secure parking for their livelihood whether that's a someone working in construction that needs um you know secure parking for the tools in their truck or somebody that's driving or Uber or lift that needs you know relies on their vehicle for their livelihood so uh we look forward to continuing the to continue iterating through the racial Equity instrument and the various steps as we continue refining the scope of this project we've also looked in to what other cities have been doing for their public engagement or Community engagement strategies like I mentioned a lot of cities are tackling this similar issue and so we have a lot of great best practices to look at and see what has

[166:02] been successful in other communities we've been doing that um and we've drafted an outline of the community engagement plan that's part of the charter but again we are hoping to refine that based on the scope that we um refine with you all tonight and uh one of the big things we've been thinking about with the community engagement plan is establishing a community working group that can um bring together A diversity of perspectives on this issue and then also include our two really um integral advisory boards the transportation Advisory Board and planning board have some rep representation from them included in the working group as well and we've also talked with some stakeholders and we'll continue to do that as well we've talked with Boulder housing part parners about the implications of the state Bill and also um just trying to better understand how the city's minimum parking requirements affect their decisions on how much parking they provide in their

[167:03] projects now I'd like to go over the parking Supply and utilization data collection so we actually have our we've been working as a consultant for these last 10 years for the three rounds of data collection um the consultant's called Fox Tuttle and we have Bill Cowern from Fox who's here and can answer any specific questions about the methodology with this data but I'll give a quick overview of kind of the highlights there was additional information in your packet as well um but I'll also uh invite you to interrupt me because this is the the next few slides are going to be kind of data heavy so if you need clarification please feel free to interrupt um I'll also hold some time as I get to the end in case there's other clarifying questions and Lisa I'm actually going to encourage people not to interrupt you and to hold your questions until the end we can come back to slides okay great let's do it that way there all right so um this data has been like I said this has been a really um interesting and

[168:01] integral part of this project throughout the process so over 16,000 parking spaces have been observed around the community at 50 different sites um throughout this 10-year period we refreshed that with new 2024 data at those same sites we've looked over the last 10 years at peak times off peak times and specific times of interest but what I'm going to focus on with these slides and what um the next few slides is the peak times for occupancy data so that's kind of the typical uh most utilized time um for each of these land uses as a general summary we looked at all different types of land uses around the the community these are the occupancy numbers that we saw with that data collection so if you think that at 100% that means that every single parking space is being used utilized at that peak time and you can see it varies among land uses down to 38% only being used up to 86% and so for the purpose of time I'm just going to go over in more detail the

[169:00] office residential and Retail but we have all of the data for the other types of uses and that's in your packet as well if you're curious starting with retail so uh just some background on what the code actually requires it's generally for a retail use one parking space requ required for either 300 or 400 square foot of retail it gets more complicated uh some uses only require or do require even more one space per 100 or 250 square feet some are not based on square feet they're actually number of seats for restaurants so it's a number of spaces per seat plus a percentage of related to the outdoor seating so it gets very it can get very complicated and that's that's common in in many communities as well um our large retail centers also it gets even more complex it's based on how much of that retail Center is used for restaurants so won't get too much into the weeds there but just to let you know there's a lot of weeds there um so for retail we looked at 16

[170:02] different sites in this year's count um that's that's over 9,000 parking spaces the peak time for retail is weekday evenings and Saturday midday so that's when we went and counted and the average parking occupancy that we saw was at 52% so that means about half of the parking spaces that are out there for retail uses are not being used the great thing about the kind of long-term aspect of this project is that we're able to look at changes over time and so you can see the counts that we did in 2014 and 2016 compared to 2018 and 2019 so kind of our preco numbers and then our 2024 numbers where we can see what the impact was after covid for retail you can see that there was kind of of a um a steady decline since 2014 obviously in addition to covid there's more going on um with this with brick-and-mortar retail Amazon Prime delivery all the online delivery and how

[171:01] that's changed thing how people shop and buy things um so what we saw was that um again only 52% occupancy for retail uses and that's been reducing over time a 16% reduction since we first counted for each of these uses I wanted to give example so you could kind of visualize it um so thinking about the Target on 28th Street when we went at Peak time there were 1884 parking spaces being used the code would require 340 spaces and Target actually has more parking than what's required in the code so they have 401 uh parking spaces total and are only using 184 at Peak Times Obviously just a little C caveat that this you know there might be a single day like move into day for CU students that might be a higher Peak than that but what we're looking at is really like the normal Peak um the peak usage throughout the year all right moving on to office the

[172:02] current code requirement is a little bit simpler than retail it's either one space per 300 or 400 square feet we looked at six six different sites in 2024 that's 2400 parking spaces the peak time as you'd expect is weekday mornings similar occupancy as as retail um similar at 48% so about half being used half not being used office was one we were really curious about and what waiting through kind of things to even out after covid was helpful so you can see in this graph it's a bit more dramatic after covid to see the differences in office parking um occupancy so even though we're at about 48% that was a significant reduction 26% reduction in occupancy since the numbers that we counted before Co the example that we looked at um for offices uh is the Google campus so the what the code would say that that ratio the 1 to 300 or 400 um would require

[173:03] based on the size of the buildings 825 parking spaces at the time of their approval they requested and got approved a 24% parking reduction so the campus actually has 716 parking spaces when we went at Peak time there were 556 parking spaces being used and so what's interesting to think about here is that when you look at the percentage occupancy based on what they actually provided it's fairly high at 78% again that's still 22% that's going unused but um they're at 78% of what they determined was the um the parking that they would provide not the code but if you look at what the percentage of utilization based on what what our code says it's only 67% so the code is requiring a third more than the um the actual usage and and Google is a fairly High utilizer um you know it's a it's

[174:00] it's a large property um that's being fairly highly used finally I'll talk about the residential data collection uh again the current code requirements um they differ based on whether it's a detached or attached dwelling unit so detached is one space per dwelling unit attached gets more complicated and nuanced based on how many um the number of bedroom units that there are and then in certain areas of the city um in certain zoning districts we do not have requirements um we looked at 14 different residential sites this year almost 2700 parking spaces for this one the peak time is overnight because while you're sleeping your car is typically there um and the residential usage is higher than it's the highest occupancy um land use uh with an average of about 70% when we look at this over time there wasn't as much of a differentiation uh before after covid

[175:01] but there's still been a 133% reduction in average occupancy since we last counted in 2018 and 2019 the example we looked at is diagonal Crossing or MSA the crossing at the MSA um not sure how to pronounce it it um but so that's that's the fairly new development just right on the diagonal highway or right in between the diagonal Highway um so the code would require based on those that residential ratio I just talked about 591 spaces they got a an 18% parking reduction approved so they provide 482 parking spaces when we went again in the middle of the night um the Peak parking demand was 325 so again comparing that that percentage of how much parking is being provided versus how much is required about 2/3 of what's being provided is actually being used and then based on our code minimums

[176:01] um almost half is going unused so that's kind of the summary of the data collection the the key takeaways from this is that across all land use it's pretty simple across all land uses more parking is available in our city that then is used at peak times you can see it varies um based on the different uses but some are pretty drastically um overp parked or we have excess excessive parking for that use but every single land use has more parking than is needed and something else that we thought was interesting an interesting takeaway is that when we take into consideration those parking reductions even the projects that had really significant parking reductions are still not um or they still have more peeking than or more parking than seeds at peak times so you can see um I talked about the office and residential already but the um lodging and hotel uses especially

[177:01] there's 44% of excess parking in some of these these uh recent developments so that's the that's kind of the data collection I'm happy Aon do you want me to take clarifying questions on data here wait until the whole all the topics the TDM and on street as well I I think maybe just get through the whole thing if that's all right and people can store up their questions and then ask them all at once okay sounds great all right so the proposed scope that we included in the memo um is to explore like other communities have around the country explore eliminating off street parking requirements for all uses Citywide but if that doesn't um end up being feasible just looking at what those reductions what we could potentially reduce these parking requirements too it seemed very clear through the data that um we are requiring more parking than is needed and is used um so that's why staff is

[178:01] recommending exploring eliminating um those parking requirements in full also related to the state Bill staff is recommending um implementation of that state bill in the transit service area but also considering applying those same regulations outside of the transit service area because it already encompasses 81% of the parcels rather than to create a complicated situation where we have 19% of parcels that have different rules than the 81% um so those are our recommendations related to off street parking and I am going to pass it off to Chris Hagin who will go through TDM Thank you Lisa good evening council members uh Chris haggan principal planner and the transportation and mobility department here to present on the TDM plan ordinance component of this project next side please so when the parking code update began in 2014 staff was directed to

[179:03] align the parking code update with a new TDM plan ordinance for new developments the primary reasons for this alignment were to implement an ordinance that works in an environment of parking maximums rather than our current Cent minimum parking requirements and to establish an ordinance that would set specific and measurable targets for TDM plans and provide the city with a legal mechanism to evaluate Monitor and enforce compliance the current process as outlined in the design and construction standards for TDM plans does not really provide a mechanism to set those specific targets for TDM plans in reg in regard to measurable objectives like vehicle trip generation or single occupant vehicle travel uh it doesn't provide a standardized methodology for evaluating or monitoring TDM plans and also what to do uh when developments are

[180:02] out of compliance the current process instead is focused on amenities and infrastructure that a developer can provide and a handful of TDM measures that can be included during that developer phase of the project most traditional TDM programs and strategies cannot really be implemented by a developer they are more suited for implementation by future tenants such as the employers or the residential property managers uh it was also thought that if the city were to move to parking maximums or a mix of maximums and minimums that uh as as the supply of the off street parking spaces provided by the developers lower then the TDM requirements would increase uh to meet changing Target levels uh between 2014 and 2019 staff and Consultants reviewed TDM ordinance

[181:00] best practices identified the key components of TDM ordinances and then began the work of analyzing options when within each of those components with input from boards Council and stakeholders with the goal of designing an ordinance that fits voters needs and Vision next slide please based on our best practices work uh any TDM ordinance for new development has a common set of components these components include the purpose and the desire of of the TDM ordinance uh the triggers and the thresholds of applicability um what are the measurable objectives or performance metrics that you're actually measuring for compliance uh a methodology or formula to to set those Target levels of those measurable objectives and also what type of TDM elements programs or strategies would be

[182:00] required under the ordinance also the monitoring of compliance and enforcement and then all of that kind of rolls into what is needed in terms of funding or Staffing need in order to manage that ordinance within each of th these components there's a variet of options and policy decisions uh that we need to make in designing the ordinance so but for the purpose of this meeting uh and kind of the restart of this project after a very long Hiatus we wanted to focus on getting council's input on the first two components which in many ways really set the tone for the ordinance as a whole next slide please the first set of decisions to really make when you're designing a TDM plan ordinance for new development is is making explicit the purpose of the ordinance and the desired outcomes when looking at these kind of decisions I often think of a pendulum and thinking about where on that pendulum do we want

[183:00] to be for example on one side of the pendulum swing we can have that the purpose of the TDM plan ordinance is simply to mitigate the impacts of new development on the immediate areas or the adjacent roadways at the opposite side of the pendulum swing we can Envision an ordinance that is a policy tool to significantly push travel Behavior change to help meet the city's transportation and climate goals in the middle of that swing we can think of many other purposes such as expanding our multimodal access and infrastructure expanding our Mobility options proactively addressing curbside uses on adjacent roadways or extending mitigation into surrounding areas proactively where we decide uh where that pendulum is um ultimately determines where the targets are that we set for those TDM plans whether it's about trip generation or sov modes share for example you know trip vehicle trip

[184:01] generation targets may be higher if you're just focused on really mitigating just those immediate impacts and those targets would slide lower as the pendulum swings to the other side of the spectrum where you're really using it as a policy tool while one may think you know why wouldn't we swing that pendulum all the way you know and impose regulations and use incentives and disincentives to push travel Behavior Uh to meet our goals you know why have goals for our policies uh if they aren't designed to meet them but of course on the other hand we may also think of the effectiveness of these policies and potential un unintended consequences um really comparatively there's very little new development in Boulder and mostly Redevelopment of proper that already generate trips so really what would be the overall impact of of a policy that only impacts uh Redevelopment in those net new trips

[185:00] compared to the totality of vehicle trips vehicle miles and Emissions that are produced every day uh by existing properties throughout the city uh the city's not going to really move the needle uh and meet goals by solely focusing uh on Redevelopment furthermore the the placement of of the burden of high reaching requirements could also have unintended consequences on economic Vitality our pursuit of affordable housing and recruiting new commercial businesses to come to Boulder so these are all things we need to think about as we think as we decide what is the purpose of this ordinance and how is it going to affect all these other things that it can next slide please the second component with which really sets the overarching design of the TDM ordinance are the triggers and thresholds for when the ordinance applies to a development very similar to the pendulum we can also think of policy decisions as the Turning of a dial you

[186:01] know on one end of the dial we can have an ordinance that applies to every single new development or Redevelopment as the dial is turned applicability changes uh for example the dial could be turned all the way down so that the ordinance would only apply to the largest development those of regional significance and impact you know something like CU South for example but along that dial we can imagine a variety of other factors that influence whether or not that ordinance is applicable to the to the development in question for example the city could factor in size the type of development location the level of multimodal service estimated vehicle trip generation the supply of proposed offre parking uh to decide whether or not a development needs to comply with an ordinance recently the City and County of Denver updated their TDM ordinance uh for new developments and they ended up with a three tiered approach uh and this

[187:02] was linked in your memo under their ordinance the smallest developments are exempt from monitoring and evaluation and there are different requirements for medium and large developments based on square footage for commercial and the number of of dwelling units for residential how the TDM ordinance and each component is designed uh and will depend on where we turn this dial and the overall vision and purpose of the ordinance next slide please as staff restarts this multifaceted and multi-departmental effort our proposed scope is to design an ordinance based on best practices and inputs from boards Council and stakeholders we will be building off our initial best practice report that was completed way back in 2014 at the time of this report uh many of the case studies you know cities who had implemented a TDM ordinance they were fairly new uh and there was very little

[188:00] information about the results of those ordinances or the effectiveness the lessons learned so we hope that a a new best practices report will shed some light on that and help us design our own ordinances uh based on previous work and the input we received at the time staff was considering a focus on mitigation and Mobility improvements and the use of a tiered approach which allows some exemptions but has increasing requirements based on size and location so uh but we look forward tonight to our discussion to get input on those preliminary consideration on these policy options well which will then help guide our work uh into designing an ordinance that we can bring back to you thank you thank you city council I'm Samantha bronberg a senior project manager with Community Vitality here to speak about on street parking management strategies next slide a little background on the history

[189:01] of on Street management strategies in residential neighborhoods in 1986 Council adopted the residential permit parking program the program was initially designed to relieve spillover parking from commercial districts into residential areas preference was given to residential and business use of curbs head space in 1997 the program was redesigned into the neighborhood permit parking or NPP program the NPP program uh was redesigned to improve balance between Neighborhood use and Public Access between 1997 and 2018 12 NPP zones in one seasonal Zone were created all NPP zones currently have time restrictions for vehicles without a parking permit and we do provide limited non-residential permits for these zones as well between 2019 and 2021 the community Vitality conducted the revitalizing access and Boulder project to address some of the original amps

[190:00] initiatives from 2017 and the result was datadriven parking management for residential and Commercial districts today the NPP exists as a tool of the residential access management program and is currently still restricted to lower density neighbor neighborhoods there are a few restrictions there are there are very few restrictions on the allocations of residential permits and a petition is required for an MPP proposal and implementation while we currently have the curbside Management program to evaluate curbside use directly adjacent to new development and in commercial districts we don't currently have a mechanism to proactively examine neighborhoods surrounding new development and determine if changes to on Street uses should be implemented to mitigate the impacts of the development next Slide the proposed scope for the on street parking management strategies are to update the existing NPP program so that it can be applied in any

[191:00] neighborhood to create new tools under ramp that help facilitate higher intensity development by managing on Street demands such as paid or Tim restricted parking and to explore the possibility of a proactive residential on street parking study triggered by new higher intensity development resulting in a ramp proposal all right thanks Sam so I will just sum up with our scope recommendations for each of these three items so for off street parking like I mentioned explore eliminating off street parking requirements for all uses if not at least determining the feasible reductions if it's not if they're not entirely eliminated also implementing the state Bill Citywide rather than applying just to the 81% of parcels in the transit service area and then related to TDM as Chris mentioned designing a TDM ordinance based on additional best practice research and input and focusing on mitigating impacts and improving mobility and access so

[192:02] that side of the pendulum and evaluating a tiered approach with some exemptions and increasing our requirements based on size and impact related to on street parking uh so in our public right of way some minor updates to the existing NPP program as Sam just said new ramp tools to facilitate new development and then proactive ramp review I'll put these questions up just for a reminder and then I'll pull it down so we can see everybody but again we're asking for your feedback on these proposed scope recommendations for the three different Focus areas and then any other comments or Direction U on anything we've talked about tonight thanks and I look forward to your questions all right thank you um Everybody those were phenomenal presentations packed with Juicy data um so I will invite Council to start with clarifying questions and then we can answer staff's questions for us I will note that we are already passed the expected ending time of this meeting so uh really encourage those concise

[193:00] questions and also uh concise answers from staff if you all don't mind and I got Ryan and Tina thanks Saron I so I have comments but I'll just do the question my question first I have one question yes please okay thank you um thanks everyone so my my quick question is is um I'm curious about the if we have an opinion on the legal basis or I guess the legal ability for us theoretically to impose new parking standards especially bike standards to existing businesses we have in city code in Title Nine there's there are standards for businesses you know you have to 50 feet of the door have to have certain bike standards um my what my question is is in principle can we impose um bigger and better requirements for existing businesses are there any legal issues we should think about as we go into that thank you I would say um for that the way that we treat that typically there needs to

[194:00] be a change or a request for a building permit or a different kind of land use approval before we uh require compliance with some kind of new regulation and so I'm not sure um I'm not sure that we have an existing mechanism where we could just go in if the if the business isn't requesting something of the city at that time U where we could apply a stricter bike parking requirement um but uh we could certainly explore that um and maybe the city attorney's office might have something or Brad related to that add I do not we can explore that good enough Ryan okay uh Tina yeah I had a question about um what kind of H do we have any or has staff already looked into how people who don't have off street parking in the residential

[195:00] sector and possibly in um like places like Boulder Junction but mostly in residential is there a way to do electrical vehicle charging running a cord over a sidewalk I'm actually seeing a little bit more of it in my neighborhood and I'm wondering um how we're addressing that so that people who have EVS can charge them in different ways yeah that's an interesting question I I don't know the answer to that about the the um charging like over public RightWay I do know that um what we've seen in the many different cities that have adopted uh either reduction in parking requirements or eliminating parking requirements is much like Ada accessibility there's still often language in the code that says say that um you you still have to provide the the parking that's required for Ada and so similarly for EVS you still have to require the the required number of spaces that uh are required for electrical

[196:00] charging okay so yeah and I'm wondering if other communities for off street parking especially in commercial office or medical if you reduce the parking minimum did they increase the number of parking spots requiring charging yeah we could certainly look into that I don't know the answer now but that would be an interesting thing to look into okay uh and we're we're doing comments later correct correct just questions right now please and I'm not seeing any other raised hands for questions right uh so we can move into comments and I'll just say to T this up I maybe we can start from a presumption that all staff's recommendations are fantastic and so just if you have any specific additional comments above hey they're great uh or if you want a particular different cast to them or feedback on engagement or such please offer those up but um if you think it's all peachy no need to pipe in um

[197:00] Ryan thank you Erin okay I have a few things to to offer so I'll just try to go through it uh quickly Thank you Lisa Chris Samantha and team for doing this I appreciate all of the work that's gone into this and also the Deep expertise you all have also rais man quickly because I'm very excited about this uh in part because um this is one of the things that I had raised and counselor has councelor I talked about during the retreat as as an area of work that we might do as a work plan item but fortunately the workers are already underway um and so I'm happy to come into this now and I also want to just point out that that um recognize the transportation Advisory board and the planning board um members had recommended that we do this last fall so there's a lot um that this sort of brings us to this point so I'm G to um try to answer the questions I'm just going to make Five Points they each have a little bit of substance but I'll try to move quickly um so number one just to start with the TDM uh where Chris left off and on the I guess where Chris was

[198:01] and on the the macro end of that um that pendulum that Chris had um I'd like to just say a few things big picture which is you for for to to make this I guess strategically clear um the way that we managed to in our transportation system is one of the primary things that determines the services and the accessibility we get and the stocks and the flows of all the vehicles that are in our town and so demand management big picture is about the incentives and the subsidies that we provide and it explains why we have a our current approach our existing approach explains why we have a system that is so car Centric and I'm thinking about the data um that Natalie Transportation director shared last last May when we were kind of setting up for this uh 15 years ago in 2009 our share of cars was about 60% that's what SLE occupant and and um shared today it's like 57% so that hasn't basically hasn't changed and it

[199:01] hasn't changed because we haven't managed for it to change with demand management which is one of the biggest levers we have um so sometimes TDM can mean developer requirements but it's more broadly about these these these bigger this bigger approach to managing our our transf and so brings me to that second Point demand management is a tool but by itself and I know Chris said some of this but just to say a little more it it is not an outcome and it doesn't drive results any more than we tell it to and it doesn't have any real meaning outside of what we're trying to accomplish and so um I think the place we really need to start with this whole this whole initiative is to clarify the outcomes that we are trying to get to then figure out the strategies from there I think the obvious outcomes are deep Improvement in um or significant improvement in our mode the mode share and talk about what what those numbers are but we should have a quantitative number for that for vehicle miles travel

[200:00] and for for Safe Streets meaning um uh deaths and serious injury Improvement as well as greenhouse gas reductions we I would propose that we start with where do we want to be on those on those targets as a way to set up now what do we need to do there are other outcomes we should also be looking at including financial and resource efficiency this is a huge area of expense for our city that it takes place not just inside the transportation department um we also have the Strategic plan which has 15 minut cities access and accessibility and so I would propose that when this when we next come back to this that there is some rationalization of of the the ambitious change we want to achieve and that we address the um strategies from there um and then the final thing I'll say on my number two point is that um demand management is is a tool that allows us to De decouple people from cars and often when we hear people say things like it's overcrowded it's noisy it's congested it's it's usually the cars that are actually the problem and

[201:01] not the people and so this demand management gives us a tool to to to decouple those things um so my third third thing is that you should think about all of this all of what we're doing in this whole exercise as demand management and as we do we should think of some some principles that we're applying across all three of the the components that we've heard from so um one we should update Target outcomes for each of those they should be they should be consistent but they shouldn't be separated and different we we need to think how are all three of these going to work towards those ambitious targets um we should also be looking to end subsidies for personal passenger cars in all of its forms it is a mature technology we do not need to continue to subsidize personal Passenger cars in general um we also should try to be incentivizing smaller vehicles that are more efficient and that that that use our resources of the city more efficiently and that are safer and

[202:01] finally on this sort of third point just sort of cross cutting we should be trying to understand parking as it applies to not just cars but to bikes and so ideally whenever we talk about our car parking policy we should be talking at least about our bike parking policy especially considering we have larger format cargo bikes and ebikes and that should be a same part of the conversation um so okay so that's the third thing I'll move on to my my fourth Point getting more into kind of the um things you ask more directly about um so with the section on TDM there was a question about whether we should be thinking about TDM more broadly than as a a requirement for um for develop for developers and my answer is yes we should be thinking more broadly we talked about this at the and more broadly my understanding is that that should and could be in scope for this a a sort of general policym for How We Do demand management across the city so we should do that and as the way to do that is to in our TDM work to to

[203:02] express a vision and an approach for how demand management is going to drive the outcomes in our transportation and Mobility work that should include maybe some of the the Preamble that I had mentioned earlier but we should also specifically recognize that demand management covers a lot of things including land use and it is the business team working on our demand management to be bring forward land use proposals to this Council in order for us to at least have it on the table to consider what it is are the are the biggest levers um also the the current state um we should recognize as we do this that the current state is a function of decisions we've made to induce the demand that has given us the car Centric City we that we have um according to the data um and that we have to actively make reforms if we if we want that to change um when we do that we should establish so I guess I'll just say period on that um we should specify that

[204:02] the Investments and commitments that we that we make going forward after this policy this our broad demand management policy that then the commitments and the Investments we make in our transportation system should be consistent with that strategy as part of that we should um we talked about this at The Retreat that we're going to update our treatment in title two of city code uh Beyond vehicle engineering or traffic engineering to discuss accessibility this would probably be a good time to introduce that um and then as we do that we should think about how to integrate our our parking and TDM strategies across other departments there was a comment that came in from planning board member Kurt nordback about swales this is integrating vegetation and um natural solutions with with parking so we should really try to push for that in the policy um okay now I'll go into a little more kind of tactical stuff on the um on

[205:01] the TDM aspect of not just the big city W policy but but the developer standards which is more more what what Chris was talking most about um yes I think what you have there is good I would also suggest we really um bring forward more the idea of bike parking bike parking minimums how to create a more robust system for bike bike use in all its forms and in all the seasons and for all different kinds of people um I would also love on my I asked the question of can we apply changes to existing businesses um I would love to explore that further I also would like to um if if there's a way to to um do an evaluation of how our business is doing I frequently in riding my bike around my large cargo bike with kids get the impression that there that there's a lot of businesses are out of compliance and we don't have we're not we're not following what we need to so ideally that's part of this um okay so that's my fourth one my fifth one is on off street

[206:01] parking um so of course we should have an option to eliminate minimums um I think it's pretty straightforward that we should just get rid of them um you know to be clear that does not mean we're eliminating parking but rather we would be eliminating an arbitrary mandate for developers to have to build car infrastructure which drives up the price of the thing they're building and limits what they can do and then chargers buyus for it so we should just get rid of that but we can come back to that later I just want to make sure that that's clear though um but in general we should also be seeking to reduce um surface parking in general and repurpose parking uh when we can and my final Point number six um on on on the on Street neighborhood parking uh so this is about storage of private vehicles in the public rideway I do think there is there's a case we have a role to to provide this to some extent um but but let us please remember that this the the vehicles will

[207:01] expand to fill whatever space we give them especially if it's cheap um and the existing one of the existing um items under the NPP says that it provides for all modes I would argue looking at the mode share data again we have not been providing for all modes um we have been providing for cars so let's let's use this as a chance to to to actively change the direction toward the one that is not is not car Centric um okay I think that's mostly it but just to wrap up and some I think when this when we see this again later um I would love to be looking at a first of all list of of outcomes that are based on mode share BMT and some other objective parameters then seeing a menu of options for ideas for getting to those those deep ambitious targets so that's probably a lot more than you asked for or expected

[208:00] but um I I just wanted to provide what I had and thank you very much for all this work I wish You' thought about this topic a little bit Ryan before we started the meeting but thanks for that uh can I get Tina and then Nicole please yeah um mine will be a little shorter um I would just first like to as you can imagine address how we can do EV charging um in the context of these parking changes so that people who don't have a garage or repurpose the garage into an Adu or something like that um can figure out how to charge and um and understanding that cords over sidewalks aren't a great idea but there might be ways to be creative so that it uh we can do that um the other piece is just as always considering the changing demographics of the city of Boulder the um the report that Nicole passed over from Dr Cog is pretty clear about what our population is starting to look like and being

[209:01] accommodating um to all the different types of modes that people travel uh and then another piece is um we talk a lot about the cost of a parking spot um as adding to the cost of development which is absolutely true but I also just want to point out that most of our developers continue to add parking to their um to their projects and we've approved a lot of parking in the last six months that I've been on Council and just understanding where we can educate and show that um maybe they so I I I don't know if I'd go for a parking maximum but just letting people know that these are the the like the data you showed today that the staff did these this is what we're we're seeing in terms of parking usage so that this might be a good Target for this kind of company and then finally understanding that there might be different types of occupancy as we move toward companies that are Life Sciences where people are expected to be in a laboratory or in on

[210:02] on site bigger days might have a different parking need than a company that has a lot of remote workers or or even the city for that um you know for for the same reason so just thinking about all the different ways that people use parking while we're continuing to look for people to be um more multimodal um and and also that reducing parking minimums doesn't mean that you eliminate parking uh I'm I'm not seeing that so I just want to make sure that the public understands that this isn't getting rid of all parking and Boulder that wouldn't happen overnight so that's all I've got thanks Tina Nicole that thanks so much for um this work on this presentation and I'm just going to take take us way way way up high and um this is just a suggestion on helping out with engagement U because these are topics that all get pretty wonky um and detailed into the weeds so my question

[211:02] just to kind of think about not necessarily for an answer tonight but how do we convey the general goal of this work to the community in a couple of sentences um what's the problem that we're trying to solve here um and why is it it relevant to everyone's lives um I I guess what I'm trying to get to is a place where you know how can I go out and cheerlead the value of this work to community members who don't know what terms like parking minimums and TDM and those kinds of things mean especially if they have a a connotation um where they might be things that seem a little bit scary like you know to Tina's point of people may think we're talking about getting rid of parking all over the city or something like that so um anyway just uh how do we get that really high level picture of what's going on that just about everybody in the city is going to know why it's relevant to their lives I think that will help out with getting people um to engage in this work and give us feedback on how it might impact

[212:00] us so thanks again for all the work okay got Matt Lauren I'll be quick but sort of like last presentation this is long long long overdue work and to be dealing with it comprehensively so again kudos to staff for this um we appreciate you thinking bold for this in a lot of ways and it's fantastic um I'll just say that we're overp parked right I mean there's just really no way around it we have too much parking and we've built too much parking and so um I think we can scale that back and I think some of Ryan's points are very well taken but it does mean that we we don't it's not that we stop needing to build parking and there's really two things that become really essential when you think about new parking that we are going to build which is enhancing our EV infrastructure for parking and employee parking um we still are for a long time going to struggle with employees living here um and they're going to need to be driving their way in our Transit is not there and it won't be for for any time as much as we would hope it to be so um I think we need just be really

[213:00] deliberate and um uh focused on the parking we do build and for what needs to meet our our future needs in that capacity but otherwise staff great job uh yet again um and uh really appreciate it looking forward to see this work come to fruition thanks Lauren and T thanks mine's I appreciate all the comments that have come before um and the particular piece I just want to touch on is making sure that the parking that we already have is utilized um at a high level because you know particularly as we look at maybe new projects not having parking are there ways that we can encourage sharing of existing parking and also along with that the city's um permit parking system and how that renews or doesn't then um just kind of diving into the Weeds on some of those would be great thank you thanks to you

[214:01] sh sorry thank you oops camera is not coming off my apologies um my questions have actually been answered thank you okay thanks chair are these questions and comments or just questions we're into comments okay great um I just have two comments first of all thank you for all of this data Lisa you've convinced me but what I want to say are two things first of all I'm very interested in the MPP program um a lot of you on staff have been talking to me over the last two and a half years about some of the issues on the hill so I think this will really help um the other thing I want to say is as far as Boulder Junction goes we have gotten some Community letters where uh people complained they didn't have anywhere to put their one car and I think one of the reasons was is because

[215:02] our transportation is not where it should be as Matt said and certainly isn't going to be I don't think it in uh in the near future so I just want to um and I appreciate Tina that you said we're not getting rid of parking but I also am thinking about some of our neighborhoods where people do only have one car yet they're not quite sure where to put it in areas where we've designated as Transit oriented but actually aren't really that Transit oriented so I'm just curious about that okay and um I'll go ahead and call myself and uh Echo the thanks that everybody's given for the amazing work I I was on planning board in 2014 when this first came through I remember at the time thinking oh this is exciting and maybe we'll get to eliminating parking minimums at some point during this project and and excited 10 years later to be moving forward um so that's all kinds of great work and here looking

[216:00] forward to seeing your analysis and then just um the one thing I will say is that uh I agree with you about applying the the rules in the 81% that were required to apply it to to apply those to the whole city and uh you know definitely look into best practices but we do we have seen 78 cities just remove their parking minimums and I don't know of any major failures from the Articles and such that I read so seem seems like that doesn't necessarily take you know too much time for analysis but U anyway look forward to what you're coming back with um but seems like we're going in a good direction All Above and I appreciate a lot um the points my colleagues have made and um you know Ryan thinks deeply about these questions so I appreciate some of those issues that he brought up as well and then before I wrap up I just have to give a shout out to our old friend Bill Cowern longtime City Boulder Transportation plate Bill do you want to just come on camera for a minute good to see you

[217:01] man um and of course we've worked with Fox tutle for many many years so it's a great great combination there all right um staff any questions for us or any any final comments I me you got to at least say a sentence or two uh just really appreciate all the input and and the thoughtfulness around this topic we are just very excited to get this project back going um it it's been a project almost as long as I've been a city employee yeah I just want to say Echo the thanks for the helpful feedback and we're excited to get started and kind of the next big we're taking this to planning board and tab also in the next week or so and then um the next big is we're hoping to come back to you just at the beginning of next year um with all of a lot more data and fun things to talk about and Analysis based on your comments so appreciate the time I'm just still dwelling on the fears for Tears comment

[218:02] eron I couldn't let that one go after it popped into my head takeing me back to college days if I date myself all right well we got uh practically on time departure here uh thanks everybody for the Fantastic remarks and questions and all the amazing work and have a good night and we'll see you again soon