June 12, 2025 — City Council Special Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:04] I am going to go ahead and call us to order um call order and welcome everyone to the Thursday June 12th, 2025 city council. Can we have a roll call, please? Yes, sir. Thank you and good evening everyone and thank you for joining us. We'll start tonight's roll call with Council Member Adams. Present. Council member Benjamin is absent. Mayor Brackett present. Mayor Pro Tim Fulkritz present. Council member Marquis present. Shuhar here. Spear present. Wallik here. And Winer present. Mayor, we have our quum. Great. I was told I'm a little quiet. Can you all hear me?

[1:02] Okay, great. All right. I'm going to start by requesting a motion to amend the agenda to do two things. Move the public hearing item 2A to the beginning of the meeting to be held first and move the executive sessions under matters from the city attorney as items 3A and 3B. Move. Second. Second. All in favor, raise your physical hand. Got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Okay. So, the motion passes 8 Z. So, the agenda has been amended, which means that we can go straight into our public hearing. Item 2A, Elicia, please. Yes, sir. Thank you. Item 2 A on tonight's agenda is our public hearing. We do want to note that this is a public hearing that was continued from the 65 meeting. This is a second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8697 amending title 4 licensing and permits,

[2:00] title 9 land use code and title 10 structures of the BRC1981. This is related to development activities to correct errors and omissions, update graphics and formatting, clarify standards and procedures, create consistency with certain state regulations, and remove certain development restrictions to allow flexibility in project design and in certain location and setting forth related details. And mayor and council, I'll spare you and the public the benefit of my horse voice and go straight to our director of planning and development services, Brad Mueller. Thank you, Nuria. Yes, I am Brad Mueller, the director of planning and development services. And uh it's great to see you this evening, council members. Uh hope you have a good evening. Uh before we started, I wanted to introduce you uh first of all to Jeff Solomonson. Uh Jeff is one of our uh fantastic trio of code update and um uh

[3:04] zoning experts. Uh this is his case and um the first one that he's presented to you all. So he's excited to be in front of you this evening. Um, one note I'll make before Jeff gets started is that we uh endeavor on a regular basis to bring forward uh code changes of of the sort that we're bringing tonight. Uh we uh are constantly listening and and I try to um let you all know that we are taking notes at all times uh throughout the year and and recognizing the things that we're hearing from the community um from staff as they try to administer the codes and come ac across various quirks um from the boards and commissions and and ultimately also of course from from you all. recognizing the policy direction that you've given over the months and and years and making sure that if we find something that seems a

[4:00] little off to that intent that we're always keeping a running list of that. So that's what we do and uh that's part of the product bringing to you this evening. Jeff's going to talk a little bit more about why we do this, but we'll hand it over to him now. So all right. Uh thank you Brad. Um good evening council members. All right. This is ordinance 8697. Uh the code cleanup. Uh the purpose is consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8697. Um what is a code cleanup? Uh it does periodic technical review of the land use code, fixes errors, simplifies language, um codifies existing practices, and the last cleanup ordinance was done in 2024. Um these proposed changes consist of corrections uh correcting inaccuracies such as citations and typographical errors, uh clarifications to make the

[5:01] code clearer, um updating graphics to uh match existing graphics that have been updated in the code and to address common misunderstandings. um for consistency um to ensure consistency with state and other requirements or existing city practices and then flexibility removing unnecessary zoning barriers. Um in this presentation I'm not going to be going over every single proposed change in the ordinance. However, I've highlighted some that I feel are um of interest to this group. Um so starting off here with the first one here um which is a a correction. Um this as part of the use standards and table updates uh certain dwelling types were removed from the is districts in section 971. Um this proposed change is correcting an erroneous section that was left over from that change and while residential was removed um live work units are still allowed in these zoning districts. On the clarification side, um, in the definition of a contractor, the intent of the lang additional language is to be

[6:01] consistent with the type of work accepted by state licensing requirements uh for electricians and plumbers for both long-term and short-term rental properties. Um, and underneath it is a proposed change uh for zoning standards for lots and more zoning districts, which is meant to clarify the language um by use and form and bulk and intensity. Uh previously staff had found that this paragraph was confusing and difficult to enforce based upon the two different standards. Um another clarification category here is in the most recent adopted version of the formbbased code it was discovered that terminology for imperous semi-pervious permeable surfaces coverage and material were being used interchangeably and inconsistently. Um this change clarifies the definition and terms to be used throughout the form-based code um based on coverage percentages and material types. Um another example in the uh clarification category um addresses the

[7:00] recent family-friendly vibrant neighborhood ordinance update um and clarifies the minimum lot area for duplexes and two detached dwelling units uh based upon sizes in these zoning districts uh to for ease of understanding. Um the change also aligns this section with section 9103 for non-conforming lots and parcels. Um the intent of both these paragraphs, nothing is changing in that sense. Uh it's just wording to add more clarity. Um another clarification example um is adding the word generally um to be consistent with proposed subcommunes to sub community and area plans. Um the intent of this proposed change is to have language that supports our current process of administering our plans on an unbalanced basis um rather than requiring the project to explicitly meet all the policies. Um additionally uh down below uh language was added to clarify the number of units for bedroom types. Um staff had

[8:00] found that there were come across projects that had bedroom types that were larger than three. Um the minor subdivision section um was modified to clarify uh for residentially zoned properties alone. Uh to combine the standards and limitation sections which were in two different parts of the section with similar information written in opposite terms and it also clarifies that any required public improvement will not be considered a minor subdivision and need to go through the full platting process. Um staff had found that it took longer to determine if a project was a minor subdivision or plat than the actual review. And through staff determination, this gets the section back to the original intent, which is purely just to divide one lot into two. Um in terms of graphics, um this is kind of showing examples of some of the graphics that um can be updated similar to the last code update. Um on the left we have setback relative to building height and then on the right uh form and bulk standards along Canyon Boulevard.

[9:02] Uh similarly on the left is front, rear and sideyards and the update and then yards for irregularly shaped lots. Um another consistency example um staff had found that requiring surveys for minor development procedures was unnecessary and cumbersome to applicants. Um this proposed change to be consistent with uh changes that staff is already undertaking. Um another example is in the uh congregate custodial and residential care facilities. um found that we're removing the 750 foot separation requirement um as it was deemed severely restricting for adequate locations. Um the intent is to provide more flexible locations. Um there's also no state requirements for these type of uses unlike group living for example which has a separation requirement and is in our code. So this is just aligning with the state in terms of requirements for

[10:00] that. Um currently there is an exception to the uh energy efficiency requirements, the smartregs for attached accessory dwelling units. Um the reason for this proposal is due to the recent adoption of the ADU ordinance which removes the owner occupancy requirement which complicates exempting attached ADUs from smart rags requirements if the owner does not reside on site. A rationalization was made by staff that the nature of rental detached dwellings dwelling units with an attached accessory dwelling unit are treated similarly to a duplex in which both units may be rented and would be subject to the smart rigs. Um in the ordinance staff have made a provision that these properties are to conform to the smart rig requirements by the end of the year. Um, an example of flexibility uh in development um is removing the grade level requirement um for an outdoor garden or landscape courtyard um for a

[11:00] height bonus in open space. Um staff had found some projects and proposals that could be designed with creative grade changes um but limited to not be separated more than a building floor above the streetscape. Um the rest of the section uh just clarifies the consideration requirements for successful design elements. Um another example flexibility for building is uh for additional language for hospital and medical uses in public zoning districts, excuse me, uh for a height modification. Um this is due to the types of uh uses having larger than average floor plates uh to account for additional ventilation and mechanical equipment. Um staff also believed that a hospital is a community benefit and should be allowed to construct a three-story building to the 55 ft height limit. Um this change would enable the hospital buildings constructed at the same height and number of stories as currently exist and would not be otherwise be able to be built under the current code. Um so as such the meeting with the

[12:00] planning board here um there was five amendments that were created from the planning board here. Um I have spoken about all of them in the previous slides here but um just kind of laying them out here. What was said at the meeting there um based on the open space bonus requirement for the grade level courtyard as I just talked about um the word generally um being consistent with site review plans um formbbased code exception to plans um the attached ADU exception at smartregs and the height modification for hospital uses. Um through those um I've listed um the planning board um how they voted um and in the staff analysis of what they believe should go forward. Um a lot of those three we are considering for possibly for a future ordinance um and are asking not to incorporate into the recommendation. Um and those are kind of the main amendments there. Um similarly uh

[13:01] planning board also had six uh separate suggestions um for amendments uh speaking on the setbacks for density duplex of two detached dwellings removing the boarding house definition um open space reduction in site review number of bedroom units and then the uh height modification language within uh section 9214 site review. So with that, I have the uh suggested motion language for the ordinance as proposed in front of you. And with that, I will take any questions. Jeff, thanks so much for that presentation and uh welcome to uh your first meeting of Boulder City Council. It's great to have you joining us here today. Uh let's see what questions we have for you. I've got Sarah and then Tina. I have a question. Uh, going back to page 16, Jeff, do you mind explaining I loved how fast you did this

[14:00] presentation, by the way, but I'm wondering if you could just explain a little more, repeat it, maybe the um open space bonus requirement with the courtyards is I I just want to understand it better if that's okay. Um, sure, I can kind of explain. Um, the the main change we're looking at is just removing the words grade level from the code there. um with the provision added further down that it not be above the building's first floor. Um the reason for that is that we've had proposals that have come in that have shown some more flexibility like with grade changes um that are not quite at grade level. They have been risen up a little bit and so there's it's trying to just add more flexible design from proposals that we've seen. I commend you on the word flexible. Thank you. Mark

[15:01] didn't realize I was up. I think I'm sorry, but I was on mute. My apologies. Um, just following up with Terara's question, in the way that we have it written now in the code with the new suggestion, could it be that a whole garden area could be on top of a onef flooror building parking garage or is it not interpreted that way? Um, I think the way the wording is right now is that I mean we just have said it so it's not above the first story. So whatever would be um below that to be considered a story. Um I think the the intent is still to keep it low low to the streetscape but uh just not above a full story but it wouldn't have to be like continuous with the frontfacing public realm necessarily. It could be separated from that. Um possibly with like a like a proposed

[16:02] like grade change. It could be, but the, like I said, the intent is to keep it still, still like visible essentially from the the streetscape. Okay. Um, and then another question I have is could the hospital part um that piece could it be written to just include theos the word hospital and take out medical offices because that's a much broader category. Um, that is a change that was brought to me. So, I might defer that to uh Carl if if he's on. Uh, Carl Gler, Planning and Development Services. We had we had started on this just listing the hospital. Um I think in conversations with Boulder Community Health, we added medical office because um there are some proposals where they're potentially looking at moving some medical offices that they have in

[17:00] the hospital to a separate building. So it' be like accessory to the hospital. So we felt like it may not necessarily be a hospital building, but it would be more of a medical office building. So that's why we included that use. Do you think that those offices would still be licensed as a hospital? I'm not entirely sure. I think BCH uh might be an attendance site. They might be able to answer that question. Okay. Um and then with the So with the ADU, if it is an ADU, that's a house that's rented and an ADU that's rented. Um does that make it Is there a way to say something like if the first rental is going through smartregs, you need to do the ADU as well? So that does that make sense so that we can capture the smartregs improvement? I I think the intent was uh like as they

[18:02] come in from the future going forward um any ones that are now um there's a you know a period I believe it's four years um correct me if I'm wrong there but there is a period of time and then as new ones would come in they would have to adapt to the the smart red regulations. Okay, thanks. That's all I have. I might clarify really quickly that uh with the medical office question, the the language that's proposed in the ordinance limits it only to the public zone. So, obviously that's going to be a more limited uh zone in the city. Thanks for clarifying that. That's a good point. Mark, you're muted. work every time. Uh I was saying, you know, it's been kind of a long week and um I

[19:00] may have completely misunderstood what's going on with respect to the hospital exception. Was planning board supportive or not supportive of that? Um they were not supportive of it. um in in their words, they they did not consider the hospital to be uh a community benefit. Um so being able to grant that exception um and so their recommendation was to remove that from the proposed ordinance. I I I don't want you to, you know, necessarily represent their position, but is there a theory by which a hospital is not a community benefit? Um, in in staff's eyes, we we do recognize it as a community benefit, you know, hence why we're trying to add that exception in there. Um, uh, in terms of the the planning board uh recommended amendment. Um, there the statement was was was said that they viewed it more as a business rather than a community benefit. But, um, like I said, that's staff's

[20:00] interpretation. We view it as a community benefit and believe that they should be able to build um similarly to other constructed uh like the hospital building on site. I I spent a night there couple of nights ago and uh I'll tell you I I thought it was a pretty significant community benefit uh to have those facilities there. So, all right, that's all I've got. Thank you. Thanks, Ryan. Morning. Thank you. Um, I just have a question and I think a followup. Um, can you outline the the cases where staff is recommending to use the word um generally to to add generally as part of consistent just I think I'm following this but I want to ask you to just do that. um just to explain where where that comes from more or Well, I'm trying I'm trying to to follow which cases planning board had recommended to use add the

[21:01] word generally with consistent and and when staff accepted and didn't accept that. So my question is what are the cases in which you you staff are proposing to insert generally in front of the word consistent? Um that would be um in the site review criteria um in the sentence there currently it says um will be consistent with sub community and area plans and we're proposing to say generally consistent with sub community area plans. Um and then further down uh in the the formbbased code not the necessarily the formbbased code but 9216 when when it speaks about the procedures for formbased code um looking at adding the word generally there in front of the um to accept them to be generally consistent from sub community and area plans. Great. Thanks. Okay. So, my followup is I I heard you talk about how generally we'll um relax a little bit the um the way to use

[22:02] that that definition. So, my question is what what are the constraints then around generally? Can you say a little more about that? Like is this is does does this um can you well let me put it this way. Can you provide some confidence or some reassurance that the word generally doesn't become a like a legal loophole you could drive a truck through and we wouldn't be able to you know have any recourse with somebody who says well this is this is generally consistent. So what what are the boundaries of generally? For sure. Um and I might have some some help with this one as well. Um the the general understanding was that it to be consistent with the apply the the sub community and area plans all have uh different language that we haven't be able to vet all the categories through them how they can be applied. Um and right now as staff is interpreting these plans we are doing it

[23:00] to be as we say generally consistent with these plans because there is a variety of of how they are applied. Um, so if if um someone else wants if Brad or Charles wants to jump in, I I believe they can answer that one with a little more clarity than than maybe I'm saying right now. Yeah, I think uh several of us might. I appreciate that, Jeff. Um, and thank you for the question, uh, Council Member Schuhart. Uh, it's a reasonable question, right? Comprehensive plans are by their very nature comprehensive. And as I often share with people who say, "Well, gosh, it's got these competing items." And it the answer to that is yes, because we can hold two values that are important, but you as council get to make quasi judicial decisions about which one really applies in a particular sightspecific instance, which one has more weight over the other. So that really is why language such as in

[24:01] general um is is appropriate because really um making that final determination is what you are doing in a quasi judicial setting on a particular land use case. And by bringing this uh revised language, we're looking to bring it consistent uh for sub community plans have that um that language that intent similar to the um language that's used or application of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. And at the end of the day, sub community plans are a sub element or an extension of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. And I'll turn to my colleagues to maybe uh elaborate or two. Yeah, I I might add that um you know the site review criteria were updated. I believe it was in 2022 and prior to that we had a criterion related to um sub community plan or area plan compliance and it's set on balance-

[25:02] which is what we're talking about. Obviously the plans are very comprehensive and sometimes have a lot of competing goals. So it it's often difficult if not impossible sometimes to meet everything explicitly. So when we did the site review criteria update, we we wrote the language which I think has been actually been interpreted a little bit more strictly than it was in the past. We've historically just used that onbalance approach with applying um area plans. So I think with this the addition of generally is really to get back to just how we've been doing it for for really decades honestly in the site review process. Can I call you on that? Go for it. Um, so I guess I'm wondering if that word generally um has any impact on our ability sort of legally to hold

[26:02] these projects to our standards. So um for instance, if height was determined to be a critical factor, could planning board deny a project um and find it not generally consistent even though maybe it complied with a majority of the part of the parts of an area plan? Um, and would having that word generally uh increase our risk in a legal challenge to a ruling? I'll I'll be happy to speak to that. Um, thank you for that question. U Mayor Prom Bulks. Um, that too is a very good question and and a nuance of this. I might turn to Teresa and Hela to kind of round that out. But uh one thing is to keep in mind is the context of the criteria for approval which include all

[27:01] the other site site review criteria as well. Uh but certainly in my experience um that gets back to the point I was making earlier about a quasi judicial decision and being made rationally based on the facts in front of you using um good examples and and using what have been identified by you all as the appropriate criteria or the appropriate policies rather in the comprehensive plan or in this case a sub community plan. and I'll see if uh Teresa or Hela have anything to add. Not to put them on the spot. Yeah, good evening, council. Um I I agree with what Gra with what Brad said. Um I'll note also that state statutes um in some places use generally consistent for land use matters. um for example in PUB plans. And so um I'm not I don't I'm not overly concerned about this introducing a level of legal

[28:02] subjectivity so much as uh you know as Carl said on the balance being consistent more consistent than not. Ryan, does that answer your question? Oh yes, thank you. I'm all good. Thank you for all that. All right, we'll go to Lauren and then thank you. Um, I wanted to go back to something Tina brought up about the open space requirement and the um and the its accessibility and distance from grade. Um if that if planning board deemed that sort of a space was inaccessible um would they be able to condition the project to require that open space to be

[29:01] accessible? I can jump in on that one. Uh with the site review criteria obviously it's um something that has to be interpreted by each planning board member. So if they feel that that particular criterion is not met, they would have the ability to to condition uh to to make it more accessible. Okay. And I guess I just wanted to confirm I believe like the first part of that sentence is ac is something like accessible open space or something like that. So accessibility is part of the criteria um to which the applicant is held. Is that true? I'm just going to look at the the language real quick, but yeah, in typically that's what we say in the open space standards is accessible open space. Okay, thank you. Um and then I wanted to

[30:01] check in on um some of the recommendations or requests that I brought up through hotline. um I think first kind of the height exemption and I was hoping to get staff's um feedback on that height exemption particularly I checked in already and heard that sort of referencing another code section was a little bit problematic. So if it were to read, the building has three or fewer stories, the building height is necessary for its proposed use, and the applicant demonstrates the project will improve the facilities services or services delivered by the city, including without limitation any police, fire, human services, parks, recreation, or other municipal facility, land service, or would provide an arts, cultural, human service, housing, environmental, or other benefit that is a community benefit objective in the BBCP.

[31:00] I can jump in again on that one. Um I think our our recommendation and our analysis on that is that we still have some concerns related to making that change and broadening that um that eligibility criterion. Um there there are potential, you know, unintended consequences from broadening it to that extent, especially since when we did the community benefit changes several years ago, there was a in there was a deliberate process of of analysis that was done by a by Kaiser Marston with the market analysis on what particular uh amount of floor area would be commensurate to permanently affordable housing. And that's where we came to the recommendation that there should be if it would be based on if you go above a third story in a fourth and a fifth story that would be more commensurate with what the value is in affordable housing. So making this type of change

[32:00] might open the floodgates in some respects to projects that don't meet that uh level of um community benefit. So I think in our our recommendation is that there would be there should be more analysis in the wording of that before we we change it to broaden it to that uh extent. Could you provide an example of a project that would that you would be concerned about would be a you know fit through that that might not be well I think one one that was was brought up in our discussion was what if a a project comes in that's three stories 55 ft and just has a very small mural you know and they say oh this is art you know we should be able to now process this application and it it then has to go through the whole review and it may get all the way up to planning board or council and then there could be a finding at that point that it's not really community benefit um

[33:01] meeting what what the intent of that section is. So those are the kind of things that that make us a bit nervous. Okay. Okay. Um and then um the duplex setback requirements that was one suggested by planning board and that I also brought up but I didn't see um addressed in the slides. Um and that was uh placed on on the suggestion one because they did not make a formal amendment. Um so it was it was mentioned in the slide there. Um but in in staff discussion with that um we do not feel that there's any issue with you potentially removing that um that language from the proposed ordinance um in in staff discussion. We feel that that is an acceptable change. Okay. Thank you. And then um the work by

[34:02] an unlicensed contractor. Can you provide more information around what the enforcement of that looks like and what kind of the duration is that we would enforce against that or you know what kind of actions the city would take around the uses that are listed as not allowed in the code update that's being proposed. Are you referring to the um the one about the long-term and short-term rentals? Yes. Yeah. And I think there was something about uh occupation too if you have visitors. Yeah. I mean I'll I'll I'll preface my answer with you know this is something that's in title 4 which is not something that's of our expertise. who are usually

[35:01] working in Title 9 and the land use code. So, I can't claim to have the same knowledge as those that do the licensing on this, but this is something that was brought from licensing to our attention as a as a cleanup item. Uh the language that's proposed was intended to be um basically memorializing uh what the practice that they've been doing uh for years. In that um there's a contractor license that's required for most projects, but there's exemptions that where they can get like a general contractor for just a property owner of a of a property, but that that doesn't apply to short-term or long-term rentals or home occupations. So that's the way they've been um implementing it. Um I think if there are issues with this particular code section or something that requires further analysis, I think this might be something that we would recommend that it could be removed from this ordinance and brought back to council in a later ordinance uh with a

[36:01] little bit more analysis and maybe representation from the licensing folks. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. That's uh the end of my questions. Ta and Ryan has got a followup. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you to my colleagues. Uh well, thank you for the presentation and just some of the um information that was provided for this conversation. Um I agree. I had questions around generally as well and and still have significant concerns around that. Just again wanted to clarify that there is no current criteria or rubric. So if I see generally then I'm assuming there's a a definition for generally for some for a few for not for many right the whole liyker scale and not just general so um just wanted to clarify that there is currently no rubric that defines generally a few just what the whole scale would be generally considered. Is it a

[37:00] percentage? Is it a is there an actual metric or measure that generally I I can jump in. I mean I think with any of the site review criteria there's no specific metric. It's a it's a judgment call by each of the deciders on the project. Okay. Are there evidence required to Sorry to cut you off. I feel good about that response. Are there evidences that are required to um demonstrate what generally would be or generally considered be? Are there specific evidences that are required to meet the different um criteria that currently exists? When an application comes in, the the applicant uh does need to respond to the criteria and demonstrate to the city how it's consistent with the plans. And then the staff uh reviewers will review it against that um in get the plans. Okay.

[38:00] And then make a recommendation and again and then it goes up to you know potentially planning board for you know making recommendations or decisions. Okay. Council member, I'm happy to elaborate just a little bit more too and and note that um there are aspects of land use that are qualitative by design and that's where the whole quasi judicial uh privilege and responsibility of of the decision-m of council comes into play acting as quasi judges. And so um uh that's really the how the determination of of whether those qualitative uh types of criteria apply um by by the use of of your determinations. Okay. Well, we can get into uh thank you for answering the questions and I can talk about my thoughts on it when it gets to that section. I was curious um why inform the inform um lever was used for the community engagement and not engage considering that the clarification even

[39:00] that we're discussing right now seems more substantive than some of the corrections or graphic updates. So can somebody please explain to us why the determination was made um to use inform and not engage. I also want to add here that it is my understanding that we have very limited amounts of or number of council members who live in multi- family units for example. Um it's not my understanding that many on the planning board do. So I'm just wondering there seems to be a very small group of stakeholder groups that are making this decision. So, I'd be curious to know um what uh considerations were were determined or decided upon to make the decision to make this a return and inform and not to widen the scope um to allow more engagement by people that are going to be directly impacted by these decisions. I think typically with a project like

[40:01] this where it's mostly uh code cleanup and clarifications, we typically just do the inform if there were any that tipped more into a more substantive change. We we have reached out to let people know of the change. Um, again, most of these are are clarifications or things that have been implemented for much time now and we're just trying to align the code with the practice. I mean, that that's why we decided. Okay. Um, and I understand that although Right. So, it's it it sounds like there are then components that would require engage, but since the majority was clarifications, they decided not to do that. I'm curious what percentage is then would you say is in that just strict clarification or graphic changes versus like sub you know if we're adding language that's a substantive change as far as I'm concerned. So I'm just curious what percentage of the changes would be um are are changes in words

[41:01] versus just corrections with code or graphics. Do you know that information? I don't know that we know this exact percentage, but I think the vast majority of the ordinance is is certainly uh just code clarification in words. Okay. Maybe to elaborate on that uh council member just real quickly, it it certainly was our intent that all of these uh were appropriate for the inform basis. uh we respect that there might be other opinions around that and there are opportunities to um you know recognize that there are enga levels of different levels of engagement but as I kind of said in my um opening comments these are are items that we've tracked either as um inconsistent with previous policy that council has determined or things that we are determining don't really work administratively in the way that they were intended, that type of thing. Okay. Um, if I can just get more information around just the infor and

[42:01] engage for future reference, that would be really helpful, particularly as it relates to planning and when we open up the aperture. Um, I didn't hear anything though on the comment that I made about the lack of stakeholders that would be directly impacted as a part of the group that would be engaged in this effort. So, for example, we got some emails and I had some community conversations around um potential racial equity issues, economic issues, and fair housing issues. And given the makeup of our current city council as well as our planning board, they are not proportionate representative to our community, not just racial and ethnically, but also socioeconomically um housing type. And so again, just curious how um this work is aligns with our racial equity and you know human rights ordinances without that stakeholder engagement. What was there another process that was used to gather information from those who you know whether it be home or occupants, owner

[43:01] occupants of multif family units? Um or um again I think of those um that have the expertise to be able to make the repairs on their homes but don't have the certifications um again tend to have some disproportionalities as it relates to both income and race and ethnicity. So just again curious how the team um navigated those um issues considering the lack of stakeholders um with representation from those stakeholder groups. So thank you for those actually Brad I pop in here because Nia could I could I look to Is that a question? I thought it was. Yeah it is. But Nuria, I wonder if I could look to you because I feel like we're getting at kind of larger issues around how the city does engagement that is maybe not so specific to what planning is doing right here. And so I might look to you as the city manager to maybe talk a little bit about how we scale our engagement efforts.

[44:00] I I think that's a good question, mayor, and I I think certainly that is a broader conversation and um as the team talks about what type of engagement they do here, I understand some of the question to be just generally how do we open up engagement opportunities? We can certainly follow up. uh as we uh do a variety of uh engagement opportunities and it depends on the project as we um and depends on what stage the project at uh is at a particular place but we can certainly um follow up with additional information if needed. And again the specific question is when the inform is selected but the informed decision makers are not reflective of all the people that would be impacted by the decision. what is the process? So that is the specific question that is asked because currently we have a lack of racial and ethnic diversity. We have a lack of socioeconomic um diversity. We have a a lack of diversity of housing type based on the

[45:01] conversations that we're or the decisions that we're going to be making. So that is actually the specific question to this project that also has ripple effects to the larger piece. So I can go on with our questions. Um I only have one last one and that's around the um homeowner owner occupant and the multif family homes and I was curious to um some of the feedback we got from just informally as individual members not as members of the planning board but um I do have some concerns around that. So I am curious um again um had the has the team considered pathways for um owner occupants to of multif family homes to be able to demonstrate their capacity um to be able to um to to again you know fix what they have the capacity to fix. Um, I'm just again curious if if that type of uh I know it came up with consideration, but I'm just curious what

[46:00] the results of that of that of that was. Thank you. Yeah, I'm happy to answer that, Council Member Adams. Thank you. Um, I I recognize there was a a recent uh communication to to all of council about um being able to make repairs to um multifamily homes and specifically condominiums. Uh we we are committed to looking into that. I'll be I'll be doing that. Um this particular scope um is is only dealing with ADUs which technically are an accessory uh not a multifamily and and I know that may sound like a difference without a distinction but for the purposes of uh the smart rigs um it it's not a not a separate unit and and therefore that's kind of a different thing which we're committed to looking into. Okay. Thank you. And then lastly, I just wanted to clarify that our hospitals currently are are they public or private hospitals. I I can chime in here. We have one

[47:00] hospital in town Boulder Community Health and they are a nonprofit organization. Okay. Um and I just asked because again, you know, I have some curiosities um to Mark's question. I've gotten to use those hospitals as well. I also have insurance. I also know that many of our community don't have insurance and so, you know, it's kind of like a library. Not everybody can use that hospital, right? Um it's not the same as a as a public good if if if it requires a price point to access. So, I just want to um get some clarification around that. So, thank you so much for letting me know that our current hospital is a nonprofit entity, but it was my understanding that they are not necessarily a public hospital, which means they do charge for services. Correct. representatives from BCH are here and you I think you could ask them a question after they testify. Okay, great. I look forward to it. Those are the majority of my questions right now and I look forward to continue conversations with my colleagues. Thank you. Very good. Uh Ryan, you got a followup? Thank you. Sorry to regress. I had a colloquy on hospitals when Lauren

[48:01] was going and I afraid I didn't get in. So I just had a one or two um thoughts questions. Um there was a reference to the the process a few years back to update um community benefit and I so my my understanding is the idea now is the um addition of hospitals will add to that and I'm just looking I suppose maybe for a little more assurance that this makes sense as a as a cleanup rather than this is actually like a substantive new idea. Um, and maybe it's just as simple as there was an aha that this was missing and it was understood to be consistent with the process before, but I I don't know. So, I guess yeah, could you um Brad or somebody just speak to like that why this is certainly is code cleanup territory and not, you know, adding new substantive material? I I appreciate the

[49:00] question because um I actually was the case manager on the BCH expansion uh as well as their addition of the Riverbend facility. So I'm very familiar with uh the facility. Um we we kind of look at it like it's an oversight because if you look at the hospitals out there now, they're they got approval in the past for a height modification to go to 55 ft in three stories. And I remember from looking at the plans, you know, with a hospital, they it's a unique use that has to have special ventilation. They have a lot of mechanical equipment that's in the roof, you know, for um you know, x-rays that hang down from the ceiling. There is more of a need for the the heights of those per floor. We already have exceptions in our code to allow height modifications in industrial areas for for industrial uses to have higher floors. So, it just seemed prudent to enable the hospital to do

[50:01] what they've already gotten approval to do before because when they got approval before at the three stories and 55 ft, the community benefit standards did not exist. So, this this uh new section would just enable the hospital to do exactly the same type of form that they've already built on the site. So, we don't look at it really as a substantive change. Um, I can also say that I'm I'm not I don't want to make it sound like staff is not in support of investigating further like other uses that might uh have to be considered for three stories and 55 ft. But it just it it we think it's going to take more analysis to figure out the proper language to to to broaden it and we can do that in a future, you know, code change, of course. Okay. Thanks. And then my my final question um on on this colloqui is um on the def I guess the definition of hospital and the scope of what that will include. So, it's intuitive to me that, you know, a a

[51:02] trauma surgery facility would would sure seem like offering important community benefit, but I'm wondering about the boundaries of of hospital and for example, would this mean that like cosmetic surgery would be part of this or like a high-end spa could be part of hospital? Like what what what are the boundaries of that when you think about um that issue? Well, I think the intent is that, you know, we're we're talking about the hospital and accessory medical offices to the hospital. If they happen to be in the public zone, I think we we generally look at that as, you know, accessory to the hospital. It may not be in all in all scenarios. Uh but most of the medical offices that exist in the city are not in the public zone. So um if it's if it's some sort of medical office associated uh with the hospital in that particular area uh we would put it under the same umbrella. Okay. So it's not intended to to include again cosmetic um

[52:04] treatments or like spa like a some kind of a spa with a medical license. It's it's meant I mean this is really about hospitals as one would normally think about. I mean it really kind of just depends on the location. And like if BCH has has a portion of a building that that has those types of uses, we wouldn't necessarily say you can't do that if it's in the public zone. Okay. Okay. Thank you again and thanks for the extra time. Mark, you got another followup and then maybe we can close out questions and Yeah, just just a couple of comments on the hospital. My understanding it's just it's questions only at this point, but questions only. Okay. Well, then I was I was going to colloquy with Ryan because I I I thought his questions are good. Um, but I will wait. I will wait for comments. Appreciate it, Mark. Um, okay. So, that's the end of our clarifying questions. We'll have a chance for comments on that and other things in a little bit. So, we can now go to the public hearing. Um, Elicia, can you read

[53:02] the public participation guidelines, please? Of course, sir. Thank you. Good evening again everyone and thank you for joining us. I will now review the public participation at city council meeting guidelines. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and council, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. For more information about this vision and the community engagement processes, we ask that you please visit our website at bouldercol.gov/services/productive-mospheres and the boulder revised code section 16B. The city will enforce the rules of decorum found in the bod revised code,

[54:00] including participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. No attendees shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting room or refrain from addressing the council. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participants shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. And lastly, obscinity, other epithets based on race, gender, or religion, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the meeting will not be tolerated. Again, thank you for listening and thank you for joining us.

[55:00] Thank you, Alicia. And I'll also note that this is a public hearing on this specific ordinance and so I would request that people keep their remarks to the topic of this ordinance before us, please. We have five people's items to speak. Each person will get three minutes. And our first three speakers are Daryl Brown, Rob Bissers, and Susan Con. Quick sound check here. We can hear you. Very good. All right. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Prom, and all the council members. Thank you for the opportunity to attend this meeting. So, I'm Daryl Brown. I'm an associate vice president of strategy and business development at Boulder Community Health and our address is 4747 Arapjo Avenue for the main hospital. This evening, you're going to hear from me, our CEO, Dr. Rob Vissers, and one of our board of directors members, Susan Connelly.

[56:00] We're here to respectfully request your support for the staff recommended cone changes including in the ordinance 8697 specifically the proposed amendment the section 9214 site review. Um this change is going to allow us uh for our hospital and medical office buildings located in the public zone to request the height modification through the existing site review process to accommodate our necessary operational floor heights. When the city codified the community benefit requirements for heart modifications, it's my understanding that it only addressed buildings with a fourth or a fifth story, and that left out critical public service buildings such as our hospital. That may be uh that only two or three story buildings, but they may require the additional height due to our functional needs. So for us, Carl Guy, you're correct that our floor plate height is much higher than building uses. And again, it is. is to accommodate our equipment, all the specific HVAC requirements for our operating room and etc. And the code

[57:00] does specifically call out human services as an alternative community benefit, but we can't even use that unless it's a fourth or fifth story. We can't even submit a b an application for a three-story building that exceeds 35 ft in height. And the framework, you know, doesn't account for buildings that provide essential community benefits such as Boulder Community Health does. And so we're proposing of course that uh we uh approve the amendment and u it'll allow our hospitals and medical office buildings in the Pzone districts to request not adequately receive the height modification. I do want to actually address council member Marcus' questions and Mr. Guyer is correct that the medical office building is a Pzoning issue and it but it doesn't carry necessarily a designation of the hospital. So, anything attached to the hospital is going to have that designation, but a medical office building on our campus would not be designating the hospital and it may or may not be uh on our license. Okay. And

[58:00] so again, we're requesting support of the code change proposed in the ordinance and would like to respectfully uh request that it is approved. That concludes my portion and I appreciate again the opportunity to speak to you. Thank you. Now we'll go to Rob Vissers and then Susan Connley. Hello Mayor, Mayor Prom, and council members. Again, thank you for the opportunity to uh speak. I also appreciate the opportunity to highlight our hospital and who we are and hopefully I can clarify some of the questions that occurred earlier. Um, I just want to speak to what we want to do, why we need to do it, and, uh, also address some of the community benefit questions. Uh, through our strategic planning process, we've identified areas on our Foothills campus where we need to expand the footprint to accommodate the growing healthcare needs of the community. Uh, the height modification would be applied to a planned

[59:00] three-story extension. So, it would extend onto the hospital that already is at that 55 foot threshold. Um and what we would be adding is more beds to our emergency department and the level two trauma center. We'd be adding uh operating rooms and recovery and the peroperative um space that's required to support OS above that and and the the challenge we're facing honestly is an unprecedented and unexpected increase in demand and volume for our services. Uh since the co 19 pandemic uh we've had a a backlog of not only um surgeries and illness uh but patients are far more complex uh and the resources that are needed are more intensive. Um and we're getting to the point where we're having capacity constraints around our medical and surgical beds. Uh because of this uh we're often having outpatients backed up in the emergency department. uh and on rare occasion um but it will become more frequent if we're not able to add some

[60:00] more capacity is we actually have to go and divert meaning that it's unsafe for us to take more trauma patients or admissions to the emergency department or sometimes um we have to go and divert for labor and delivery or woman that wants to deliver. Um uh the we of course are uh not only the only hospital in Boulder. Um just to clarify, we are a uh independent nonprofit uh healthc care system and hospital that only serves uh Boulder and the surrounding community. We're actually the last independent hospital in the front range. I think just to clarify around public versus I I that's not a typical designation that I've heard of although I've worked certainly in um safety net hospitals like Denver Health but we're very similar to Denver Health in the sense that um we don't turn anyone away and so as Darl mentioned we provide about $80 million in free care or subsidized care. Twothirds of our patients either have insurance that doesn't cover the cost or

[61:01] have no insurance at all. um we do not turn anyone away. Uh and if they cannot pay, we do not force them to pay. Um so hopefully that addresses some of that um concerns in that area. Um our our biggest issue is that we feel like we're hitting a tipping point and we had planned on building this in five years. Uh but typically our hospital has grown at least historically 1 to 2% uh per year. Um these past few years we've had 10% growth last year at least in surgical cases. Three to four times the growth in medical surgical um I'm afraid your time is up and we we are strict about the time limits. So thank you for your testimony. Okay. Our uh final three speakers are Susan Connelly Seping and Lauren. Good evening. Uh, I'm Susan Connelly. I reside at 7393 Poston Way in Gun Barrel,

[62:01] but in the city limits, and I serve on the Boulder Community Health Board of Directors. Uh, we really appreciated the opportunity to clarify the hospital's 501c3 status. Um, as a nonprofit, um, we are a level two trauma center as well, one of only two in Boulder County. Um, we've been providing service to the Boulder community since 1922 and we want to go for another hundred years plus. Uh, so I I join with my colleagues in asking for your support of the staff recommended code change in section 9214. Thank you. Thank you. Now we have Seagull and then Mark. Hi, Lynn Seagull here. Yeah. Um, it seems like a lot of work's gone into this and I appreciate the the staff's coming up with, you know, clarity and

[63:02] removal of errors and logistics that improve the quality of life in Boulder. And, um, I really relate with the hospital, the 55 foot and three story. Um, I worked at Denver, Denver Health for years and years as a medical imaging professional. And so I can appreciate the needs that this community has financially for infrastructure, of medicine, of open space, of, you know, all of these, you know, South Boulder Rec Center, all of these things are important and I'm glad that things are being cleared up in the code. Um, in my own house, I've had a very interesting situation where I was kind of had this airsource hot water heater forced onto

[64:01] me. Um, where it didn't need to be. And if you can keep your comments to the ordinance and find it's it's very much related to the ordinance because we're talking smart rags, we're talking energy efficiency and my long-term plan is to get geothermal heat pump and instead I have a very noisy airsource hot water heater which is great but these kind of things aren't always that simple and because of code I had to have this thing in my living room and it makes a loud noise. So, which doesn't help me at all. Um, now as far as the finances of this goes, what we need to do to improve our economy for all of Boulder going much farther than the codes because all these codes are relevant, but only if we have a community to live in still. And we will not if we do not free Palestine and

[65:03] stop not all the topic at hand. That is on the top. That is your interpretation and that money needs to go into our community here for these code regulations and land use. Thanks for the help there. Our last speaker is Laura Kaplan. Uh, good evening members of council. Laura Kaplan, member of planning board, but speaking tonight for myself only. You know, Boulder has an amazing and dedicated planning staff, and I often strongly support staff's recommendations, and I have listened to and appreciated the presentation and discussion tonight. I do still respectfully disagree with a few things. Um, the package in front of you has been described as code cleanups and clarifications and as discussed, it was prepared at an inform level of public

[66:00] engagement where information is shared but public input is not sought out. But there are a few things in this package that are significant substantive changes to the land use code. And I hope you will agree that substantive changes are inappropriate for this level of swift approval with the lowest level of public engagement. DAP usually gets it right. In this case, I think there's a little bit of a miss. So, the substantive changes that staff proposed and which a majority of planning board did not support are the ones that you folks have focused on tonight. So, the one about the ground level open space courtyards. Um, in Q&A at planning board, it was clarified that the change that staff is proposing would allow these courtyards to be elevated, not just because of grade changes, but also they could be placed above, for example, partially submerged parking garages or other structures that are not quote elevated above the building's first story. And depending on the height of that first story, this could be 10 or 12 or more feet above grade level. Um

[67:01] this would be a substantial change to the pedestrian experience and planning board did a majority did ask for a change that would require those courtyards to be either at or close to ground level which we think honors staff's intent without allowing this loophole for elevating it um above structures. Um the second one is the application of the sub community and area plans. You all know this is near and dear to me. This is not a clarification in my opinion. It's an impactful change and planning board recommended a wording change that we think is very sympathetic to staff's point about not holding a project to all of the policies in the plans which is very reasonable. We recommended language that would allow general consistency with the overarching policies of the plans, but it would require consistency with anything that is sight specific guidance. And this is similar to how the BBCP requires consistency with the land use map, which is sight specific. Um, but on balance, consistency with everything else. Sounds like staff are accepting the recommendation about smart

[68:00] rigs, so I'll skip that one. Um, and then the height exemptions for the hospital. It's not that that I for one and my understanding of what planning board discussed, we do think that the hospital should be allowed to build these two or threetory buildings that are taller and that is not currently allowed under our current recommendations in in the zoning code or sorry current requirements. Um but we don't think that this zoning change is the way to do it. It's it's too complicated. There's too many moving parts here. We didn't think it was quite baked and we didn't think it was appropriate for this level of um code cleanup. So, thank you for consideration. You can see planning board's recommendations starting on page eight of your packet. Thank you. All right. And that concludes our public hearing. So, we'll bring it back to council for discussion. I will note that um we were allotted 75 minutes for this. So, we only have seven minutes left in our time. Uh so, I would encourage people to keep their remarks brief and targeted and hopefully we can get to a decision pretty quickly here. Lauren,

[69:00] you want to get us started? Were we able to ask follow-up questions from um commenters? Uh yes. Um they're still here, I believe. So um you could ask someone a particular question. I was just wondering um Dr. Uh, Rob Visor was cut off because and it seemed like he had a couple more things to say and I was interested in hearing um the tail end of his remarks or I guess formed as a question. Could you tell me what the end what the rest of your remarks included? Sure. I'll try and be brief. I I was going to reference the uh horrible fire bombing that occurred uh just last week or a little over a week ago. uh and all of those patients uh came to our hospital. Uh had we been on divert uh which fortunately is rare but may become more frequent. We

[70:01] may not have been able to accommodate them all or I'm sure we would have but it would have been a challenging uh thing to do. Um so again this is an expansion of our trauma center and our surgical support services. It's not really meant to provide anything else aesthetic etc. The other thing I I would mention is that because we're the only hospital in Boulder, we're independent and serve just uh Boulder's health needs, uh we're the only hospital that's actually added and built behavioral health unit uh at the request of the community. And every year we do a community needs health assessment um where we engage with community to find out what their concerns and desires are uh and uh what little uh extra money we have, we always invested in those needs. So, thank you for the opportunity to finish. Thank you for being with us today and explaining things a little bit more. Um, I guess since I have the floor, I'll give my remarks right now. Um, I really

[71:01] appreciate staff bringing forward this code cleanup. I always um hope that we can be really responsive to the things staff bring forward because we have espoused wanting to make these processes more efficient. Um I so I just wanted to thank staff for doing that. I agree that these do warranty an informed level of engagement because in my mind um they are just looking to make minor changes or changes that were oversightes of previous processes. Um that is why I made the recommendation that I did for the height exemption because I think that the ex in through the community benefit project not

[72:02] including projects that had community benefit for height exemptions uh three stories didn't seem to me like an intentional choice that was made. I understand that the idea was to reduce three-story buildings that were exceeding their height limits, but um I don't agree that the intention of that work was to create a situation where there was no path forward for projects combi um providing community benefit to ask for an exemption in that case. Um, but I do hear staff that uh to bring forward a more comprehensive option um that they would like a little bit more time to do that. So, I'm comfortable with that, but I hope that it will be added to the list and brought forward soon. Um, I would like to see the planning

[73:01] board recommendation of retaining the exemption for smartregs to um, ad to attached ADUs that's listed in appendex C um, kept. And I would like to see us remove the requirements for duplexes to meet all setback requirements and to remove the updated language around in the contractor section um again to a future meeting where we can hear a little bit more from um the enforcement team to understand better what that means and what that looks like. Thank you. So that Lauren um I've got Zena and Mark and then Sarah. Okay. Thanks and um thank you for the speakers who came today to share some more background knowledge. Um I am fine

[74:00] with the hospital language with the medical offices and I just want to um make sure that you know people understand that sometimes a medical office has a lot of different um functions. So a cosmetic surgeon who does a facelift might also be the one who does reconstructive surgery after a a mastctomy or after removing a large cancer on your forehead was when my case um so people's medical providers it can be complex. So I actually um would like to include the medical offices because of the different types of practitioners even though some of them um that people do mixed things. So, I think that's um a good idea to keep it there. Um the I would like just to make sure that this wording for the garden does not mean that it could be elevated in an inaccessible way. And as long as that this wording staff feels confident that

[75:00] it doesn't mean that the garden will be in a separate sort of structure or in a perimeter above ground that can't be seen or accessed easily. Accessible is in the title. Thank you Lauren for pointing that out. Um then I'm okay with it. Uh and and certainly if we ever talked about increasing the height of stories in certain buildings, we might want to revisit that since we're using our measurement as a story rather than a distance or a specific length. So we might want to think about that in the context of gardens as well. Um, and then on the duplex, I I felt like even though staff agrees, I feel like that's a little bit different and out of scope and should go through some kind of process in a future cleanup along with the contractor one. Um, and that's all I have. Thanks for that, Tina. I got a bunch of people lined up and I will keep folks in mind that we will vote on this as well. So, we make

[76:00] our opinions known in that way as well. So, we got Mark, Tara, Tisha, Ryan. I'm just going to address the hospital. Um, I said as an unfortunate consumer of their services, I can tell you that they are uh needing more beds. Um, as well as staff. Uh and um uh I I I think this uh uh entity is the absolute um epitome of u you know public uh contribution, public service. Um uh they do uh have substantial charitable um contributions in terms of the services they provide those who can't afford them. uh they are a nonprofit entity and um for me this is a um something I would really really really like to see approved. I I don't understand some of the planning board's reasoning on this. I I think this is um

[77:02] absolutely the right case for them to be able to do an expansion that they they they and the community desperately needs. So, I would support that and that's all I'm going to address right now. Thanks. We got Terara Ta. Um, I agree with everybody on the hospital. It is an independent nonprofit, $80 million, $80 million in free care and subsidized care. I also agree with Lauren that bringing this back not not for the hospital but other the rule the two and three story rule that we do have I I would like to look into it for cleanup as well. So I'm agreeing with Lauren that I hope you can bring it back soon or relatively soon. Um but for now I think I agree with the hospital as is. I definitely agree with the word generally consistent. right on for that one and thank you for making this more flexible and um everything

[78:02] else so far I agree with my uh colleagues who have agreed on all this. So that's all I have. Thanks Tisha then and Ryan and I'll call it myself. Thank you. I really appreciated the clarifications around the hospital uh as the breast cancer survivor who used that hospital. I am very keenly aware of the work that it does and I appreciate my colleagues questions. I'm ensuring that um you know again it is as much of a public good and public facing. Um and I also just would love to have a conversation with the hospital in general because I just think that's a stakeholder group we don't get enough conversation with as a council. Um I still continue to have concerns around generally I just feel like if you as somebody again American Institutes for Research um just from a researcher perspective it's it's not having examples or evidence of what generally means um I just see that devolving into um they say they say um the inform the

[79:04] selection of using inform I actually had to go back to the framework work um to find the clarification between inform and consult. And I believe that this is actually with the exception of the corrections and clarifications that are not substantive inform is appropriate which is to provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding a problem, alternatives and opportunities or solutions. But in consult is where we find to obtain public feedback on public analysis alternatives and decisions. My main concern again is that there are um stakeholder groups that will be significantly impacted by some of these changes that are not in any way a part of this decision-making process which both from a racial equity standpoint is uh a flag on the play and on our protocols and don't align with our values. Um, and I continue to have concerns around how permitting and

[80:00] housing reflect our racial equity goals, um, the economic components and issues that were raised, um, by the email and again reinforced in the letters, um, from from planning board and others. Um, so again, I I although I appreciate the hospital component and much of the the cleanup, I do continue to have concerns um with specifically the public engagement and especially those components uh related to generally um as well as the homeowner uh owner occupant from multif family um homes. I don't feel like that stakeholder group was sufficiently engaged in the decisions that we're about to make related to their properties. Thank you. Thank you, Ryan. And myself. Thank you. Um I Oops. Um I know we're going to vote, so I'll try to be brief. Um just first I really appreciate the work uh of staff on all on all of this and also appreciate that planning board

[81:00] has really wrestled with a lot of a lot of detail here. Um so I I support the continued exemption of ADUs from smart rags. I I think that is now in the SAP recommendation. I'm not actually sure where that is, but I support that. And then I just wanted to comment um there there were three planning board recommendations that um staff has not proposing to incorporate that I actually would would like to see. Um it's the top three on the the table that staff provided. So on the grade level open space bonus, I I don't think it makes sense to have in as eligible the example where you have that open space on top of a of top of a garage. Um so I I like the planning board's recommendation. And then the other one is um the consistency with site reviews and the consistency with formbbased code. Um I appreciate the way that planning board um has recommended to provide tighter boundaries around conformance to site site specific criteria while still having um some broader flexibility. So

[82:00] that's it. Thanks. Thanks Ryan. Just calling myself just real quick appreciate staff's work on this so much. Each year we uh make a little bit more progress on our um code and permitting and I greatly appreciate all of your efforts in that area. Um and the Boulder Community Health is a community treasure. Uh provides an enormous community benefit to our city and surrounding areas. So very much in support of allowing them to apply for a height exemption for their internal needs. And then I do feel like the generally language um helps align our approach to area plans with the way that we approach comprehensive plan and is the right kind of level to address those things at. So those are my thoughts and so yes, Tara, I I'm sorry. I just wanted to know if Lauren, can you explain the your reasoning for the setbacks? You explained it to me and I felt it was a really good explanation that I was hoping everybody get here. Real quick though because I know we want to move on. Okay. So, um, basically a number of

[83:00] the properties that would be eligible for duplexing in our community are non-conforming. That's that they have a high level of non-conformance with their setbacks. And so in order to maintain an existing building and turn it into an ADU, we would have to allow ADUs or sorry and turn it into a duplex, we would have to allow duplexes to um be allowed on properties that don't meet their setbacks. Otherwise, in order to have a duplex, you're forcing people to scrape an existing building, some or all of it, um in order to build the duplex. I will say that currently we have um a board like it doesn't mean that you get to do those by right. We have a board which looks at um any request to a modification to um a non-conformance with setbacks. So it just creates a process that they could go forward um to keep an existing

[84:01] building that doesn't comply with its setbacks. Good enough, Tara. Okay. And I forgot to mention I do support Lauren's suggestions. Uh Tina, you want to throw one more thing in before we get to a motion? Yeah. I have a a question for staff or Lauren. Do we feel that the the duplex language is part of this code cleanup? I'm not concerned about the end result and I also but I'm it doesn't feel like it's a part of this code cleanup process and that's honestly my biggest concern. Um so do you know staff didn't start by putting it in and do you do you felt that it it meets that threshold Carl? Uh we do. Um I think to give a little context when we did the family-friendly vibrant neighborhoods project. Um we looked at a bunch of properties that were on multimodal corridors and said that they're eligible to be duplexes

[85:02] um on those sites. But then we looked at that a number of those lots are substandard in size, meaning that they're they're smaller than the minimum lot size of the zone. So we had to address that. So what we did is we just went to language that already exists in the code, which is in our non-conforming standards. And it basically says it basically sets the eligibility standards for developing vacant lots that are substandard in size. And what this it says is that there's certain smaller sizes that are acceptable to develop those lots, but it said strictly that if it's a vacant lot, you have to develop it by meeting the setbacks. We took that same language and we just put it into the new code for duplexes. So, planning board did raise the issue that if you have an existing house on that property that may have non-standard setbacks, and many do, that would cause a complication

[86:00] for them to convert to a duplex. So, as uh council member Fulkurt said, it would require them to demo the building and then build a new and meet the setback. So we agree uh with removing that section uh related to setbacks in section 983 on duplexes. Okay. So you think it meets the threshold for cleanup? Not not talking. Okay. The intent like when we we we wanted to encourage conversions and this is an unintended um thing that would dissuade them from converting. Okay. And the section that I'm suggesting that we strike is a is a section that was added as a code cleanup. It wasn't a section that was in the code as it's written previously. Okay. And we we did have the setback require we refer basically what we did is we referred to section 910 for what lots are eligible. Um, but that

[87:01] created some confusion because that section refers to like how to build a on a vacant lot. So, it inadvertently got pulled into this section. So, again, we agree with the with the suggested change. And then my second question is, how are you feeling about the garden level grade level from a staff perspective? I mean, do we feel that we're at risk of people building gardens that are significantly less accessible with in the current language? Should we try to work on the language or do you do you feel that the it will it won't be interpreted as I can put a garden on top of a garage or something like that? I think the intent when we wrote this section was that it would not be elevated on top of a structure. That was not the intent, but we wanted to offer that flexibility if there's a change in grade. So, I'll defer to some of my my colleagues on this, but we could make a change to the section that says um where it says the space is visible from an

[88:01] adjoining public sidewalk uh and is not elevated above the building's first story. We could say something like we could tighten that up and just say the space is visible and immediately accessible from an adjoining public sidewalk. And that would make it more clear that it has to be near a public sidewalk. But again, I'm just proposing this really quickly. Uh, if there's others in our department that want to chime in on whether that could work. Uh, well, can I just come I'm a little worried about doing too much on the fly because I just to clarify, Carl, I believe the staff recommendation was not to make that change any changes to that section. Is that correct? Yeah. I mean, we we think the flexibility is important in this section. We're just trying to offer again how to assuage the concerns that are being brought up. Okay. Um, I wonder if someone might be interested in making a motion at this point. Lauren, if someone would bring up the motion language, I would be happy to make a motion.

[89:04] Is that Or is it in the chat? Um, I I can have that. I can bring that. Oh, I see it in the chat. I'm good. Um, so I'm make a motion to adopt ordinance 8697 amending title 4 licenses and permits, title 9 land use code and title 10 structures BRC1981 related to development activities to correct errors and omissions, update graphics and formatting, clarify standards and procedures, create consistency within certain state regulations, and remove certain development restrictions to allow flexibility in project design and in certain locations and in setting forth related details. Um, and I would like to propose a couple amendments or include include I would like to include a couple of amendments. Thank you, Brocket. Um,

[90:02] I would like to include an amendment to Wait, should we accept the motion first? No. I mean, you can make a motion that contains changes to the staff recommend recommendation. Oh, and then we would vote on all of it. Yes or no? Not vote on the amendments individually. If someone after Lauren is finish is finished wants to make a motion to amend her motion to remove one of those proposed changes, you could do so. Okay. Um so I would like to include the uh removing the exemption um in appendix C for ADUs within existing structures um to meet smart red. Go smart regs requirements. I would like to remove in section 9838

[91:02] A2A the duplex setback requirements. And I would like to remove the updated language in section 442B3. Um the portion prohibiting unlicensed contractors um from constructing buildings intended for use as short-term long-term rentals um to a future item. Second. And Lauren, I think you've already spoken to your ideas. Did you want to add any other thoughts? Um No, I think I'm good for the moment. Thank you. Speak to it either. Um, if somebody disagreed with those changes or wanted to make a different one, this would be your chance to make the motion if you so desired.

[92:00] Nicole, I just had a um clarification question. Um, not so much a disagreement or anything, but um, when you say move move it to a future item, do you just mean the next time that we're doing a round of code cleanups? Is that what you're referring to there? Yeah. Staff had mentioned that because that when we have I'm sorry, my nouns are struggling right now. um when we have a code enforcement official to speak to sort of the regulating the the regulation portion of that um at another meeting or with another section of code cleanups. I'm open to what makes sense on that front depending on how quickly staff wants to move that forward. Okay. But not not like a a specific timeline on it or anything like that. Just whenever it comes up again. Okay. Thank you.

[93:00] So, I'm wondering if if it's a if I could do an amendment to also move the garden language to a next cleanup when it can be better defined as not being above a structure. So, not to say no to it at all, but to move to also bring that back so that we don't do it on the fly. So, you certainly can. So if you wanna can I call sorry can I call can we just to maybe assist with that? Sorry Teen if that if that's um but I'm just one one thought would be um planning board does have language and I guess maybe there could be a question of do is is that has that been vetted enough with folks and I'm fine if it's not but just to point out that's been well I don't know if it um if the language from planning board I'm looking at it right now if it is flexible enough because I I really appreciate the need for flexibility here. Um, so I I I would take a guess that this isn't really urgent. Um, and if planning board can just finess it

[94:02] finesse it slightly and not planning board staff. Um, I'm sure we could get there, but I don't see it I I don't like us doing it right now. So I I mean I can make a motion to remove uh references to section 9214 H4BI before I uh if that's okay. Sure, you're absolutely entitled to it. Brad, did you want to speak to it before we move? Yeah, just a point of clarification. And I had understood uh Mayor Prom's uh comments as as just a request that we follow up on something that isn't being proposed. But I believe council member Maris is is where I'm getting clarification that your amendment actually would take that out of the proposed ordinance and not have it voted on tonight with the comment that it be brought back at some future point. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Right. So Tina's got um a motion to remove that

[95:00] section entirely from the um ordinance in front of us. Um Lauren, did you might want to make a quick comment to that? I don't think I'm removing it entirely. I'm removing it from being changed in this round. Okay. Removing from the ordinance this evening with a request to bring it back to at some point look forward to in the future. Thanks. I guess I should ask if there's a second on that one. Second. Okay. And then I think Timmy, you've spoken to it. It's getting a little dusty out here. Um Lauren, did you want to make a comment before we vote on that? I was just asking about process and how we do that with the voting on different amendments. So um so we have a a motion to amend and so what we would do is we would vote on the motion to amend the original motion and then whether that succeeds or fails

[96:00] we would then make have a vote on the original motion either as amended or not depending on on how the first vote goes. Is that clear to folks? Okay. Well, we've got a motion to amend which is Tina's motion seconded by Mark. All in favor of that motion, raise your hand. Oh, actually that's got three votes. Um, all opposed. And that's that's five. So that that motion to amend is unsuccessful. So then we go back to the original motion um by Lauren un amended. And so um this I believe would need to be a roll call vote because it's on the final ordinance. So, if we can have a roll call vote on the original and can I clarify something quickly because Brad popped up and he said that my question to work on something later didn't actually wasn't about what was in this and I just wanted to say that the I

[97:02] my motion did include striking the updated language from section 44 to B3 um and leaving that as is currently and until we check in on it at future. So for tonight, it would be to not amend that section with staff's updates. Yeah, Mayor Prom, thanks for clarifying that. I I misheard you earlier then. Thank you. Can you can you can somebody quickly read that that that you're pulling, Lauren? That was the section around um unlicensed contractors and Yep. short and long-term rentals. Ryan, did you want to make a comment before we go to a vote? Yeah, just to clarify, I I had a couple of proposed amendments. So, is this the time to do it now or is it to verse a vote and then do that after? Now would be the time if you want to make an additional amendment. Now is the time. Okay. So, I had the two um the items two and three

[98:02] on the planning board suggestions um that were not incorporated. I could read those. says they're each like a long paragraph, but I want Is it easier just to do a sur poll first or however you want to do it. It's fine. I'm not I'm being more formal. I'm doing actual votes on motions if you don't mind. So, okay. So, if I have two, I'll do one and then Yeah, maybe maybe do it as two separate um motions. Okay. To clarity. Okay. This is about a paragraph. I'm going to read from the memo and it's um planning board's uh language and it's on the the third the third one that they made. So I would like to make a motion to amend the ordinance to read sub community and area plans or design guidelines. If the project is subject to an adopted sub community or area plan or adopted design guidelines, the project is consistent with the applicable sight specific guidance such as a transportation network plan, place type, character district, area development

[99:00] guidelines or similar. The project is generally consistent with overarching plans, goals, policies, or guidelines that apply to all sites covered by the applicable plan. Very good. Do we have a second? All right. Oh, we got T. She's got a second. Okay. So, I think you've spoken to this already, Ryan. So, yeah, I don't need to say anything. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor of the amendment proposed, raise your hand. Count two. All opposed. That's six. So, that that fails on a two six vote. Okay. And I'll I'll withdraw the second one. I'm done. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Ryan. All right. Any any other last amendments? Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor, which was Lauren's motion, seconded by myself. So, Lucia, can we have a roll call, please?

[100:01] Yes, sir. We'll start the roll call for item 2A, ordinance 8697 with Mayor Pro Tim Fulkers. Yes. Council member Marquis, yes. Shoeart, yes. Spear, yes. Wallik, hi. Winer, yes. Adams, no. And Mayor Brockett, yes. Ordinance 8697 is hereby amended and approved with a vote of 7 to1. Great. Okay. Well, thanks uh city staff again for all of your amazing work on this. I know this was very complicated in in the weeds and appreciate all your efforts and also your responsiveness to all the feedback from planning board and

[101:00] planning board and council. All right. So, Elicia, can we go to the next business item, please? Yes, sir. Thank you. The next business item on tonight's agenda is from matters from the city attorney. 3A is the consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder City Council and convene as the Boulder Downtown Commercial District, formerly known as the Central Area General Improvement District Board of Directors and consideration of a motion. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Please continue. and a consideration of a motion to convene the executive session of the board of directors of the Boulder Downtown Commercial District, formerly known as the Central Area General Improvement District, to discuss a potential real property purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale as authorized by section 24-642 subsection 4A of the CRS concerning the

[102:02] purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real personal or other property interests and 24-6-42 subsection 4E of the CRS determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations developing strategy for negotiation and instructing negotiators. Teresa, Teresa. Uh, yes, Mayor. Um, I believe that the the council needs to move to suspend its rules that require that there are not votes taken under matters in order to proceed with this item. Yes, that's my understanding as well. So, typically we're not allowed to vote under matters, but we need to vote under matters in order to convene the executive session. So, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to suspend the council rule procedures uh 4- six to allow voting under matters. Second. We got a motion and a second. Uh all in

[103:00] favor, please raise your hand. That's unanimous. So the that move is suspended. Okay. And folks, I got a lot of words to read here. Um so bear with me. Um the first thing that I'm going to do is to invite um a motion to adjurnn as the Boulder City Council and convene as the Boulder Downtown Commercial District Board of Directors. So moved. Second. That's a motion and a second. So all in favor, please raise your hand. Uh eight. So that's unanimous. So we are now convened as the Boulder Downtown Commercial District Board of Directors. And now I One second. I have to get that open. All right.

[104:01] So, bear with me. The city manager and city attorney have requested an executive session of the Central Area Business Improvement District, KJID, also known as the Boulder Downtown Commercial District, pursuant to CRS section 24-6-424 concerning a potential real property purchase, lease transfer, or sale as authorized by section 24-6-424 ARS and section 24-6-424ECS determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations and instructing negotiators. Section 24-6.424B receiving legal advice and section 24-6.424G considering confidential documents regarding the same. The following provisions of the Colorado Open Meetings Act authorize an executive session to discuss this matter. the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real personal or other property

[105:00] interest. CRS 246424A. Conferences with an attorney for the city to receive legal advice on specific legal questions. CRS 246424B. Determining positions rel relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and instructing negotiators CRS 246424E. and consideration of documents protected by the mandatory non non-disclosure provisions of the Colorado Open records act CRS 246424G. This topic announcement provides as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized. So I will now entertain that chair will entertain a motion to convene an executive session pursuant to CRS section 246424 for conference with the city manager and attorney for the city for the purpose previously stated. So moved. Second. All right. We've got a motion and second. I will note that a motion for executive session must pass by twothirds

[106:01] of the form of council present. All in favor, please raise your hand. All right, that passes on a vote of 8 to zero. So the motion has passed. The council will now recess and reconvene immediately in a virtual executive session to discuss the matter previously stated for the purposes previously stated. And I will gave us into recess for that purpose. 8:58 p.m. 58 p.m. and the executive session has been concluded. The participants in the executive session were Taiisha Adams, Aaron Brackett, Lauren Fulkurts, Tina Marcus, Ryan Shuhard, Nicole Spear, Mark Wallet, Terrell Winer, Mary Rivera Vandermide, Chris Meschuk, Mark Wolf, Theresa Taylor Tate, Cristiana McCormack, and Brad.

[107:01] For the record, if any person who participated in the executive session believes that any substantial discussion of any matters not including the motion to go into executive session occurred during the executive session or that any improper action occurred during the executive session in the violation of the open meetings law, I ask that you state your concerns for the record. Seeing none, I now continue the June 12th special meeting agenda. And for that purpose, can I have a motion to adjourn as paged in recent city council? So moved. Second. All in favor, please raise your hand. All right. Um Tisha should do you mind coming on camera for Okay, that's passes 8 to zero. The motion is passed and the council will now immediately reconvene as the city

[108:00] council. And so um Alicia, if we can go to item 3B, please. Yes, sir. Thank you. Uh item 3B has two parts. First part is the motion that was just made to adjurnn as the Boulder Downtown Commercial District Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder City Council. And our second motion will be a consideration of a motion to call an executive session of the city council to receive legal advice on representing the city in emerging federal administrative actions regarding sanctuary cities. Thank you, Alicia. All right, I've got more text to read here. So, the the city manager and city attorney have requested an executive session of the city council pursuant to CRS section 24642B for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions concerning and representing the city and emerging federal administrative actions regarding sanctuary cities. The

[109:00] following provisions of the Colorado Open Meetings Act authorize an executive session to discuss this matter. Conferences with an attorney for the city to receive leak life on specific liquid questions. CRS 246424B. This topic announcement provides as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session was authorized. The chair will now entertain a motion to convene an executive session pursuant to CRS section 246424B for a conference with the city manager and attorney for the city for the purpose previously stated. So moved. Second. Got a motion in a second. I will note that a motion for executive session must pass by twothirds of the quorum at council present. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, that is 80 unanimous. The motion is passed. The council will now recess and reconvene immediately in a virtual executive session to discuss the matter previously stated for the purposes previously stated. And I now call a recess.

[110:32] 10 p.m. 10 p.m. and the executive session has been concluded. The participants in the executive session were Taiisha Adams, Aaron Brockett, Lauren Fulbricks, Tina Marquis, Ryan Schubard, Nicole Spear, Mark Wallock, Terra Winer, Mary Rivera Vandermod, Chris Meschuk, Teresa Taylor Tate, Roberto Ramirez, Luis Turo, and Sarah Hudley. For the record, if any person who

[111:00] participated in the executive session believes that any substantial discussion of any matters not including the motion to go into executive session occurred during the executive session or that any improper action occurred during the executive session in violation of the open meetings law, I ask that you state your concerns for the record. Seeing none, I will now continue the June 12th special meeting agenda of which we have just come to the end of the material sentence. So, um we have nothing else on the agenda. Uh, we'll go ahead and wrap us up and unless anyone has a last minute comment that they want me to get. And seeing none, I will gave us closed 11 p.m. Good night everybody.