September 4, 2025 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[4:36] ing and welcome everyone to the Thursday, September 4th, 2025 meeting, regular meeting of the Boulder City Council. We're going to start with an announcement about what's up Boulder. The city is hosting our annual citywide engagement event this Sunday, September 7th, from 1 to 4 p.m. at Scott Carpenter Park. This is your opportunity to talk with staff from all across the city and learn about projects happening now and in the future. It is also equally fun.

[5:01] We will have free popsicles, music, lawn games, and arts and crafts. It's free fun for the whole family. Interpretation services will be available as well. We hope to see you there. And with that, I will call us to order. And Elisha, ask for a roll call, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. And good evening, everyone. And thank you for joining us. We'll start the night's roll call as usual with council member Adams >> present. >> Benjamin >> present. >> Mayor Brackett >> present. >> Mayor pro Tim Folks. >> Council member Marquis >> here. >> Shuhard >> here. Spear >> present. >> Wallik >> here. >> And Winer >> present. >> Mayor we have our quarum. >> Great. Thank you. And I understand Mayor Pro Tim Fulkurts will be joining us later remotely. Okay. I'd like to start by requesting a motion to amend the agenda and wait for it here. There's a lot of words. uh to

[6:00] remove item 4 D which is introduction and consideration of a motion to order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure ordinance 8714 submitting a ballot question to the city's electors at the November 4th, 2025 general municipal coordinated election to have the voters establish a portion of the collective bargaining agreement between the city of Boulder and the Boulder Police Officers Association by choosing between the city of Boulders and the Boulder Police Officers Association's last best offers for economic bett benefits and setting forth related details and also to update the language of item 4B, the motion to approve the order of the city of Boulder ballot measures and city council candidates for the nove November 4th, 2025 general municipal coordinated election as proposed by the city clerk as revised without the ballot measure concerning the BPOA collective bargaining agreement. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, that was 8 to zero. So, the agenda

[7:02] has been amended. Okay. And now, um, it does say item 2A is the declaration, but we will do that after open comment. So, item number three is open comment, and we will go to that. Please, Elicia, if you can go over our public participation guidelines. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. And thank you again, everyone, for joining us. I will now review the public participation at city council meeting guidelines. Thank you for your participation at tonight's council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code, including participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole names before being allowed to speak online. Only audio testimate audio testimony is permitted during open comment. No attendee shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of

[8:00] 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 participant 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. Thank you again for joining us, and thank you for listening. Thanks so much, Elicia. All right, we've got 11 people signed up to speak. We're going to go back and forth between in person and virtual. And uh the limit is two minutes, and I will be strict about that so as to be fair to everyone who is speaking. All right, our first three speakers are Betsy Neely in person, Nick Kerwin in person, and then Lynn Seagull

[9:01] virtual. So Betsy, you can get us started. >> Good evening. I'm Betsy. if you can get the microphone. >> Much for the opportunity to be here tonight. I'm here to urge you to strengthen and actively enforce the rules in Boulder around ebikes, particularly for our teens. I recently had a very nasty collision with a young ebiker and she was 13 years old. She was riding to school. I was riding to my volunteer gig. I was so shocked to learn that she was not ticketed because apparently from now what I understand that ebikes are allowed on our sidewalks and people can go up to 15 miles per

[10:00] hour on our sidewalks. What's more, I learned that there's no minimum age for riding an ebike. a class one and a class two. Since my accident and actually before I have observed just an incred incredible increase of our ebikes all around town, particularly the youngsters and they're inexperienced. They're riding through our stop signs, through stop lightss, on grassy meadows in our parks. And of course on the sidewalks, these young teens brains are not developed. They don't have the judgment and the experience that we have as adults. Um and they're riding at highest speed, really high speeds, and they're using these motor vehicle speeds actually. Um,

[11:04] and this poses such a significant threat to other cyclists, children, seniors, pedestrians, and all of us who share the sidewalks. And >> your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. I just want to urge >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. Your time is up, ma'am. >> Oh, I have a handout. I'd like >> You can hand that to the clerk over here. >> Okay. Now, we're going to go to Nick Kerwin in person and then Lynn Seagull virtual and Lara Gonzalez virtual. >> Mr. Mayor, council members, thank you for taking the time to listen to open comment today. Uh my name is Nick Kerwin. I am a father of two young sons here locally. I've lived in Boulder for 13 years now. Um I work out on 55th Street. My sons attend 10 Foothill

[12:01] Elementary School. Um I'm here today to speak on behalf of the Save Save Iris Fields. Uh specifically, I'm not here representing Save Iris Fields, but speaking as an individual, as a father, as a coach at North Boulder Little League. Um as many of you are aware, uh the county last week put Iris Fields up for sale in addition to the municipal buildings that are adjacent to it on Iris and Broadway. Um, while I support selling those municipal buildings um to good use of space, um, I am very much opposed to selling a public park. And that's just what's happening. The county right now is proposing to sell a public park that has been a longstanding public park in Boulder for over 70 years. Um, North Boulder Little League, uh, operates out of there in addition to hosting, you know, other baseball, little league, youth sports. Um, and the city has the ability, right now it's

[13:00] zoned public. And so, the reason I'm here today is because I want to urge all of you to not approve any zoning change to those fields that does not explicitly save and preserve the fields as they are, where they are. Um, obviously this is incredibly important. I could speak for 20 minutes on this, but I only have two. So, I'm here today to urge you all to not support any development, not support any county motions to change the zoning that does not explicitly in writing protect Iris Fields, uh, and the longstanding great history that they represent. Um, they're a community they're a community gem and I hope you can all protect them. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now we're going to go to Lynn Seagull virtually, then Lara Gonzalez virtually, and then Leslie Cluster in person. >> Mayor, I do not see Lynn online tonight. >> Okay, let's go to Lara Gonzalez then.

[14:06] >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Can you please restart my time? >> No. I guess we did. So, go ahead. >> Let's restart it. What an [ __ ] you are, Rocket. And you know who thinks that about you? Dr. Spear next to you. She thinks you're an incompetent facilitator. But let's start to the news. While Tara Winer is not listening like always because anything related to Palestine, she's not going to listen because she's a staunch scientist. And that has nothing to do with Judaism. So, stop that [ __ ] So, today >> shut the [ __ ] up, Spear. >> Profanity. speaking. That is an infringement on the freedom of speech right now. You [ __ ] interrupted me. Shut the [ __ ] up, you fascist liber. >> Your time is up for violations of the rules. >> Okay, now we're going to go to Leslie Glustramm in person, then Holly Monkman in person, and then Patty Fster Aguilera

[15:00] virtually. Is Leslie here? Let's see. Not seeing Leslie, then we'll go to Holly Monkman. Good evening, city council members. I'm Holly Monkman speaking on my own behalf tonight. I'm here to request that council conduct a study session to consider recently proposed election reforms at the local and state level and to learn more about proportional representation. If a study session doesn't fit with council's current plans, then maybe a working group or community assembly would be great options, too. At the state level, recently proposed reforms include increasing the number of county commissioners for counties with large populations, using proportional representation instead of districts for county commissioner elections, and changing how vacancies are filled when

[16:00] an elected official resigns. Longmont City Council will be holding holding a study session to look at rank choice voting for their council elections. The organization RCV for Longmont is using Longmont City Council to consider electing half or more of its city council members using a multi-winner proportional form of rank choice voting. This is the same method used in Portland, Oregon, and since 1941 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Perhaps we could form a joint working group with the Longmont community to explore proportional representation. This would be a wonderful opportunity for council members and a community to learn more about how to elect a council that represents a variety of points of view in proportion to the variety of views in the Boulder Electorate. In a representative democracy, we always should be striving for the best possible elections. This should include increasing voter participation at the ballot box, improved community communication with our elected

[17:01] officials, and voting methods that elect governing bodies that better reflect the community. Thank you and have a good evening. >> Thank you. Now we'll go to Patty Fustra Aguilera virtually, then Eric Gross virtually, then Philip Oakgrren in person. >> Hi, can you hear me? >> Yes. I cannot share images anymore as you all censored us. So I describe them. The image is Councilwoman Adams, the only counselor of color, a black woman raising her hand by herself and every other counselor around her staring at her doing nothing. She's alone, courageous, leading us to just do better while the rest just censors the truth. You suspend the truth tellers. You suspend an indigenous woman for a year. a year for speaking up against genocide because it's inconvenient to you and you wonder why she's angry. You cowards are defining what Boulder is. A place where

[18:01] only white rich people can live comfortably enjoying the beauty of the flat irons. Reviving what the first settlers set up to do here. Massacre the indigenous peoples of this land and make it an exclusive place for whites only. The reality is that you only care about yourselves and your white economic privilege. Spears didn't even show up. But we see you in that image, Spears. We do. I want to thank Rob Smoke for speaking up for Palestinians to this council for so many years. We have you all on the record. And I know that there will be a moment when you say that you always oppose genocide. And we will be there showing this image to remind your children and your grandchildren that all of you allowed this genocide to happen and did absolutely nothing to stop even making profit of it. Spears, it's not anti-Semitic to compare the Holocaust of Jews to other Holocaust and to genocide. As my siblings teach me, it is a continuum. The Nazis learned

[19:00] from the settlers in Turtle Island, genociding Native Americans. There was the siling of Holocaust in Guatemala. There's genocide in Congo and Sudan. These tools are shared and learn. And the Holocaust in Germany was not an isolated incident. learn and I send you stuff to learn and you didn't do it. Just learn more stuff. Please divest from Caterpillar and Microsoft. >> All right. Let's go now to Eric Gross virtually and then Philip Ogrren in person and Taylor Lunau in in person. >> Hello council. Um, I just want to read you a little bit since the last time we spoke when I was outside your building and one of the uh members of your security staff and an attendee came down and uh ripped down posters that we had put up. Uh, the International Association of Genocide Scholars put out a resolution determining with 83% approval from their membership that Israel is in fact

[20:01] committing genocide. So recognizing that Israel has forcibly displaced nearly all of the 2.3 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip multiple times and demolished more than 90% of the housing infrastructure in the territory. And recognizing that Israel has destroyed schools, universities, libraries, museums, and archives, all of them essential to the continued existence of Palestinian collective well-being and identity. and recognizing that Israel has killed or injured more than 50,000 children and that this destruction of a substantial part of a group constitutes genocide as emphasized in a joint declaration of intervention in the international court of justice case of the Gambia versus Myanmar by six countries Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom which states that children form a substantial part of the groups protected by the genocide convention and that the targeting of children provides an indication of the intention to destroy destroy a group as such, at least in part. I know many of you don't

[21:00] see the things that we see every day. I know one of you does. I know one of you pays attention. I know the rest of you actively does not. I know one of you marches with a group that I filmed and has now gone into Israeli press internationally as part of the march for their lives in Boulder saying that 1,000 dead babies is not enough. That they demanded more. That was came that was what came out of the march in your city. That is what your city is becoming known for. And when someone tells you to [ __ ] off, >> it is their legal right. That is a constitution. >> I ended it slightly early due to the profanity. Okay. Our next three people are all in person. Philip Ogrren, Taylor Lunau, and Evan Rabbitz. Hello, my name is Philip Ogrren and I'm speaking on behalf of the housing advisory board and I'm reading this statement which was approved by HAB in unanimous vote. Our intention here is to help improve communication between our

[22:00] board and your council. We have two updates for you tonight. First, HAB recently formed a subcommittee on homelessness to address housing solutions for the unhoused and is anticipating reviewing the recently released clutch consulting report. HAB will review the clutch report and work with you to explore various housing solutions for individuals experiencing homelessness and make recommendations as appropriate. Second, at our regular HAB meeting in March, we had a guest panel attend for a discussion on sharing housing. Demographic and economic trends and a wide variety of housing related factors have conspired to create a situation in Boulder where there are many large houses that are occupied by just one or two people. In many case there is financial and physical hardship of maintaining a large property which could be alleviated if sharing housing was more socially acceptable and we had better established resources to help people find housemates that are compatible. Sharing housing builds economic resilience in community relations and making more efficient use of bedrooms that are already built and climate controlled is an environmentally friendly response to our housing crisis.

[23:01] Our panel was focused on practical solutions presented by experts and local advocates who are already working tirelessly in this space. Our panel consisted of Anmarie Pluhar, president of Sharing Housing, a nonprofit that advocates for sharing housing and educates people on how to find compatible housemates. Anmarie Parsons, director of operations at Boulder Housing Coalition, a local nonprofit that manages five cooperative living houses in Boulder and Denver. Bri Urgger, a real estate broker at LiveWork Denver that specializes in bringing multiple parties together to go to co- buy houses and Svenia Falquist, the executive director of Home Share Oregon. We had a live lively and interesting discussion. If you are interested in increasing sharing housing in Boulder, you might consider increased education on sharing housing solutions, investigating the implementation of a housemate matching service, and improved data collection to inform housing policy. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now, let's go to Taylor Lou now and then Evan Rabbitz and then to Leslie Glustester who I note is now present.

[24:05] >> Good evening, council. Good evening, Mayor. Uh my name is Taylor Luno. Uh I'm a Boulder resident and I also work for a national environmental nonprofit called the Wilderness Society that's focused on protecting public lands. uh noticed on the agenda a declaration for protecting our nation's public lands and I just wanted to uh express my strong support uh for the passage and adoption of that declaration. Um earlier this year my organization was on the front lines of a proposal in Congress that would have sold off 250 million plus acres of national public lands across the country including lands right here in Colorado. Uh and that proposal would have impacted thousands of climbing routes, thousands of miles of trails, and dozens of front country recreation zones uh that are used by millions of Americans, including those here uh in Boulder. Um and one of

[25:00] the key reasons uh we were successful along with our partners in opposing uh the provision that was in the reconciliation package earlier this year was because of declarations and resolutions adopted by local leaders like yourselves. Um, so cities, counties, state legislature across Colorado made it really clear that we won't stand by while our public lands are handed over to private interests. Um, so here in Colorado, we've built a wall, I would say, of bipartisan resistance to those efforts starting back in March, uh, with the Senate Joint Resolution 009, um, to other dozens of others similar resolutions across counties and cities and towns in our state. Um, so noticing this declaration on the agenda this evening, I felt compelled to come down here to express my support. Um, you know, these declarations really matter. There are things that us as advocates can bring to uh our champions and encourage them to be bold and share with

[26:01] the other side and make sure that they know that we won't stand by while our public lands are sold off. So, thanks. I hope you endorse it. >> Thank you. Now we have Evan Rabbitz then in person and Leslie Glustester in person and I understand Lynn Seagull is now present virtually Evan Rabbitz former council member Jan Burton reviewed city budgets and wrote in the camera that the city's communication department now has 37 people. The city manager says 34, up from just 12 in 2018. That's what it takes to make the smartest city in America believe official city big lies like the shelter never turns people away. The ACLU lawsuit, whatever you think of it, forced you to admit that there are thousands of turnaways a year. Another

[27:02] big lie is that there's some rule that council shouldn't discuss affairs like Gaza or divesting. Bob Yates, former councilman, in his first editorial at the Boulder Reporting Lab, repeats that big lie. I commented with a link to the actual law proving there is no such rule but be BRL editor refuses to approve my comment. So Bob continues, "The camera printed my full letter detailing this on July 31st, but now if you search for my name, you'll see they deleted more than half my letter to protect the Boulder Reporting Lab and Bob and the Big Lie. I'm opposed to conservative Bob's big lies and so-called progressive Eric Buds big

[28:00] cheating. This goes back at least to the longest playing council member Spencer Havoc. In the '9s, Spence told council at different times, quote, "There are no problems but problems of perception, and reality is not so important as people's perception of it." He lived up to it. >> Your time's up. Thank you. Okay. Uh Leslie Glstrom in person and then Lynn Seagull virtually will be our last speaker. >> Uh good evening. Thank you, Mayor and Council. I'm Lesie Gluststrom. I live in Boulder and I always want to encourage you to do the hard work of crafting a resolution on probably the defining issue of our time. So, uh, but as usual, I'm really here to talk about Excel. Electricity is big business and, uh, it's expensive business. Last time I spoke, we talked about Excel taking 782 million out of Colorado in after tax net

[29:03] income. Think about it as profits. Last 20 years, their sales have been flat. Their profits, their after tax net income has more than tripled. 2025 halfyear results. They're tw% ahead of 2024. The second half of the year is usually bigger results for them. So they're very likely to be taking 800 million plus out of our state every year from your constituents, from small businesses and people throughout their service territory. For Boulder, that counts to well over 20 million a year leaving our community. Um, and as most council members know, I've spent 20 years plus down at the Public Utilities Commission trying to figure this out. And what you've just been handed, um, you can see it's from Jack Eley's testimony. He's one of Excel's top witnesses. And all these numbers deserve need six zeros

[30:00] afterwards. And this is nothing about buying generation. This is not buying the electricity. These are all the things that Excel is spending money on and will spend money on. I've highlighted two um lines in yellow about halfway down 4924. That's just short of five billion. And then come down a little farther. It's 7.6 if I can read it properly, whatever that number is. That means we're going to be seeing really big rate increases. And I want to encourage council. I want to encourage staff to be really careful. Keep the pressure on Excel. what they're doing is mindblowing. >> Time's up. Thank you. >> Thanks very much. >> All right, our last speaker is Lynn Seagull online. >> Segue straight into Lesie. We need to municipalize yesterday, decades ago. We needed to municipalize first. It's 3 to 7 in the afternoon.

[31:01] Then it's 1 to 7. Then it's 1 to 10 for time of use rates. Excuse me, Erin. F U C K that. Okay. Because my next door neighbor will wake up when I'm 00 at night because Excel Energy will get their money one way or another. They will have their way with us. Sorry. Free Palestine now. Now. Now. People, babies starving, no water. It's unconscionable. You need to get video on here. I need to see people. Guess what? I'm an ultrasound technologist. I'm a very visual person, and I like to see who the heck I'm talking to, just like you can see, you know, Erin, you can't see me. I can see you, but you can't see me. I am your public. Shame on you. Shame on you.

[32:00] And powerpoints need to be on. This is all crackdown. It's a It's a Trump thing. It's a whatever you want to call it. It's obscene that our local government is so damned excuse me. D A M N E D conservative. Okay. You know, I want to do one thing here because there's no way I'm ever going to get through to you. I'm going to say I'm going to scream. And I can imagine you, you know, I want to scream, but I was told by Chris um Reynolds that I can't scream. Well, I this is an imaginary screen and you know this is just so inappropriate. All of this city government is just awful. Um I'm speechless. Done. >> Thank you. That brings us to the end of open comment speakers. I'll turn to city staff for any responses.

[33:03] Thank you, mayor. As always, we thank folks for sharing their uh voices and their opinions to uh the speaker who brought some suggestions about um ebikes. Uh just know that we will share those with our transportation team. Um, we had a speaker who spoke to um the county's um uh land use announcement or their intent to submit a land use change request um on Iris Fields. I will say that um uh we we also have heard of that intent and while that uh shall have a process when that comes to council and we will follow that, we will monitor that. We will certainly let you know as that moves forward. um in that conversation. Uh and I believe that is all that I have at the moment. >> Teresa, do you have anything? >> Nothing from me, mayor. Thank you. >> Any questions from council members for city staff? Tina?

[34:01] >> Yeah, I had a quick question. Is it um is it okay to have ebikes on any sidewalk in the city? Could you just clarify that? >> Uh they are allowed on our multi-use paths. Uh there are some sidewalks where that is not possible and they are marked. Um I don't have the map in front of me but they are certainly on our website. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. And not seeing any other hands raised. Um we do have the ability to speak. Did you have a question? >> Okay. Go ahead. Um, I had a question about the Iris Fields and just the comment around the zoning like can I don't need the answer right now, but I am curious about what is the city's authority as it relates to zoning for that property. Thank you. >> We will certainly be following up with council so they're aware of those next steps and we um had anticipated that. So, you know, >> and then council members are allowed to speak for 30 seconds about open comment if they so desire. Did anyone want to do that today?

[35:00] Ryan then Tino. >> Thanks, Mayor. I just wanted to excuse me, briefly address the um commentary who expressed concern that the city is seeking not to somehow be transparent with the foreign policy rule. So, I'll just read it from city code, assuming I have the right the right version here. Uh it's in council procedure under XV and then it's letter F. Says foreign policy and national policy questions. Council shall not act on a foreign policy or national policy issue on which no prior official city policy has been established by the council on the or the people unless sufficient time and resources can be allocated to assure a full presentation of the issue. That's what I see. >> Your time's up. But >> thank you. >> Thanks. Tina, you had something and then Taiisha. >> Yep. I just wanted to thank um Taylor who spoke today who's working hard to help uh protect our public lands. I appreciate all the work you're doing and how um you also are connecting our resolution with your work. Sometimes those resolutions don't get much attention. So really appreciate what you're doing. >> Thanks, TA.

[36:01] >> Um so I will actually echo those comments. Um Teller, it's really wonderful to see you and uh I've had the fortune of working with the um with the well the wilderness society and um just grateful that you are in our town and doing this incredible work recognizing the interconnectedness right the local state national global connection. Um, I also again as always want to thank our community members uh for coming and asking our council to use the powers that we have. Um, as the as my fellow council member just indicated, we have the power to make that choice. So, thank you. >> Thanks, >> Chair. >> Yes. I wanted to thank Philip Ogren from coming to uh to for coming tonight and I know that you've tried to come for the past I don't know month or two. I've seen you try. So, thank you for sticking it out and I really enjoyed what you said and we're going to look into it. >> Very good. Thanks. Not seeing any other

[37:02] hands raised. That brings us to the end of the open comment period of tonight's meeting. So, uh, under our rules now, uh, we are going to, um, go into recess and start the business portion of the 30. So, we'll see you back 30.

[64:19] 30. So, we're going to come uh back into session and we are going to pick up here with item two, which is uh 2A pollinator appreciation month declaration and it's going to be presented by council member Spear. But we're going to start with a few words from the city manager. Thanks so much, mayor. As you know, the city has a long history of concern and involvement in biodiversity, I'm sorry, biodiversity protection. This effort to recognize pollinators began in 2014 when city council responded to community concerns about pollinator decline by banning the use of naonic codenoid pesticides. It's a hard word

[65:01] for me to say. Uh our efforts including not only staff work but community events like the annual bee festival on September 13th, the pollinator advocates program and many other activities are now in their 11th year of recognizing and celebrating our community efforts to protect biodiversity. Pollinators are essential for the health and resilience of our communities. Inseparable from the larger living world, one of every three bites of food we eat depends on pollinators. Threearters of our flowering plants, including many important tree species, depend on pollinators. Boulder has been a leader in developing non-chemical approaches to integrated pest management that have dramatically reduced the usage of chemicals in our community, including the removal removing the use of pesticides and herbicides in our parklands. We are also one of the very few mosquito management programs in the world that has effectively demonstrated a biodiversity based neutral natural controls approach to controlling Westnile virus. The city's talented and committed staff have

[66:00] been leaders in the protection and monitoring of biodiversity across all city departments, particularly in our open space and mountain parks and utilities departments and parks and uh recreation. Of course, this city work is both inspired and driven by a deeply committed community. In attendance today are representatives of a number of local organizations who have helped Boulder advance biodiversity protection including the B Chicas, the Nature Everywhere Team, the Play Foundation Tree Trust, and Environment for the Americas Bird City. Because our time is limited together this evening, we will not hear from each group individually, but we celebrate their presence and look forward to upcoming events to engage with them. Finally, I'm happy to share that Boulder has been an international leader in supporting and protecting biodiversity. Boulder was part of a multi-ity group that helped develop what is known as the Berlin Urban Nature Pack. I'd like to share an announcement about this later on following the reading of the declaration. But with this background, I'll turn it over to council member Spear who spear who will read the year's Bollinator Appreciation

[67:01] and Munch Declaration. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Um, and you're welcome to come up and join me as I read the declaration of those of you who are representing our pollinators if you would like to. You don't have to. If you want to, you can. Thank you so much for joining us this evening. For millennia, Boulder's beautiful landscapes have inspired and sustained countless generations. Our natural world provides ecological,

[68:01] cultural, and spiritual benefits across our forests, grasslands, and farms to our urban greenways, parks, schools, and homes. This majestic landscape is sustained by a vast network of human and more than human neighbors, each of whom play small but vital roles in this interconnected, interdependent ecosystem of relationships. For the past 11 years, Boulder's Pollinator Appreciation Month has recognized and celebrated the essential role that pollinators play as one essential group of community residents, working tirelessly in ways that maintain the health and human well-being of the living systems that sustain both humans and the rest of the living world. In turn, the city and our community partners have worked together to become a bird city, a tree city, and soon a bee city to protect and maintain habitat for all these living beings. Our community is also part of the international nature

[69:00] everywhere initiative, fostering stewardship ethics through equitable access to nature everywhere children live, work, and play. This year, we are also excited to announce our intention to join with other cities around the world to protect biodiversity by becoming a signer on the Berlin Urban Nature Pact. In recognition and celebration of all these efforts, the city council of the city of Boulder, Colorado declares September 2025 as our official pollinator appreciation month. Signed by Aaron Brockett, mayor. [Applause] Mayor, if I may, I mentioned earlier that city staff have been leaders in protecting biodiversity at the local, national, and international level. Boulder's work is directly contributed to that development of frameworks for local action, including the Berlin Urban Nature Pact, named for the city that provided the platform to convene the work to develop it. I am delighted to

[70:01] report that because of its long history of work in this area, the city has already met many of the targets outlined in the pact. With this strong foundation, we plan to move forward by joining a small handful of cities who have signed on to this framework. We will be sharing more details with the community about what this means for Boulder following tonight's meeting. But for now, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to our city team in climate initiative, parks, park, climate initiatives, parks and recreation, open space and mountain parks, transportation and mobility, and utilities whose work contributed to the pact. Thank you so much. >> Thanks so much for that, Nia. And I'd like to call out specifically two city staff members who are present here tonight, Brett King and Rea Abernathy, who have been working on these efforts for many, many years. So, just really appreciate your extraordinary efforts in this area. All right. Uh, with that we will go on to item number three, the consent agenda. Please, Elisha. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. The consent agenda

[71:01] is item number four on tonight's agenda and it consists of items 4 A through 4 C and 4 E. Item 4 D was removed. >> Any uh questions or comments in the consent agenda? >> Tina? Yeah. Um I'm going to be having some questions about item C about the uh transportation demand management that I'll uh connect with staff, but I just want to make sure from a process perspective that this is just the first reading and we'll have time to get more in depth in that in the next reading. >> It is indeed. Thanks so much. >> Great. And I'll just uh note that we've had some interest in item 3E, which is about the short-term rental um festival lodging rental license. Um and we will have a discussion of that in a couple of weeks when we'll have a public hearing on that topic. Uh yes, Mark. Um, in accepting the um the study

[72:04] session summary on homelessness, uh, I assume we're accepting the material but not necessarily agreeing with every suggestion. >> That would be correct. It's just accepting that this is an accurate summary of what was discussed at the meeting. >> Thank you. >> Very good. Um, and I'll note that uh, Mayor Pertim Fulkurts has joined the meeting remotely. Welcome, Lauren. Um, did seeing no other hands, would anyone like to make a motion? >> So, >> you can go. >> I move the consent agenda. >> I'll second it. >> We have a motion in a second. A roll call, please. Elicia. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the consent agenda items 4 A through 4 C and 4E with Council Member Winer. >> Yes. Adams, >> yes.

[73:00] >> Benjamin, >> yes. >> Mayor Brackett, >> yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Folks, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Council member Marquis, >> yes. >> Shuhart, >> yes. >> Spear, >> yes. >> And Wallik, >> yes. >> The consent agenda items are hereby approved unanimously. >> Very good. Thank you. If we can go to our call-up check-in, please. >> Yes, sir. Our call-up check-ins are item number five on tonight's agenda. 5A is the concept plan at 2985 East Aurora Avenue to construct additional dwelling units where there is currently a surface parking lot. The proposal includes 36 total dwelling units consisting of two, three, four, and sixbedroom units and below grade parking. This is reviewed under case number LUR205-000038. Thank you. Any questions or comments or desire to call this one up? Tina?

[74:00] >> Uh, yes. I'm just curious if you could go over the process that's used to uh remove this piece of land or any piece of land from the flood map. I think that it talks about doing some regrading and then having the flood map re withdrawn and then or designation and also how the impacts to other properties or environments around that are considered in that process. Good evening, council members. Uh Brad Mueller with planning and development services. Uh I'm going to uh answer initially and then Elson Blaine, the uh planner that's working on that is going to correct everything I said because I'm going to speak in g general terms. But anytime a property wants to be um removed from the flood plane, there's a process um through FEMA, Federal Emergency Management, um to uh go through a process called a conditional letter of map revision. And that's a technical process that goes

[75:00] through uh if it gets approved, then the property gets a designation known as a LOMAR letter of map revision. And at that point, it's technically out of the flood plane. Um, at any time that properties are being considered uh for development, they need to meet flood plane regulations and uh fundamentally comply with that, which fundamentally is looking at how off-site impacts to any uh pviousness from that development happens. And then as I said, uh, Allison can kind of fill in some of the specifics if I've missed anything. >> Hi, Allison Blaine, senior planner. Brad, I think you um got that spot on. So, no. Uh, nothing to add for me. >> And I'll just if I could, Brad, you mentioned off-site impacts. I believe you are not allowed to have any adverse off-site impacts. >> Yeah, that's that's a good correction. So, uh, Colorado law and in fact federal

[76:00] requires that the amount of, um, uh, water, the volume and speed is maintained the same, uh, as it is historic. They're called historic flows. That doesn't mean they can't be changed on the site. They can be detained, etc. And and in fact need to be, but those historic flows have to be maintained. So, from a neighboring use standpoint, uh, all is as it was before. >> Um, all right. Thanks. I'm not interested in calling it up. >> Thank you. All right. Not seeing any other hands. Um I'll just call in myself and just say that I thought the planning board had some excellent comments on this, so I don't feel the need to call it up and I do appreciate the conversion of a surface parking lot into much needed housing for Boulder residents. Okay. Uh seeing no other hands, we'll say that's a no on the call up there and go to our public hearing, please. >> Yes, sir. Our public hearings are item number six on the agenda and 6A is the consideration of a site review amendment

[77:02] and use review to allow the existing structure at 183619th Street to be used as a single family detached dwelling unit in the RH2 zoning district and to amend the existing PUD to maintain the existing rear deck. This is reviewed under cases number LUR2022-00000044 and LUR202300000010. Thank you. Uh as we allow uh Shannon to get herself ready for action on this item, I'll just note um this item has uh come before the planning board on June 17th um and was subject to call up by city council. City Council uh asked for it to be called up uh earlier and we are ready to go. Shen, just buying you a little time.

[78:02] All right, wonderful. Thank you so much. Um I'm Shannon Mohler with the City of Boulder Planning Department and I'll be taking you through the staff presentation tonight. Um so before I begin the staff presentation, we'll just take a moment to go through the quasi judicial process. So first any council members are to note any exparte contacts. So I'll just pause for a moment so council members can do that now. All right, perfect. So we'll go through the staff presentation followed by questions. Then the applicant will have a presentation followed by questions. Public hearing will be open for community member comments. Um the applicant will have the opportunity to speak to anything that was said. The public hearing will be closed and council can discuss the decision and then a motion requires five votes to pass and should include findings, conclusions, and a recommendation.

[79:01] Um so we'll take a quick look at the planning process to date, the project background, uh surrounding context, summary of the proposal, key issues, and concluding with the staff recommendation. So here you can see a quick summary of the planning process to date going back to the early 1980s. The site was developed through a PUD and a special review to be um developed as a group care home facility for eight developmentally disabled individuals. And I'll touch more on those approvals later in the presentation. More recently, the property was sold and the new owner has applied for a site review amendment to amend that existing PUB as well as a new use review to allow for the structure to be reused as a detached dwelling unit. Staff approved those um applications in May and the applications were called up by planning board to hold a public hearing. In June, the planning board held that public hearing and voted six to one to approve the site review

[80:00] and voted four to three to deny the use. The board denied the use review, finding that it failed to demonstrate that the PO proposal met the specific use standards. In particular, that the applicant didn't demonstrate that the dwelling unit is located in an area where detached dwelling units predominate. And then in August, city council voted unanimously to call up these applications. So council is now the decision maker on the items and that's why we're here tonight. So again, the two applications are the site review amendment. This is amending the existing PUD. It includes a setback modification to allow an existing rear deck to remain and a use is required to establish a new detached dwelling unit in this zoning district. Um the site was posted public notification provided per code and no public comments were received on the items. Moving to this site, it's a little under 7,000 square ft. It's located east of

[81:01] 19th Street, south of Walnut and north of Canyon. The Boulder and Lefthand Ditch passes through the corner of the property. Here are some photos of surrounding properties. It's an eclectic area, primarily residential uses. Just to the north is a detached dwelling unit. To the east is the BHP Walnut Place senior apartments. To the south are the Maple Creek apartment buildings. And to the west is a one-story duplex and a three-story condo building. Um in terms of the flood plane here, there is an existing ditch again that passes through the corner and that coincides with these areas that are mapped as conveyance zone and 100year flood plane. This proposal includes maintaining an existing rear deck and retaining wall along the edge of the ditch that's been reviewed and approved by flood control staff as part of the conditions of approval. Staff has included requirements to dedicate a public ditch easement and drainage and flood control easements uh for maintenance of the ditch area which is

[82:00] typical for projects located along a ditch and a conveyance zone. The BBCP designation for most of the property is highdensity residential which is for attached dwelling units and complimentary uses implemented through the zoning. The southeast corner of the site where the ditch runs through is designated open space other and the property as a whole is zoned RH2 which is for highdensity residential areas and where complimentary uses may be allowed. Going back to 1983, the city approved a PUD and a special review to develop the site as it exists today with a building for a group care home facility for eight people with developmental disabilities. The PUD included modifications to setbacks to allow it to be a one-story structure. It included bedrooms, living room, kitchen, dining area, study, and bathrooms. Um there were some changes from the initial design to what was ultimately constructed which is fairly

[83:01] typical for approvals of this era. Um the existing rear deck uh was not depicted on the proposed plan set but we can see from aerial imagery it's existed for several decades. The special review that was approved um now we call those a use. It was for the use of the structure for a group care home facility. The residents lived in the home, attended daily activities like jobs and therapy during the day, and staff members were present on a shift basis. A group care home is a use known as a group home facility in Boulder's code. So, it's not considered a dwelling unit, but falls into the group living category. Um, again, the propertyy's been sold. It's no longer being used as a group care home, and the previous special review approval has expired. So, moving to tonight's proposal. Um the applicant investigated multiple options to reuse and update the property and they'll talk about that further in their presentation. Um but after analyzing the practical and regulatory constraints here ultimately moved forward with a

[84:01] proposal tonight which is to adaptively reuse this existing structure as a detached dwelling unit with some minor updates to the site in the structure. The structure would largely remain as is with some minor updates to the bathrooms. The site would be updated to reduce the number of parking spaces from three to two, update landscaping and provide new bike parking per code. Um the proposal includes that setback modification in the rear to formalize the location of the existing rear deck which wasn't shown on the previous plan sets. So moving on to key issues. Staff identified these two key issues for discussion. The first is if it meets the site review criteria. staff found the proposed site review amendment is on balance consistent with the land use map and the policies of the BBC and site review criteria. It's consistent with the land use map by providing a use that can be permitted in this zone and it maintains that OSO area traversed by the existing ditch and dedicates new public easements in that area. It's a reuse of

[85:01] an ex existing structure as a residential use and that's consistent with several BBCP policies listed here supporting the eclectic character of the ex existing neighborhood um contributing to the mix of housing types available and preserving the existing building that can be reused. The site review amendment does include that modification to the setbacks for the deck which has existed for several decades and also provides those updates to bike parking and landscaping like we talked about. So overall staff found the site review uh was appropriate and met the review criteria. So moving to the second key issue which is to do with a use and specific use standards. A use review is required in the RH2 zoning district to allow for this structure to be used as a detached dwelling unit. In terms of the use review criteria listed here, staff found it's um staff found the proposal uh is consistent with the um uses that can be

[86:01] permitted in the zoning district, compatible with surrounding properties, doesn't change infrastructure in the area, and doesn't change character of the area. Again, the prior use of the property as a group home operated similarly to that of a detached dwelling unit. So, overall staff found the proposal was consistent with these use criteria. Um, additionally, staff reviewed the proposal for consistency with the specific use standards in 963E, which applied to a detached dwelling unit in this location. Prior to 2019, a detached dwelling unit was permitted by Wright in this zoning district. That's when the specific use standards and requirement for a use review were created. At that time, the city was addressing concerns that the recently established opportunity zone, which was located east of 28th and north of Arapjo, would incentivize development projects that were inconsistent with the um adopted BBCP. So the use review process was selected as a way to discourage new

[87:00] detached dwelling units as compared to attached housing in highdensity zones but also provide some flexibility to allow for some new detached dwelling units because the RH zones extend throughout the city. The criteria was applied citywide. Um, so staff looked at these criteria as as shown on this slide and found that it met the applicable criteria, including meeting the use criteria we've already looked at, provides pedestrian interest through design elements, and is located in an area where detached dwelling units predominate. Going into a little more detail on that last criterion, staff looked at this area bounded by Canyon Walnut 18th and 22nd and found that the largest portion of residential structures, 47% were detached dwelling units, 22% were duplexes or triplexes and 31% were structures with four or more attached dwelling units. So based on this information, staff found the proposal consistent with this review criterion.

[88:00] Separately in its disposition of denial of the use review, the planning board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that it met this criterion. The planning board's disposition looked at the number of detached dwelling units as compared to all other unit types rather than breaking them down into the categories shown on this slide and it also compared the total number of units rather than considering the physical structures the units were located within. As part of this analysis, um the land use code doesn't establish a particular um physical area or method of analysis or definitions for this criterion. So the analysis is discretionary in nature and can take into account the nuances of each individual proposal. Um, the staff analysis described here and shown on this slide was intended to most closely reflect the physical characteristics of the area by breaking down the unit types into typical recognizable categories and grouping those units by physical structures to most clearly portray the

[89:00] characteristics of the neighborhood. So based on this analysis, staff found detestin units to be the most common and for the proposed reuse of the structure to be appropriate in this scenario. So with that, staff recommends a motion to approve the site review and the use review applications. Happy to take any questions. >> Thanks so much for that very helpful and succinct presentation, Shannon. So any questions for staff? >> Tina and then Matt. >> Um thank you so much and thank you for going into detail about what the different um perspectives were from planning board and staff on that particular piece. Did you also show planning board the way of doing the calculation is the number of structures versus the number of units? Did they look at both of those possible ideas? >> Yeah, it was discussed at length and ultimately they just disagreed with the staff analysis. >> Okay. And and that's so it's not explicitly stated in our in any language

[90:00] anywhere that we should do units or structures that contain units. >> No, it just talks about detached dwelling units and if they predominate. Okay. All right. Um All right. That's all I have. Thanks, >> Matt. >> So, I got two questions. Um I I see that the ditch had sort of an OSO designation. If that's my recollection, sort of circus the CU South annexation. We we're starting to phase out OSO because of one its um mostly just confusion that it conveys in terms of its public access, other things that people assign to anything designated open space. So, I'm just wondering how is that still there and is there a plan to sort of remove that because obviously the confusion it creates. >> Yeah. Um I guess I would defer to other staff that might be a little more familiar with the comp plan updates that are going forward. This application was submitted um I think a couple years ago. So, it would still be under what was in place at the time. >> Okay. Well, I think we'll phase it out. Um, the other question I have is given

[91:01] the denial of the use review in this instance and where it's located, does that effectively nullify the owner's ability to do anything with the property? And so, I'm just a little concerned that that would effectively just render the property sort of dead in a sense of having no ability and no use as pertained in our code. Is that a accurate way to characterize how that denial of use review would effectively render that property? >> Um, so I think yeah, that was discussed at planning board. Um, so the applicant would need to kind of look at those uses that are available in that zone and see if there was another one that could work. Um, and I think they are prepared to speak to that a little bit in their presentation about what types of uses are available to them. >> Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. Follow up, Tina. >> Yeah. Um, just following up on that, if if we were to render or if if we were to say that this property couldn't be used

[92:00] this way, would that impact the other single detached units in the same area? Would they also then for any changes not be able to >> No, those ones wouldn't be impacted. They would already be in existence, so they wouldn't be impacted. >> Okay, got it. All right, seeing no other hands, then I think that we would now turn to the applicant for their presentation if they're planning on making one. All right. Thank you, Shannon. We appreciate it. >> Good evening, council. >> If you can speak right into that. >> My name is Brent Groman. I am the managing member of the LLC that owns this property and um going to talk a little bit about the property itself, of

[93:01] course, and kind of what we've been through and some of these relevant considerations this evening. >> Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Smith. I am partner and owner of Phenas Architecture, the architect working on this project. All right. So, uh, we've seen the map, so we'll just go ahead and move on through here. Um, we'll talk briefly about the goals we had for this property when we acquired it. We originally wanted to make a duplex here. Um really one of the goals we just saw the opportunity based on the quality of the structure, how well it's built, the location, etc. that we might be able to create some reasonably priced housing in this area. Uh unfortunately, so we went ahead, we submitted for a duplex. And when we went through the analysis

[94:00] with the city uh and with planning, we found out despite having a relatively large uh front parking lot that there were by code only three parking spaces. And so when you work that out, that only allows us to have five bedrooms between two units. Um, so when you look at it, you would be incurring a lot of expense to create two units, an extra kitchen, an extra uh mechanical system, extra wall, etc. Uh, and so it really didn't make sense and we got denied anyway. So that's why we're pursuing that's a little bit of the background as to why we're pursuing this particular use. Um, and so overall it's just to control costs uh at this point and keep things to where we could keep rents on the more reasonable side as opposed to having to raise them by doing a lot more development. Of course, one of the big things that we also want to do, as I mentioned, was retain that structure from a sustainability standpoint. It's an

[95:00] excellent structure, all brick. You just don't find that a lot. So, it's very well built. We wanted to maintain that was another key goal. So just a quick overview here of uh the layout here that we had proposed. Um we'll move go ahead and move on. Let's see here. And so these were Shannon was talking a little bit about the uses that are available there. So everything really So one of the uses that's interesting there at the bottom is the townhouse. So when we purchased this property, the prior owners, there was one owner after the group home operator and they had actually gone through the entire process and gotten three luxury town homes approved and we just didn't feel like that was appropriate for the area. It wasn't a good fit for what we felt the housing stock needs were in that area. So we really just shove that right away. And so that one we just don't feel like makes a lot of sense. Um live, work,

[96:01] you're still kind of in the same boat. obviously have somebody living there, but they're just also working. So, we don't really see how that makes a big difference between having more people live there is probably more valuable than allowing someone perhaps a family or one person or two people to live there and work. We just we don't see how that makes a lot of sense. So, that really leaves us here with the detached dwelling option that we're discussing today. >> I want to clarify one thing. The town home project, in case we get questions, they were proposing to completely raise the existing building and provide underground parking. So, it would have caused a lot more disturbance to the neighborhood and it was a much more expensive project. >> This is just a layout of course of the existing residence. So, no real uh material changes proposed. Again, we went through this process. We

[97:00] started back in 2022 after we got denied in 2021 for the duplex. I think Shannon hit the nail on the head really with what the issue was during the planning board hearing. We kind of got caught up on this idea or this uh of you know what predominates in the area and how the calculations and kind of almost gets into semantics. We just looked at the big picture and we felt like everything else, mostly affordability and sustainability really just outweighed that consideration. And we feel like yes, we understand, you know, we understand the code says what it says, but we felt like um if we had 10 people and we asked, you know, what was reasonable and gave all the facts that, you know, probably eight or nine out of 10 would agree that this makes the most sense given our goals as a community, provide more housing at a more affordable cost and to be more sustainable. And one thing I'll peg you back on that is um if you really look back at the history of the use of this building, even though it did not have the technical label of a single family home

[98:02] at the time it was built, I know that's been changed to detached dwelling unit, it had functioned as such from day one. Had this property been sold and Brent bought it before 2019, we would have been allowed this use by right. It just happened that the politics changed when they did and it we are basically not asking for a new single family residence. We are just asking for the technical label to be applied to this existing property. >> Excellent. Next slide, please. So, real quick, just to kind of reiterate why a duplex doesn't make sense in 2025 when we felt it did make sense in 2021. And really the biggest one, we're all, you know, painfully aware of what's happened with inflation. Um, of course, that generated higher interest rates. So, just to run down this quickly, so interest rates 4%

[99:00] versus 7% has a tremendous impact on the overall level of rents needed um to cover the debt service. The property taxes are up by about 30%. Our casualty insurance is up 82%. And the construction cost, depending on your ask, you know, maybe 30 40%. So significantly higher cost. And what that would translate into, we believe would be somewhere um about $400 per bedroom higher rent if we were to do that fivebedroom where we're really not getting any more bedrooms or anything, but we just have formally satisfied a duplex if we had to go back down that path. And then if we had to do a larger scope where we would need to go onsite, demolish some of the building, maybe a significant portion of the building, build that parking perhaps underground just to get uh to seven bedrooms, that would be very very expensive. And so we think it would be at least $2,200. So when we just look at that per bedroom and what it looks like for for

[100:01] perspective residents, we see that there's a major advantage to going with this designation and keeping those rents down. So, what we feel like is a better solution is, of course, to approve this detached dwelling use. Um, we can add a bedroom. There's an existing office there. We could consider uh adding that. I think that would be economic without too much of a a bump on the rents. Um, maintain increased parking flexibility, get a little bit more flexible parking arrangement under the detached dwelling usage. uh again keep that existing structure to support sustainability and then again as Elizabeth me uh mentioned minimize disruption to the neighbors. So that's really why we feel like this detached dwelling designation is important for this property. And then just to summarize all that up on the last slide we just went ahead and put together this color-coded matrix in the first column.

[101:01] It just shows the advantages um of the of the proposed detached dwelling use. The second would be if we did dup duplex development with the existing structure, didn't need to build didn't build any more parking um but also didn't add any bedrooms either. And then the third is if we did that uh significant um demolition, creation of new parking to support seven overall bedrooms. So we just kind of went across here and I won't go through all these because we've already hit them, but I just wanted to summarize And with that, we'll be glad to answer any questions that you may have. >> Thanks for that. Um, council, any questions for the applicant? >> Looks like we don't have any questions for you. So, >> thank you. >> We'll get to deliberations here shortly. >> Okay, that takes us to the public hearing. We do have two people signed up to speak. Each speaker will get three minutes to speak. And, uh, just a reminder that you for a public hearing, you do need to speak to the topic at

[102:01] hand in your testimony. Okay, our two speakers are both virtual. Lynn Seagull and then Lara Gonzalez. Yeah, first of all, I think that this could could be a really good area to put more actual, you know, bunk beds or something like communal housing rather than separate bedrooms if that I mean, I'm just saying I want the developer to go further than what they've gone already from the duplex issue and more units, you Bluebird with um element has got one toilet. Um Tara um I was speaking to you. Please listen. Thank you. Um Bluebird's one bedroom for one person with one toilet. In Gaza, they have one toilet for a thousand

[103:01] people. >> Please stick to that topic, please. >> Yeah, that's the topic, Erin. That's the topic. Get it? It's all about money. Where the money's going, Erin, you want to have a debate about this? I'll have that debate with you and I will win. Get it? Now, just listen to my discussion here. More bunk beds or more some kind of communal housing because Boulder is in a housing crisis because of Gaza largely and Apac. Okay. But we are in a housing crisis and shrinking things down a little bit in the part of this developer is not good enough for me. Yeah, that's funny, isn't it? Tara, please just keep your expressions down a little bit. So, with Boulder's housing crisis, my brother, you know, oh, my brother's not involved in this, right, Erin? He's

[104:00] suicidal right now because of the housing crisis. And that's what we're talking about tonight, Erin. We're talking about the cost of housing, right, Aaron? You got it? Is that clear? You know, brother, we need a lot more open discussions in this community so people can have a dialogue back and forth and really get to somewhere where we're all working together instead of Lynn attacking Aaron and Lynn attacking Tara. And >> please speak to the topic at hand. >> Yeah, that's the topic. The topic is direct communication >> and it's about what this developer is doing. >> Time is up. Okay, we're going to go to our last speaker which is Lara Gonzalez. >> Can you all hear me? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Time was not up for Lynn. So you're infringing her free amendment rights. I just want to let you know that. So get prepared incompetent rocket

[105:02] on this. I don't actually support this idea of the developer because I actually How is that going to What are you laughing at, Terra? [ __ ] listen. Are you Give me You want respect then give me respect. Are you laughing because you know I'm going to connect it to Gaza and you support the children dying and being mutilated and being smashed every day. Anyways, let's talk back to the dwelling. It is wild that you even allow a developer an LLC so they can deduct the cost of what they're going to do so they don't pay taxes instead of like the city pretty much owning this property. And you know what you can do with it? Provide housing for their own house. there's your solution. But no, you rather do that than like have a developer make more money and give him incentives to do this instead of actually working towards the own house and the houses crisis that Lynn was talking about. And honestly about this swelling, about this dwelling, I want to

[106:01] say um and Tara continues to laugh. Why are you laughing, Tara? Well, my ancestors possessed this land more than 2,000 years ago. So, I'm notifying all of you that I have a rightful claim to simply walk into that property and claim it as my own. >> Your last warning to speak to the topic. >> Any I'm talking about the topic. I'm talking about the topic. As an indigenous person, I have a right to claim it as my own, don't I? And if I don't, then why do you allow Israel to do that? Do you know that a lot of US citizens go to the West Bank and literally just go and say that to people? >> All right, that brings the public hearing to a close. Uh the applicants are allowed to rebut the testimony if they would desire. >> Okay, very good. So, I'll bring it to uh council for deliberations. If people would indulge me, I'd be happy to get us started. Yes. Yes, ma'am. >> Since we are a self-governing body, I

[107:00] think it's important that we clarify. I assume that you didn't mean that their time was up, but rather that because of the continued not addressing the topic that it was that it was necessary to stop because there wasn't more time and that happened last time and I just want to clarify is it the behavior that is not aligned with the rules or if it if it's the time I felt I mean I I >> you tish I appreciate the point because I was uh not clear in how I spoke um you're correct that the people were required ired to people were cut off because they were not speaking to the topic after um multiple warnings. So there was time remaining but um we cut their time off because of the failure to address the topic. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Thanks for the clarification. So anyway, if if people are right, I could get us started. Um and I'll just get a get us started with a motion if there uh no objections. So I move to approve the site review amendment application LUR2022-44

[108:01] and use review application L lur 20223 2023-00000010 adopting the staff memorandum is findings of fact including the attached analysis of review criteria >> second. Okay, we got a motion in a second. I'll speak to my motion if I may, that I think um where I disagree with planning board's analysis. It was in the um section 963 and in particular the subsection C about whether the dwelling unit is located in an area where detached dwelling units predominate. I was compelled by staff's analysis that in fact they do here. Um, and then I just thought I would speak as well to the legislative intent because I was on council when that ordinance was passed in 2019. The legislative intent was to prevent um new developments of um single family homes in areas that were zoned for higher density. And so I think it's fair to say that this scenario was not what was contemplated by passing that ordinance. Um so right currently

[109:02] that property is stuck without a legal use. And so I think it's important to us uh for us to look to the criteria and go ahead and approve the project. Mark, did you want to speak to your second? >> Just very briefly, I think this is a practical solution for a problem that requires a practical approach. Um, I think where the planning board may have um aired is in pushing the developer into alternatives that are simply not practical as as a financial matter. And I I don't think um ruining developers is to be our stock and trade. So I I think this was a a good solution to the problem and I'm going to support it. Tina. >> Yeah, just a proc process question. Um, so this is a we're looking to see if it not so much to solve the problem or um to judge the project, but to make sure that it complies. And what is our

[110:02] process to do that? I mean, and I'm asking our lawyer, do we have enough, do we have the right pathway to approve this project given what planning board put um forth in terms of how they interpreted the language? Is there enough so that we can feel, you know, good about our decision if we go in a different direction? >> Thank you for the question. Um, as you know, you are bound by the criteria in front of you. reasonable minds can differ about how to interpret that criteria. Um, so should this council find that uh that this project satisfies the criteria, that's certainly a a legally defensible position. does um when Aaron speaks to the legislative intent, does that fall

[111:00] within the scope or is it really more about the code that's written down? >> Uh well, you're getting into cannons of statutory construction and I'd be very happy to give you private legal advice about that, not on the dis. >> Okay. So, we can have lunch or something. Okay. >> I'm sorry. >> Lunch sometime next. Okay. >> That's right. Um, so I am going to agree, but I think we need to be extraordinarily cautious when we create language. Thinking about the incredible diversity of existing dwelling units all through our city and what is our aspiration and our hope isn't what's always going to happen. And this is a really good case of where the language differs and I really respect planning board's commitment to um trying to make sure that they have a scope where it meets the criteria and the use. Uh and I I just hope as we think about and I I was just thinking back to the um

[112:00] our first BBCP conversation, I wasn't there but I listened to it. this idea of can we use words like mostly single family or sort and and sometimes we might wish to for this instance in particular because it's difficult to anticipate everything coming our way. So those are my thoughts on this particular um piece and uh thank you. >> Thanks Tina. Lauren I saw your hand earlier but not anymore. Did you want to speak? >> I think that discussion covered what I had to add. Oh, thank you. >> Very good. Anybody else? Um, seeing no other hands raised, uh, Elisha, if we can have a roll call vote on the motion in front of us, please. Okay. Thank you, sir. We'll start the vote for the public hearing item 6A with Council Member Adams. >> Yes.

[113:01] >> Benjamin. Yes, >> Mayor Brockett. >> Yes, >> Mayor Pro Tim Fulkers. >> Yes, >> Council Member Marquis. >> Yes, >> Shuhard. >> Yes, >> Spear. >> Yes. >> Wallik, >> yes. >> And Wina, >> definitely yes. >> Item 6A related to 183619th Street is hereby approved unanimously. >> Very good. Well, congratulations to the applicant. I know it's been a very long road uh but I do think this will be a positive improvement in the city's housing stock and I look forward to seeing that unit come online and thanks to staff for the analysis and the work. Um and then just so that's concluded and I'll just make uh I'll just throw out to planning staff um separately from that quas judicial hearing it would be interested interesting to do a case study on this one for how and why there were so many steps and how we got here you know so love if there's time I'd love to see that but just a just a thought

[114:03] >> okay uh so that brings us to the end of our agenda >> uh does anyone need to make any final comments >> I All right, Taiisha, >> thank you um for the opportunity. Um I wanted to thank community members who um expressed concern around the Chimney Hollow uh the new dam and reservation that Northern Water is developing. um really appreciated the those um those emails and the opportunity to ask our staff about those uh about that issue. It was very helpful to receive information um confirming that um the city of Boulders's water will you know would not be blended with um you know uh any new dam until you know we confirm that there's no uranium and um you know I just really appreciated um the response and and knowing that the staff

[115:01] is um is a breast. I did request to to know about these things. I think it was it's great that our community members are on the front lines making sure that we know everything or are looking into these kinds of things, but certainly one takeaway from our water supply conversation is that the city of Boulder is not in a bubble. Our water comes from three watersheds and it matters uh dam construction that's happening outside of the city of Boulder when it impacts um the water that we have. Uh and so again, just really grateful for the staff's uh response on that and look forward to continued conversation um around water and especially looking forward to the development of the integrated water plan. Thank you. >> Thanks, Tisha. All right, I'm not seeing any other hands raised, so I will go 21