February 5, 2026 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[5:03] one and welcome to the Thursday fe February 5th 2026 regular meeting of the Boulder City Council. We'll start with an announcement which is that the 2026 boards and commissions recruitment period is now closed and interviews are underway. We've been doing many of them this week. The virtual interviews of applicants began on February 2nd and will continue through the 13th. Formal appointments will be made at the March 5th regular city council meeting. Appointed members can now participate in person or virtually for hybrid meetings and receive a free RTD eco pass. If you have any questions, please contact the city clerk's office at city clerk's office at bouldercol.gov or call 303441-30008. And with that, I will call us to order and ask for a roll call, please. Yes, sir. Thank you. 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 Brockett, >> present.

[6:00] >> Council member Kaplan, >> present. >> Marquis, >> here. >> Shuhart, >> here. >> Spear >> present. >> Wallik >> here. >> And Mayor Pro Tim Winer >> here. >> Mayor, we have our quum. >> Thanks so much. I'd like to start by requesting that we have a motion to amend the agenda to uh swap the order of items 2 A and three so that open comment comes next and the declaration commemorating Black History Month comes afterwards. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion to second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That's unanimous. The agenda has been amended. So we will now go into open comment. Elisha, can you go over the public participation guidelines, please? >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you everyone for joining us and for your participation at tonight's council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the voter revised code, including participants are required to sign up to

[7:00] speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Only audio testimony is permitted during open comment. No attendee 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. Um, 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.

[8:00] >> Thanks so much for that, Elicia. All right, I'm going to call three names at a time. Each person will have two minutes to speak and I will be strict about that in the interest of fairness. So our first first three speakers are Mike Stabler virtually, then Lin Seagull virtually and then Nick Lenson in person. >> Hi. Uh can you hear me then? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. I appreciate Mark Wal's recent response to citizens advocating to preserve South Boulder Rec Center. uh he did overstate the citizens desire, but uh at least he and only he as far as I know has replied and Mark, you continue to be a city council leader with direct engagement uh uh with Boulder citizens and I thank I thank you for that. I'm here to talk about South Boulder outdoor courts and they should be considered independently from the rec center. Uh the courts are just in pitiful shape and need to be replaced immediately. Using the city process, I sent a message to all of you this

[9:00] afternoon with an attachment. Now, I hope you looked at it. I sent two photos showing the incredible cracks in some of the courts. And these aren't the only ones. The city plan says that South Boulder Courts will have to wait until 2027. I included a graphic of that plan in my afternoon message. Uh the plan allocates $4,000 to redo Shiitaka and East Boulder Community Center courts in 2025. As you may know, Chicago courts were re uh redone primarily with a generous gift from Mo Seagull and his wife. Uh I don't know if East Boulder courts were done in 2025 per the plan, but I've never noticed any work and I'm doubtful. The Fairview tennis program utilizes South Boulder Courts as do hundreds of tennis and pickleball players every week. I want the city to spend the $400,000 that was for Shiakwa and East Boulder at South Boulder in 2026. And if this is not possible, I want the city, sorry, the council to reallocate

[10:00] the $400,000 planned to be spent on Nwood in 2026 to South Boulder Courts. No disrespect to Nwood, but it is two tennis courts and they aren't in great disrepair. There are four tennis eight pickle ball courts at South Boulder and they're all in bad shape. Uh please come to South Boulder Courts anytime and maybe hit a few balls. Uh just show up. The mornings are made for all levels of players. >> Your time is Thank you for your testimony. >> Now we have Lynn Seagull virtually. Then Nick Lensson in person and Anne Peters in person. >> Lyn Seagull. Yes. Fighting over crumbs once again. And yet with this Gaza is situation, there have been countless um suspension legal proceedings. I have been to hearings that the city in a budget crisis is just throwing money down the

[11:01] drain. Um and now I have a suspension for asking questions. This is a problem. This is a real problem because on September 8th I had a sign up and Matt's wife didn't like my sign and Rachel friend didn't like my sign so they stole it and I found it in a car and I missed a talk on deescalation. I am not making this up. waiting for them to come out of this candidate forum so I could get my sign back and so I knew who took it. Meantime evidence. Where's the evidence that I rose my voice in asking questions to access Nura in the lobby of the city council

[12:02] building. Kate, where's the evidence? Where the surveillance cameras down? Two years ago, city employees stole my things that I set down for for 15 seconds after I set it down. 4 feet from me, it was taken. Surveillance cameras worked fine then. How is it that the surveillance cameras are down now when I need evidence that I rose my voice? How many decibels? I don't know, >> but I did. >> But thank you for your testimony. Um, let's see. Before we get to the next testifier, we do actually have a rule that signs have to be held at head level or lower. So, folks can can watch for that. Okay. Now, we have Nick Lenson, then Anne Peters, and Daniel Howard. >> Good evening. My name is Nick Lenson and I and my family are residents of Boulder. I applaud the city for moving

[13:01] forward with adopting the 15minute neighborhood concept per the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan update. I expect that the city is already working to achieve this vision via all city planning, including those by rec parks and recreation. Thus, I ask that the council explicitly refer to the 15minute concept as part of its vision for rebuilding the South Border Recreation Center, which should include a full-size competitive swimming pool, wait room, and gym. The rec center provides an accessible location in South Boulder residents to participate in recreational activities without using a motor vehicle. One simple example, an 80-year-old man I know who cares for his wife with dementia walks to the center two to three times a week to play volleyball. The current rec center significantly reduces automotive traffic in our city. Simply hosting the Fairy Swim Team allows the pool cent's pool to reduce in town troops trips by at least 4,800 trips per year. Moreover, captain

[14:02] le workouts for non-season Fairview sports team regularly occur at the center's weight room and gym, thus reducing vehicle trips while providing a safe environment for our children. I ask that the council adopt a vision to ensure that the center maintains, if not expands its services, an approach consistent with both the 15minute neighborhood rule concept and the city's goal to reduce in town motor vehicle traffic. Now, how to finance the cent's rehabilitation? I'd like to suggest a few options beyond those already shared with council member Wallak. Tax short-term renters egregiously. That is take the Sundance money and run with it. Review whether city employees count the city employee count excluding OSMP is similar to peer cities. Do we have a higher ratio or lower? I do not know. I've never seen those figures. Examine whether your personal goals for the city truly align with those of our community. Which leads me to my remain request. Allow our communities to vote up or down. >> Time is up, but thank you for your

[15:01] testimony, >> Senator. Thank you. >> All right. Now, we have Oh, folks, we we appreciate your please, we need quiet in the house. Um, we appreciate your enthusiasm, but please no applauding or uh noises and talking in the audience, but thank you for your enthusiasm. All right. Now, we have Annne Peters in person and then um Daniel Howard virtually and Leslie Clusterm in person. My name is Ann Peters. I've been long-term resident of Boulder. I've used the South Boulder Rec Center since 1976. My husband and I are now regular active users. And headline, please keep the core features of this facility in the same location, the lap pool, the double gym, the weight, and the exercise rooms. This morning, I got an email from Parks and Wreck. Subject line, love, you're local. Tagline, local love grows here. Encouraging me to use my local react center. I do. So to learn that the city

[16:02] may close or limit the offerings at this facility is so contradictory and kind of mind-boggling. So that's why I'm here to say please keep our core facilities, especially considering Parks and Rex vision says it envisions a community where every member's health and well-being is founded on unparalleled parks, facilities, and programs. Please, let's keep this program that we have. And this echoes some of what Nick said. Closing south or severely limiting its offerings would have negative effects that contradict stated policies of the city. The environmental footprint goes up as more citizens drive to other facilities. Senior citizens face increased barriers to go further distances. It's just harder to get places, especially as your mobility diminishes. But a handicapped person like me can get there and can swim. and swim is the main exercise for

[17:02] a handicapped person like me and many others. So, closing the pool there would be a little bit of a step backwards from the city's alignment with supporting ADA, not just the laws, but the spirit of it. So, I hope you can keep the friendly neighborliness, which is something we value in this city, and keep the South Boulder Rec Center's three core, four core offerings. Thanks. >> Thank you. Now we have Daniel Howard online followed by Leslie Cluster and Evan Rabbitz in person. >> Thank you city council for listening to your concern today. Uh I'm speaking to urge our community to support the home act house bill 26 of1. Colorado is currently facing a dire housing shortage and affordability crisis requiring the construction of over 100,000 homes just to meet current demand. Spec specifically 10,700 housing units in Boulder by 2032. According to DR COG the reality is stark. Only 20% of homes are affordable for teachers earning a median

[18:00] salary and half of our renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing. While local controls often value, the magnitude of this crisis demands that the state legis legislature adopt policies to build a more affordable housing. More so, housing is a regional concern where housing built built or not built in one city infects the housing market in neighboring cities. In cities like Boulder, valid reasoning exists for the state to avoid aspects of home rule to adjust unnecessary barriers that currently prevent development in established communities. For example, the current status quive housing stock in B in in the city of Boulder pushes workers to live in the neighboring communities recurring longer commutes and thus higher VMTs and carbon emissions for transportation. We cannot allow vowbacks to assist when young adults, families, and seniors are being pushed out of the neighborhoods where they work and live. HP26,0001 adjusted this by establishing a a consistent and standardized process for qualifying entities such as public schools, religious organizations, universities, and nonprofits to build on underutilized land. By implementing a standardized state level approach, we can achieve approval processes that are at least 20% faster than regular approvals, saving time and money. This bill unlocks centrally located land, ensuring Coloradoans can live near job

[19:00] centers, transit hubs, and community gathering spaces. Critically, the state intervention is balanced. The bill allows local governments to continue implementing existing affordable housing measures such as including inclusionary zoning or deed restrictions. It also continues to allow the implementations of height limits up to three stories or 45 ft. However, it ensures that local processes do not prevent or increase costs for trusted nonprofits who are dedicated to build affordable housing in service of their missions. It is time to prioritize re reasonable, effective, and data-driven policies that work handin-hand with infrastructure to solve our housing shortage. Thank you for your time, and I plan to send a digital one-pager document for city council's review after this public comment. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now, we have in person Leslie Clustroom, Evan Rabbitz, and Alex Vveltman. Turn that back on. There you go. >> You're on. You're on. >> I am. Thank you so much. Uh, good evening, council and mayor. Um, I just want to take a minute to thank the young people who've come to learn about and participate in democracy, and we I think

[20:00] we all really appreciate what they're doing. So, uh, as you know, my name is Lesie Glustrm. I do a lot of work on climate change and energy issues. Spent over 20 years at the utilities commission. Know a fair bit about Excel. Um, I want to thank you for that letter that you sent. I'd like to talk about the power outages and looking forward. You've heard all the stories. You know what happens when the power goes out. It's not pretty. So, the question becomes, how does our community move forward? And the key concept here I think is that while we all can see that Excel system in a sense put us in that position. What I'm urging you tonight is to not think and hope and wait for Excel to solve the problem. We'll be here. You'll be replaced eight or nine times over. So I think we have to own some significant part of this ourselves. Um, we have great staff and I think we can do that. It starts with, I think,

[21:03] resilience hubs. Uh, during the outage, the list of places to go did not include anything in Boulder. I had one staff person say, "Well, I think you know, East Boulder, but I don't think so." Then Monica Weber wrote me and said, "No, we didn't have any." So I'm asking you to ask the staff however the proper procedure is to develop a plan starting with let's call it three resilience centers south east and north then we can move on from there to a set of interconnected micro grids. We can't wait for Excel to do this. We're not going to get the lines undergrounded at any reasonable rate. So I think we have to own this ourselves. ask staff to make a plan and recognize of course how critical this is. >> Thank you. >> All right. And please know uh talking from the audience and now we have Evan

[22:01] Rabbitz and then Alex Felman and then Chris Hoffman virtually. Four years ago, I spoke about council and especially Aaron Brockett betraying us to please Governor Polus and that Polus would betray us. Aaron went on the city's 24erson junket to Oregon in 2016 to look at legal homeless camps and tiny home villages. Brockett befriended two formerly homeless people, the two mics, who went on the junket. In 2017, the city hired consultants to make a plan, and the mics put in as much energy as their bodies damaged by living outdoors for years could handle. One lost his gallbladder. But in 2022, after Polus told the media he was happy about the sweeping of a homeless camp from near his penthouse,

[23:03] Aaron flipped and led the council to spend over $14 million on sweeps. The city says there are 140 unsheltered homeless. So that's $100,000 to harass each camper. Denver also spends about four million a years on sweeps, but that's for about six times as many homeless. So, there's gigantic waste in Boulder's homeless bureaucratic complex. Council also betrayed us by being the only city to back the governor's takeover of local zoning. And council has refused to divest from genocide to please Polus. As I predicted, Polus has betrayed you. He capitulated to ICE. His handpicked commission has permitted 9,000 new oil

[24:01] wells, and now he's recommending influencers who promote pedophilia and white supremacy. >> Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you for your testimony. >> All right. Now, we'll go to Alex Velman in person, Chris Hoffman virtually, and then Janet Streer in person. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Alex Beltman. I'm a 30-year trial attorney, but I am also a community member of South Boulder. I'm here tonight to discuss the managed decline of our neighborhood. Over and over again, we are told that there's no money for SBRC. Yet, we see the city paying for $140 million uh what is essentially a luxury office

[25:01] park, a million almost a million dollars of which includes lobby and parking garage art. Meanwhile, the East Boulder wreck update has seen a $40 million increase, which is $10 million more than what is the cost for the entire replacement of the South Boulder Rec Center. This isn't a lack of funds, it's a lack of priorities. SBRC is the primary designated emergency reunification site for Fair View High School and for Southern Hills. We've seen that in action this just this last uh September when we had the shooter lockdowns. The actual building is a critical BBSD safety anchor. If it gets shuttered for

[26:00] whatever reason, then the emergency refuge for 2500 students and staff has effectively disappeared. The city's own master plan labels SPRC a priority one community asset for its community emergency role. Yet, it isn't even in the queue for the CIP and the CCS project list. If you fail to plan, as they say, you are planning to fail. Does this city council is a higher priority? >> Thank you for your testimony. >> All right. Now, we have Chris Hoffman virtually and then in person, Janet Streer and Connor Rob Ribson. >> Thank you. My name is Chris Hoffman. I live in Boulder. First, I want to thank the council, not just generally for your hard work on behalf of us citizens of Boulder, but specifically for your

[27:01] recent letter to Excel Energy, listing our major concerns and demanding that they make changes. Second, related to Excel's record of inadequate performance, I want to express concerns about Excel's planned remediation of coal ash at the Valmont plant. Valmont Power Station is the most polluted coal ash site in Colorado with over a million tons of coal ash waste. For years, this waste has been leaking contaminants into the groundwater. Obviously, we don't want that to continue. But Excel's plan to remove the waste as currently conceived could expose Boulder residents to a toxic dust that has been linked to learning and behavioral impacts in children, higher rates of heart disease and lung disease, lung cancer, nervous system disorders, lower birth rates, weights, and shorter lifespans. So, I'm urging council to pay close attention to this. Excel's remediation should be of gold standard quality. We don't want a

[28:02] plume of toxic dust settling over Boulder. Nor do we want the word boulder to enter the vocabulary the way Chernobyl has. Okay, it sounds like your testifying is over. Thank you. Uh, now all of the rest of our speakers are in person and our next three are Janet Streer, Connor Robson, and Ivonne Bennett. >> Okay. Oh, thank you all for being here. My name's Janet Strereer. Um, I was over at South Boulder Rec Center yesterday. Swimming lanes were filled. People were playing basketball in the gym. And for Fairview students, it's wonderful to have it close like that and I think it's part of their strong swimming program. The South Pole Direct Center serves

[29:00] about onethird of the city. I'm just begging to have the same services, the same basic services, basketball courts, a swimming pool, plenty of space for lockers and showers. Um, let's talk about funding. Voters voted in capital funds of $262 million specifically including quote recreation center renovations and replacements. Um estimated expense for maintaining South Boulder Center is I've heard it's around 33 million which is not a big part of $262 million. We voted for it. So, let's use it for rec centers, please. Or is this like fast tracks? Thank you. >> Thank you. Now, we have Connor Rubenson, Ivon Bennett, and Ryan Bennett.

[30:05] Good evening. One purpose of government is to justly distribute finite resources across its community. These resources can occur naturally in the world or they can be artificially created by the needs of society. One such manufactured resource is made when the city performs routine maintenance on its public streets. When the city requires access to a section of road, the construction contractor must place signs providing the public with 72 hours notice. After that time, any vehicle in the construction zone is subject to tow. It is these unfortunate vehicles and the ransom to retrieve them that form the resource. What the city of Boulder does with this resource is the subject of my petition today. When my car was towed on January 15th, it had been 4 days since it was last checked on. It was parked on the nearest parking rack to my apartment, but this is around the corner and generally out of sight. I try to reduce my environmental footprint by driving as little as possible and I regularly leave my car unattended for a week or so at a time. When I went to drive it on the 18th, it was gone and

[31:00] the police informed me it was impounded at Marv's Quality Towing. I had not been previously notified. Marvs is the exclusive towing partner of the city. This relationship in essence grants them a monopoly over the towing resource created by the city. As monopolies are want to do, Marv makes right profits off its customers. And for only 54 minutes of labor, Marv enjoyed $638 of my savings as a rent payment for me. Counselor, according to the officer I spoke to, more than 20 other cars were towed at the same time. If everyone paid that amount, Marv made nearly $13,000 off that dispatch from a single block in a single day. These are unproductive dollars spent only to settle a government sanctioned shakeddown of the taxpayer. If the purpose of the expense is merely to enable city maintenance, I argue we've gone too far. If the purpose of the expense is punitive, I wonder what behaviors we seek to incentivize. My ask today is simple. Remedy the immense gap between value to the city and cost to the victims of this monopoly. There are many ways to do this. For example, renegotiating with MARVs to limit allowable expenses. uh

[32:02] requiring contractors to contact owners at time of tow or operating its own city public service. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Now we have Ivon Bennett, Ryan Bennett, and Jenny Ferris. >> Good evening. My name is Ivonne Bennett. I'm a local resident, teacher, and part of the Reimagine South Boulder Recreation Group. I'm here representing over 3,000 community members who have signed our petition to say one simple thing. South Boulder wants to keep the core amenities at our recreation center. After carefully reviewing the parks and recreation plan, especially for East, many of us feel that our voices are not being heard. The plans moving forward do not reflect what the taxpayers are clearly asking for. Let me be clear. If the city wants to pursue an expanded aquatic center in East Boulder, that's great, but that should not come at the

[33:01] expense of our neighborhood recreation center in South Boulder. Our pool serves Fairview swim team, families, seniors, lap swimmers. It is a daily use walkable community space. I keep hearing that there's a funding problem, but yet our city is prioritizing $140 million for office buildings over spaces for children to play and community centers dedicated to mental and physical health. It's not a financial issue. It's a failure of priorities. Parks and Wreck have committed to a long-term 80 to $200 million for the civic area project that they're calling Boulder Beach. Why would we do this before making sure our existing buildings are taken care of? I'm asking you to invest in the recreation center that already serves thousands of residents every week. Please listen to your constituents. We are not asking for something extravagant or goldplated. We are asking for access, equity, and to keep the core amenities. That's how we want to spend our tax dollars. I've been

[34:00] told repeatedly that the city would like to get south on the ballot on 2026. It's 2026, so let's get south on the city council agenda and start discussing the next steps. Council members, I urge you to look very closely at the plan slated for East and ask yourself, is this good governance? Thank you for listening and I will be emailing all of you separately to discuss more. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Now we have Ryan Bennett, then Jenny Ferris, and Nicholas Fior. >> Hello, city council. My name is Wes and I'm 9 years old. I'm here because I really love the South Boulder Rec Center. I go to the pool with my family and I play sports in the gym. It's where I feel strong, safe, and happy. If the South Boulder Rec Center loses its pool or gym, kids like me won't have a place

[35:00] close to home to swim. The rec center isn't just a building. It's where we learn healthy habits, where we stay out of trouble, and where we feel like we belong. Please keep the pool and gym. South Boulder kids deserve the same opportunities as kids in other parts of the city. I can't drive to East on my own, but I can walk to South to play. Thank you for listening to me and taking care of our community. >> Thank you so much. All right. And just a reminder, we're not supposed to clap, although that was a phenomenal uh testifying from that young man. All right. Now we have Jenny Ferris, Nicholas Fior, and Rob Smoke. >> Great. I'm Jenny Ferris. I live in South Boulder with my husband and three boys. I am speaking in support of our South Boulder Rec Center and specifically to the importance of maintaining a lap pool at the new facility. In the time that I've lived here, while swimming masters,

[36:00] coaching, teaching lessons, and now as a swim parent, pool space has become increasingly harder to find. My son competes on the Mesa swim team, a South Boulder-based summer league team. These kids depend on our facility and deserve a pool where they can host swim meets. Our Fair View High School swimming and diving teams deserve a pool as well. High school swimming is an inclusive sport in Boulder with roughly 60 swimmers on the girls team alone. These swimmers can walk from school to practice. Eliminating the pool will create a barrier for these kids and will discourage participation. Sending our swim teams and lap swimmers driving across town is not at all in line with the city's carbon goals and would crowd Table Mesa after school. Adding two lanes to the updated East Boulders's pool will not make up for the loss of an entire separate pool at South Boulder Wreck. When a swim meet is happening at a pool, the entire pool is unavailable for others for hours at a time, regardless of the number of lanes

[37:00] at that pool. Without a pool, South's Boulder's swim meets would have to shift to already full North or East Boulder pools, leaving no space anywhere near South Boulder for lap swimmers during peak times. Overall, pouring all of our resources into East Boulder Wreck would result in a net loss of four lanes of pool space and would take away equitable access for South Boulder residents. A water feature at South Boulder Wreck is absolutely no substitute for a pool. Splash pads don't provide kids with life-saving water safety skills, and they certainly don't provide value to the aquatics community. We do not want a water feature or a fieldhouse. We want to maintain what we already have, and we have 3,000 signatures on a petition to support this. My 8 and 1 half-year-old summed it up the best. Is it even a rec center without a pool and a basketball court? >> Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. All right, our last three speakers are Nicholas Fiori, Rob Smoke, and Paul Sheer.

[38:03] Hello, my name is Nick Fiori. Um, I live in South Boulder with my wife and two kids. I make buildings here in the city going on 20 years. Um, I'm an architect. I'm here to urge you all to step up your attention and efforts in regard to saving the SBRC, either in rehabilitation or new construction. Uh, it's been more than a year since Ally and staff proposed to close it, and we're frankly and generously underwhelmed by your efforts and communications on this issue to date. I'm not going to rehash the budgetary or building health distractions that are laid on us as excuses to close it. Instead, there are many reasons SBRC should stay. The kids who love it and use it are just one reason. Behind me is my own nine-year-old son, Graham, and several other friends who use the SBRC regularly to shoot hoops or climb in the ninja room. These kids don't vote yet, but these are the kids and many others that you will fail if you follow staff's

[39:00] recommendations to close the SPRC. The kids of South Boulder and beyond are not the only group that uses and loves the center, and I encourage you to think about all of the users. uh you and staff are smart and we know the money is there so I encourage you to find it. I've also offered to speak to any of you uh on this issue especially through the lens of building and design um and also in in uh in through the lens of the reports that staff is pointing to as uh proof that the building is failing andor in some kind of end of life situation. Um, I'm almost 50 and I don't feel like I'm at end of life myself. Um, knock on wood, but is this real wood? But, um, anyway, I' I'd really encourage you to take me up on that. I know my emails are scary, but I'm not actually scary in person. And I think I know a little bit about buildings and maybe could shed some light on how I think those reports um, just aren't

[40:01] saying what staff says they say. So, thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Now we have Rob Smoke and then Paul Sheerer. >> My name is Rob Rob Smoke and I live in Boulder. I've lived here almost 40 years and uh I've never gone swimming at the SPRC. I did go swimming this morning though and uh I really enjoy it and I really support the people who've turned out here tonight for that. I just want to make a quick quick comment about this thing where you know people can hear me speaking at home but can't see me. I'm under the impression that council actually did this because people speaking on behalf of stopping genocide or speaking on behalf of divestment um were holding up pictures of kids uh starving in Gaza and I saw that here a few times. So I just like to know from council is that the reason if I go

[41:02] online if I go um say through Google AI or you know people can do this at home on their phone or do it here tonight. If you ask uh not necessarily Boulder City Council but any city council can they change um the um charter at will? And the answer is quite simply they can unless it impacts the rights the basic civil rights and constitutional rights of people who live here. And uh you'll get that answer all the time. And here for some reason people speaking at the mic don't have as much equity as anybody else who's appearing. And uh it seems obvious to me that uh the video images are as organic as the sound waves. So I think um you know it seems to me it

[42:00] seems kind of petty and I'd like to hear somebody defend it to say oh we got to have uh blocked video of pe people at the podium for one reason or another. Thanks. >> Thank you. Our last speaker is Paul Sheerer. >> Good evening. I'm Paul Sheer, South Ber. >> Closer to the mic, please. >> Good evening. I'm Paul Sheer, South Boulder resident. Council member Wall recently criticized South Boulder for wanting a goldplated rec center. That's nonsense. We only want the same rec center we've always had. even though it's the smallest and least equipped of the three. But where will we find the money? Turns out there's a very obvious place. A solid gold millstone in the city's budget. You have nearly 200 million allocated to plants which are heavily justified as climate action. 140

[43:02] million for new administrative buildings, 3 53 million for East Boulder retrofits. Combined, they might save about 1,200 tons of carbon a year. I have a different proposal. It saves that safe, 1200 tons, but it only costs 5 million. Quick show of hands. Who prefers spending the 200 million? Now, who wants the 5 million option? Thank you. The plan is simple. 5 million buys enough utility scale solar and batteries to save that 1,200 tons of carbon. That is a conservative all-in estimate. Meanwhile, to the best of my knowledge, that 140 million office plan costs half a million almost per employee, over four times the going per person rate in Denver. It's enough to buy each worker their own condo in Lewis, though. Where did they get the money for that 100 million in debt issued by emergency procedural maneuvering, never approved by voters?

[44:01] One more show of hands. Does Boulder want to preserve the health of its kids and seniors? Or does Boulder want to build a goldplated palace for administrators? >> Council members, if this isn't enough for you to change course, then I urge you to put a referendum on the ballot. Administrative palace or rec center? Let the people of Boulder decide. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Well, thanks everybody for coming out and testifying today. I want to particularly thank our young uh testifier and all the other young people who've turned out tonight. really love to see youth civic engagement. So, thanks for coming out. Nuria, do you have any uh responses to what we've heard tonight? >> I do. Thank you, Mayor. And I apologize to all for um my nasely voice. I'm still getting over the flu from last week. Um but also just want to say while I appreciate um everyone who comes to speak at council, I'm always especially excited to see our youth uh and our um

[45:01] our hopefully leaders of tomorrow come forward and learn about the process. So, thank you for that. >> There there's been a lot of conversation um certainly about South Boulder Recre and I just appreciate the passion with which community is showing up, has been showing up, has been having discussions um and I uh will share a few thoughts and certainly if I forget anything I'm sure our director of parks and recreation will correct me. um want to know that we continue to believe as a city that um recreation service in South Boulder is critical is it you have an interest we have an interest in um continuing to see that as we move forward. I do want to clarify that the city has not said that we uh that the city has not made a determination to close a facility. Um, and in fact, in the 2025 budget, if you'll recall, council, we allowed for and you and you

[46:00] approved and we appreciate that, uh, $2 million investment in South Boulder Rec Center, which I hope shares with community, um, that we do not believe it is in imminent danger of failure, but we had to make some investments there. Um, as we have uh outlined to council and I know that um Ally has shared with community in the past as well, uh we have elevated the long-term financial strategy as a priority. Um and last year there were several work streams that are um related to that to meet the unmet needs uh in our city organization in our infrastructure. The future of recre of recreation discussion helped us understand what community priorities for recreation service was across the city and the fund our future conversation with community that is coming up will help inform the priorities across the entire organization. I wanted to remind council that we will be having more conversations about this very soon. Council's going to hear an

[47:01] update on the fund our future and long-term financial strategy in March and then again in May. So very soon we will be having these very conversations. A conversation that will include the discussion about recreation centers as we prepare for the 2027 budget process and potential 2026 ballot initiatives. I also want to make two additional comments um that I heard as folks were testifying. Um I understand there is uh comparisons with the Western City campus um which is intended to consolidate frankly and save money for buildings that are obsolete and no longer functional as well as we move in there. Uh the decision to fund that project dates back more than six years certainly before my tenure and I can't remember uh when that date was but that is ongoing and that project actually conversations about it began over 10 years ago. Um, I'll also just note um Mr. Belveltman who uh has sent us and I know

[48:01] has sent you uh as part of the attachments um some comments. I believe we have responded or about to respond to some of those comments, but there was a comment about uh public art um expenditures and I just wanted to reiterate for community and uh I know council's well aware of this. The city has a 1% for public art policy where 1% of the budget for certain capital projects are dedicated to public art projects or the capital projects are dedicated to public art policy has been in effect since 2018 and aligns with the city's goals. This building actually received an exception to um reduce some of that. It does not quite reach the 1% but we believe it is adequate um for the current uh facility but it is part of a long-standing policy. Um there were other comments I will say and I wanted to thank Leslie uh Glustrm as always for coming to uh talk to the council about um power of about Excel

[49:01] and I'll just note we're going to probably have a discussion about that as we speak about um the retreat items tonight but power resiliency including timing and barriers that council has approved. We'll be discussing some of the possibilities not just how do we talk to uh Excel as a partner in the future but also how do we how can we look at things like um resiliency hubs and other uh things that will improve our resiliency as we move forward. So just wanted to make a note of that. And uh finally uh to the person who is no longer with us who spoke about um Marv's towing know that I will take that note and uh speak with uh learn a little bit more about that with the team. >> That is all I have mayor. Sorry for the voice. >> Thanks so much Naria and Roberto. Did you have anything? >> Bless you. >> And that's all I have. >> Bless you. Bless you. Bless you. Um, any questions uh for city staff to follow up

[50:01] on open comment? Matt, we'll come we'll finish that. Tina question. >> Yeah, I just had a quick question. How um the Fair View High School athletic um leaders are being integrated in this conversation. I heard a lot of concern about sports and also about the emergency situation. I appreciate that. And so that I'm not misspeaking, I'm inviting our director of parks and recreation to come on join us. Hello folks. I'm Ally Rhodess. I serve as director of parks and recreation. Nuri, I'm certain you would have gotten it right. I'm just here to to back up. Um I appreciate the question about the Boulder Valley School District and the relationship. We are working very very closely with them on a variety of needs. We have a long-standing joint use agreement that governs the sports uses of our facilities. We've been in regular contact with them. They were a partner on the indoor recreation needs assessment last year to help understand

[51:00] how their aquatics needs um feed into what is the conversation about recreation centers. We've had several conversations and more recently what we've heard from the school district is one they love the convenience of the South Boulder Recreation Center to Fairview High School. Across the district their swim teams do drive to facilities and that is that is their their practice. They do not offer pools. they're not in a position to be offering pools while they're focused on declining enrollment. So, that's what they've told us about swim teams. As it relates to the um emergency reunification, that again is a nice benefit of the proximity. It's not a requirement of the city to provide that service. And again, many BBSD schools do not have recreation centers nearby. It's it's one of the ways we work together. We work closely with BBSD in a lot of ways, but that's not a mandate of the facility. Thanks. Any other questions for city staff? Um, seeing none, we do our rules do

[52:01] allow us a um a uh brief response to open comment from each council member if so desired. So, does anybody want to make a brief response? Matt. >> Yep. >> Yeah, I asked for the questions already. Did you have a question? >> Okay, go ahead. >> Your mic's There you go. Thank you. So, I did I appreciated the um question about the climate resilience again and I was remembering that I asked about this last time as far as the county's um grants that were received. I think there's two around community resilience hubs and so just what level of participation or agreement or collaboration we can expect with the city. So just was curious in your response you mentioned that that work was coming but if I could just get a little bit more I mean it's urgent and important they're already starting to work on those two projects. I believe they're starting with manufacturer home communities and schools I believe. But

[53:02] um just again just getting more information on and you know what is the level of do they already have um engagement for the city or you know what I mean? I just would love to know related to their actual contract what they're what they had already envisioned in their in their proposal and then how does that line up with the work that the city is already doing related to the climate resilient uh the climate action plan update. I don't know what the status of that is but would imagine there's some alignment there as well. Thank you. >> I appreciate that council member Adams. I'll have to get back to you on the details of um the pre the precise questions that you're asking about, but I do know that the team is continues has been working with the county for a while, continues to work with the county what the next steps are and what the specific um uh projects that are coming forward. I want to make sure that I get right. So, I'll follow up with you on that, but it is part of the collective effort as we move forward. So, we'll

[54:00] we'll make sure to circle back with you. And then um I'm curious if there's any kind of intersect that you all see on staff around the wild uh the wildfire resilience hubs which again I would I know that was primarily an online piece but I would imagine there would be some physical components to that work as well and I would imagine having some collaboration and cooperation around anything that's going to be centralized again with our county. Um just wanting to was curious if there were um any kind of considerations there. Thank you >> again. Appreciate the question. Um, luckily in terms of our uh wildfire resilience team, our director of climate initiatives is is one of the directors part of that team and so uh that will be closely integrated as we move forward and looking always for synergies. Um, and I think uh in even the wildfire team separate from climate we have good relationships with the county particularly at a staff level. We um always work with them when we're talking about wildfire resilience as well. And I

[55:02] believe that the team as they see things that intersect will bring those together. It is in the best interest of all of us to be able to align um and to create efficiencies where we can. >> Thank you. >> Great. Matt, short comment. >> Sure comment. Um I just want to give a big shout out to the Bear Creek crew that's here. So Wes Graham, I'm a Bear Creek dad myself. I know you guys probably just came here from lip-sync rehearsal. So I will see you tomorrow night at lipsync which is largely like the best performance in town all year round. Um so look forward to seeing you. But thank you guys for being here and just remember the change you want is from endless pressure endlessly applied. Um so appreciate appreciate you guys being here. Thank you. >> I got Tina and then Nicole. As a Bear Creek grandmother, I want to thank you all for coming out, especially the kids. Nick Fiori, great to meet you in person. I just wanted to say thanks

[56:00] for coming and the speeches were very moving and I'm looking forward to taking this up and solving this problem and to everybody's happiness. >> Thanks, Nicole. And then Ryan, >> I wanted to echo the thanks for coming out. Um, I use the South Boulder Rec Center uh three times a week right now, so I get it. Um, many of the buildings in the city are at the end of their lifespan. Um, as as is a lot of other infrastructure. Um, we've got almost a $400 million backlog that we're looking at, which includes the South Boulder Rec Center. Um, so I just want to encourage you all talk to your neighbors, not just in South Boulder, but across the city about um the the importance of undedicating some of our almost 70% of dedicated funds in the city, as well as um switching how we do some of our taxes uh so that we can get more money all across the city to help out people in South Boulder and North Boulder and East Boulder uh all over the place. Um we

[57:00] wanted to do this last year in a ballot measure. um the most people in the city had no interest in it at all. And so please help us spread the word about the need for more undedicated funding um and the need for us to to be willing to invest in the infrastructure that we all love in our city. Thank you. >> Right. >> I also just wanted to uh thank the residents who've come to speak for the future of the South Bull rec center. Um our rec centers are a treasure. I live near a rec center. It's a big part of my family's life. Um we're not in a position today to, you know, decide on this. Um but as you've heard a couple of points, we are developing a long-term strategy for the city's financial health that will allow us to create more with less. Um or I guess create more with the same. Um and that really is the focus of this time. So for now, I'll just say we we do hear you. Thank you for coming. >> First, I also want to thank everybody for coming out tonight. A couple of the speakers made reference to a response I

[58:02] gave to a change.org poll. Uh, and the reason I made that response and did not sign that petition uh was because it seemed to me to not admit of any possibility of any kind of compromise with respect to the design of the facility. I support a new facility for South Boulder. I've made that pretty clear to people who have uh written to me. But this job uh entails compromise all the time. And if you ask me to sign a petition that does not permit us to exercise reasonable judgment and possibly compromise, I can't do that. I hope that we can come up with a solution that is satisfactory for everyone. But in the end of the day, uh, we have to do our jobs and I have to do my job. And that was what that response was all about. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I I'll just say very

[59:02] briefly, thanks again everybody for coming out. Really appreciate your advocacy and your passion. And just know that we share your goals of having excellent high-quality recreation facility in South Boulder. And with that, that brings us to the end of open 24 p.m., we're going to take a brief recess and then come 30. Thanks.

[65:26] See if we can have Yeah, we'll get quiet and get going. All right. And uh gave us back to order and we can now move forward with item 2A, which is a declaration commemorating Black History Month to be presented by council member Adams. So, Tisha, if you could step forward, please. Thank you. Do you have a preference on where I stand? Sorry. There we go. There we go. All right.

[66:00] Black History Month started in 1926 as a week-long celebration of the achievements, resilience, and critical role of black Americans throughout US history through the tireless work of black leaders and organizations such as the Association for the Study of African-American Life and History. It evolved into an annual month-long celebration. This year's theme set by the that association recognizes quote a century of black history commemorations. It challenges us to explore the impact of black history and reflect on the significant one-year milestones or 100year rather milestone. This year, during the 250th commemoration of the US independence, it is even more critical to acknowledge the whole truth of black history in the United States and tell an inclusive and accurate history of black and African-American experiences. As in the US at large, black people have

[67:02] played an essential role in Boulder's community since its founding. The exploration of black history in Boulder reveals a robust community organizing, cultural gatherings, and spiritual life. OT Jackson, a restaurant tour and the first manager of the Shiitakua dining hall in the late 1890s, exemplifies the early entrepreneurial spirit of Boulder's black community. Boulder's early 1900's black baseball team, the Boulder Blues, illustrates the thriving social and recreational spaces that black Boulderites built. The founding in 8 in 1908 of Second Baptist Church, which still stands as the only predominantly black church in the region, demonstrates the strong spiritual and community roots that Boulders's black community continues to in nurture to this day. While the city and county must continue to reckon with the racial injustices against the black

[68:00] community, the history of black boulderites reveals the strength, the resilience, the joy, and the triumphs of Boulder's black community. We, the city council of the city of Boulder, Colorado, declare February 2026 as Black History Month and encourage the community to seek out opportunities to learn about black history, support blackowned businesses, and reflect on our responsibility to actively dismantle systems of oppression, and work together towards racial healing. And um this is signed by our mayor um Aaron Brockett. And uh so I want to thank our council mates for that and would also like to introduce Kaylee Reid um and other members of the Black Women's Alliance here at CU Boulder um to come in and to receive our declaration and say a few words.

[69:00] >> Yeah, please do step forward. um what I wanted to say and um so as for everyone else up here uh thank you so much um having this opportunity to um speak on behalf of the city of Bouldering and with Black Women's Alliance um not only did we just start almost about a year ago uh we you know have a strong commitment to ensure commu community networking and you know mentorship and support for all black women and other women on campus and um you know being up here it is I'm so proud to you know have all this opportunity especially Tiana who is our vice president and Garm who is our graduate advisor who has helped support us along the year. Um yes thank you and anything you want to say? We really appreciate um this effort here

[70:00] today and we hope that we can continue strengthening our partnership and promoting unity among everyone. Thank you. >> Thank you everyone for coming out and supporting the city of Boulder. These young ladies have been working tirelessly to regenerate and just add momentum to black woman women's alliance at CU Boulder. We have BSA in the crowd, Black Student Alliance. I'm a two-time CU Boulder alumni and I'm super proud to see this next generation continue to carry the torch. Thank you. >> All right. Thanks so much for joining us. We really appreciate you helping us honor this important occasion. All right. Um Elisha, if we can move to our consent agenda now, please. All right, sir. Let me get myself together over here. All right, everyone.

[71:01] Our consent agenda is item number four on tonight's agenda, and it consists of items 4A through 4C. >> Any uh questions or comments in the consent consent agenda >> or perhaps a motion? >> I move to >> Please. I move to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Got a motion in a second. Rob, did you want to speak to this? >> No. Uh, we have a motion in a second. Uh, we can have a roll call, please. Elicia. >> Thank you, sir. We'll start the roll call for the consent agenda items 4 A through 4 C with council member Shuhar. >> Yes. >> Spear. >> Yes. >> Wallik. >> Yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Winer. Yes. >> Council member Adams. >> Yes. >> Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Bronett. >> Yes. >> Council member Kaplan. >> Yes. And Marquis.

[72:00] >> Yes. >> The consent agenda items 4 A through 4 C are hereby approved unanimously. >> Thanks so much. If we can go to our first callup check-in, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Callup check-ins are item five on tonight's agenda. 5A is the consideration of a landmarks alteration certificate to demolish an existing accessory building and construct a new 1,054 square ft accessory building at 2408 street. This is referenced under HIS 2025352. It is a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Any questions, comments, or desire to call this one up? Seeing no hands raised, I'll say no. No desire to call that one up. So to the next one, please. >> Item 4B is the consideration of a landmark alteration certificate to construct a newly approximately 2600 square foot primary building at 2439

[73:01] Broadway. This is referenced under HIS 202500313. It is also a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill District Historic District. Any questions, comments, or desire to call this one up? Doing the head turn here. Not seeing any hands raised. So, we'll also pass on this one. So, if we can go to our public hearing, please. All right, sir. Our public hearings are item six on tonight's agenda. 6A consists of two items. First, we have the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8736 reszoning approximately 65,122 square ft of land located at 5501 Arapjo Avenue and adjacent right away from the business community 1 to the mixeduse for zoning district as described in chapter 9-5 modular zone system BRC 1981 and

[74:02] setting forth those related details. This is referenced under case number LUR2025-000016. Our second item is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8737 reszoning approximately 56,000 896 square feet of land located at 550 Arapjo Avenue and the adjacent Arapo Avenue right ofway from the business community 1 to the mixeduse 4 zoning district and reszoning the adjacent 56th street rightway from industrial general to the mixeduse for zoning district as described in the chapter 9-5 modular zone system BRC1981 and setting forth related details. This is referenced under case number LUR2025-000016. >> Thank you so much, mayor. That was quite um a mouthful for those items. Um just

[75:02] appreciate that. I know um we're going straight to Chandler for the presentation of this item. Uh, and I know that we are waiting to see if we can connect to the screens and if you can't do it from there, I bet you the could be that it's coming up. There we go. Excellent. Um, good evening council. I'm Chandler Vancock with the Planning and Development Services Department and um, as Alicia just mentioned, I'll be uh, presenting the 550 Arapjo second reading of the resoning ordinances. Um, as Alicia just mentioned, the purpose of this item is for city council to consider a request to reszone two parcels containing approximately 2.65 acres of land located at 5501 and 5505 Arapjo Avenue and adjacent rights of way from business community 1 or BC1 to mixeduse 4 or MU4 and the adjacent 56th Street right away from industrial general or IG to mixed use 4. Uh, this

[76:02] is reviewed under application LUR2025-16. Uh this resoning request is to facilitate redevelopment of the property under the formbbased code standards of the East Boulder sub community regulating plan. The applicant applied for a resoning uh concurrent with their formbbased code review which was approved by planning board in December of last year. The formbbased code application was considered by council on January 8th and was not called up. First reading of the resoning ordinance was approved that evening as well, which brings us to council consideration of the second reading of the resort of the resoning ordinances this evening. A required public notice was provided in writing to property owners within 600 ft of the site. A posting sign was placed on the property as well in accordance with the code and no public comments uh were received by staff. Some brief notes on the location of the site. Uh the approximately 2.65 65acre property is located in East Boulder at the northeast corner of 55th in Arapjo.

[77:02] The site is comprised of two properties. One property previously operated as the Boulder Dinner Theater. That's 5501 Arapjo and the other is currently the Premier Members Credit Union which is 5505 Arapjo. The site is surrounded by commercial and light industrial uses to the north and south uh sorry to the north and east and commercial use to the south and west. The Flat Irons Golf Course lies to the southeast across Arapjo Avenue. The site currently contains uh several shared vehicular access points off Arapaho 55th and 56th. Uh overall the site is largely paved. >> The Boulder Valley comprehensive plan land use designation for the site is mixeduse transit oriented development or MUD. Per the comprehensive plan MUD areas pair existing or planned transit facilities with residential and commercial development opportunities. The goal of MUTOD areas is to transform existing disperate uses into mixeduse transit oriented neighborhoods rich with amenities and services. MUD areas are

[78:00] located at regional or local mobility hubs and/or along key transit corridors. Anticipated uses consist predominantly of attached residential uses. Supporting uses to be allowed include office, retail, service, commercial, and light industrial. The project site is also located within the boundaries of the East Boulder sub community plan. The site is designated as an area of change with a neighborhood TOD place type. The project site is also identified as part of the 55th and Arapjo station area master plan, also known as the stamp, which was adopted as part of the uh sub community plan and indicates that the corner of 55th and Arapjo will include a mobility hub connecting residents to other parts of the city and the region by bus, bike, foot, and car. The project site is currently zoned business community 1 or BC1 which is identified as business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods where retail type stores predominate. The site is also subject to the East Boulder formbbased code which was adopted in 2025 specifically to

[79:00] implement the sub community plan. The applicant is requesting a resoning from BC1 to MU4, which is defined in the land use code as mixeduse residential areas generally intended for residential uses with neighborhoods serving retail and office uses and where complimentary uses may be allowed. It is anticipated that development will occur in a pedestrianoriented pattern with buildings built up to the street. Currently, MU4 zoning has been applied only to other formbbased code areas of the city where adopted area plans exist, including the Boulder Junction area and the Alpine Balsam area. The sub community plan recommends MU4 zoning for areas such as these that have MU TOD or mixed use transit oriented development comp plan land use designations. Staff has identified one key issue for council's consideration this evening and it is whether the proposed resoning is consistent with the resoning criteria found in 9219 of the land use code. Per the detailed analysis found in your packet staff has found that the proposed resoning is consistent with the intent

[80:01] of the comprehensive plan and the land use map and that it would bring the zoning into compliance with the underlying land use designation of MUD. The proposed resoning is also consistent with the recommendations of the East Boulder sub community plan. Staff has also found that the proposal is consistent with other specific criteria for MU4 resonings that relate to infrastructure and trip generation. Uh this is also detailed in the packet. Based on staff's findings, we have prepared motion language for council's consideration this evening. Uh this is the motion reszoning the first parcel, the motion to reszone the second parcel. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, Chandler. Any questions for staff? I'm not seeing any. So, shall we go to the applicant presentation then? All

[81:12] right, we'll pause for a moment. Sorry, I forgot you were supposed to submit in advance. >> Matt, Matt, Matt, >> Matt, I have a question for you. Matt, I have a question for you. >> Me? >> Yes.

[82:00] >> Good answer. >> What building has the most stories in Boulder? >> The library. >> Damn. >> You're such a dad. >> I've been doing this joke thing for four years on council. >> Uh, do we have the presentation up? >> Rob, I'm sorry. Okay. Uh, with that delightful intermission there, we'll now turn to the applicant for presentation. >> Good evening, Aaron Bagnel. Um, Sofur Spar Architects, 2550 Walnut Street in Boulder. Um, we're really excited to be here. We've been, um, working on this getting housing in East Boulder for a while, and we're excited to be the first ones in. And I just wanted, this will be really sweet, short. Um, Chandler did a great job outlining the criteria. Um the I I'll just do a quick little introduction of the goals of this area.

[83:00] And in all of East Boulder, we have goals of 5,000 housing units. Um specific to the Stamp area, we have residential units that are goals of um over 2,000 and this will be the first 300. So, I think it's kudos to the entire effort that's made it to this point to be where we are today and we're excited to be here. Um, we have a lot of robust TDM measures as a result of um the criteria. We have um connectivity all through the as you see in the diagram there's it's relatively well connected by trail and most importantly the east and west Arapjo transit corridor that is as you all know now improved with the bus lanes on each side of the road sorry keep um this project will bring lots of really major infrastructure improvements

[84:01] to the bike lanes and the multi-use path around the site. Um has lots of great bike storage meeting all the requirements of the new bike um regulations that just were passed. Uh we're going to have e- scooters and bicycle stations and car share, a mobility hub that is on the courtyard area, the public courtyard area of 55th Street, um right next to the bus station and bus passes and unbundled parking with a monitoring and implementation plan. So, um, pretty straightforward as Chandler mentioned. On the left, you have the land use plan that was adopted with the East Boulder sub community and then on the right the recommended zoning. That's all I have for tonight. Thank you so much. >> Thanks, Erin. Appreciate the succinctness. Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, we can go to the public hearing. We have one person signed up, which is Lynn Seagull, and she'll have three minutes to speak.

[85:10] Sorry, I'm middle of anar Antarctica event and um there the PowerPoint was not on just FYI so I didn't see that and all I could say is no no no sorry Adrian but no this 50t 55th Street project should not have any reszoning, should not increase density. We don't need any more more in Boulder. You know, riding my bike past the millennium today, it's just breathtaking what's going on in this town. You blink and you aren't going to know this place anymore. 930 rent by the bedrooms taken up by 246

[86:02] hotel rooms which had I might add folks sales tax revenue income for Boulder. Um and now you want more is not better. Um Albart let's better bigger not you know bigger is not better um more is not better we need to you know we had all this complaint about South builder rec center tonight and um oh I don't even know where my minutes are like get some more it spend some more money on it so thank you so that people can you no PowerPoint. I mean, South Ber rec center and and instead we're spending money on this. These reszones are a huge huge subsidy developer. And much as I love Adrian,

[87:01] we can't be doing this. It's like endless. It's that's that's the model of how development operations work. And it's got to change for the better of everyone because eventually it hurts everyone otherwise. And this this is just not sustainable growth. and the formbbased code thing that even even Laura Kaplan wouldn't vote for herself, you know, is is a problem that didn't get resolved and can't get resolved because the amendment already happened and then you're stuck with it and now we've got more buildings going up that I was hearing about in planning board the other day or it's a blur after a while. so much to follow. I do the best I can. At least I try. At least I try. And I'm

[88:01] so sorry, Adrien, that I have to say no. No, no, no, no, no. This is not okay. Please rethink it. Bye. >> Thank you. All right. So, that closes the public hearing. So, we'll bring it back to council for discussion or even a motion. Chandler, you got something ready? Yeah, go for it. >> All right, go ahead and start with the motion. I'd like to make a motion to adopt ordinance 8736 reszoning approximately 65,122 square ft of land located at 5501 Arapua Avenue and adjacent right away from the BIS business community 1 BC1 to the mixeduse for MU4 zoning district as described in chapter 9-5 modular zone system BRC 1981 and setting forth related details. Second. >> All right, we've got a motion in a second. Did you want to speak to that, Matt? >> I I would just shortly. I I just want to speak to the kind of the irony of this

[89:01] project in the fact that when we approved this East Boulder sub community plan, we created this land use called MUD with the intent to do mixed use at this site. And yet here we are having to do a reszoning and spend time, burn time, and add cost to a project because we don't have the right zoning matched with our land use. And I state the irony because one of our one half council priorities is to redo Title 9. Interesting how that works out, isn't it? So again, these are this is the continuity. This is the consistency. And we're going to keep coming up with these these ironic situations where we have a tool to do the thing that we need to do and we should just do it because meanwhile we're burning time, we're adding cost and we're impacting the project from what is intended to be. So I just don't want to be lost on us that we have this opportunity to do that and we're going to keep finding these stumbling blocks um and these processes hurdles um to doing the thing that we've originally intended to do in our community. So um

[90:01] want to sort of pass this along, get this motion done and just remind ourselves of that irony. Terry, do you want to say anything? Anybody else? Seeing no other hands raised. Oh, yes, Mark. Um, I think this is a perfectly appropriate place for this kind of development. Um, and I do support it, but I do urge us to take another look at the formbbased code because the results of the formbbased code have been a surpassingly hideous structure. Um, if you put the the the rendering of that building uh back up on the screen, it could easily pass for um a prison. I mean, it is it is simply flatsided um um surfaces uh with with no differential in articulation uh or uh or anything that would make it a little more attractive. I I know that the

[91:02] applicant did what he was uh obligated to do under the formbbased code. I think it falls to us at some point. Uh perhaps not immediately, but we need to take a look at this and see if there are any minor tweaks we can make to the formbbased code that will encourage better architecture because I don't think that's what we got here. We got good housing, but we didn't get good architecture. Thank you. >> All right. Thanks, Mark. I I will just offer that hideousness is in the eye of the beholder and I I think it's actually pretty tastefully designed project. Uh personally, I know people worked really hard on it. >> Well, if I if I may call, yes, it is in the eye of the beholder. >> Um so, seeing no other hands raised, I'll go ahead and ask for a roll call vote on the motion in front of us, please. >> Excuse me. We'll start the roll call for ordinance 8736 with Council Member Spear. >> Yes. Wallik,

[92:00] >> yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Winer, >> yes. >> Council member Adams, >> yes. >> Benjamin, >> yes. >> Mayor Brockett, >> yes. >> Council member Kaplan, >> yes. >> Marquis, >> yes. >> And Shuhar, >> yes. >> Ordinance 8736 is hereby adopted unanimously. >> Thanks very much. Did you want to keep going? >> Keep going. I'll make a motion to adopt ordinance 8737 reszoning approximately 56,896 square feet of land located at 5505 Rapo Avenue and the adjacent Rapo Avenue right of way from the business community 1 DC1 to the mixeduse 4 MU4 zoning district and reszoning the adjacent 56th Street right ofway from Industrial General IG to mixeduse 4 MU4 zoning district as described in chapter 9-5 modular zone system BRC1981 and setting forth related details Second. >> Any further words?

[93:01] Any further words from anybody? Seeing no hands raised, I'll ask for a roll call vote on that, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the adoption of ordinance 8737 with Council Member Wallik. >> Yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Winer. >> Yes. >> Council member Adams. >> Yes. >> Benjamin, >> yes. >> Mayor Brockett, >> yes. Council member Kaplan, >> yes. >> Marquis, >> yes. >> Shuhard, >> yes. >> And Spear, >> yes. >> Ordinance 8737 is hereby adopted unanimously. >> All right, thank you very much and congratulations to the applicant. We look forward to a successful outcome for the project. All right, let's move to our matters from the city manager item, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Our matters from the city manager item seven on tonight's agenda. 7 A is the updates to the 2026 policy statement on regional, state, and federal issues. The review and approval.

[94:01] >> How are you? >> Thank you, Mayor. Um and thank you, Alicia. Uh the next item, uh I'll be sending to um Heather Staer. She gets ready. Um but I'll say in advance that we're going to be splitting this conversation into two. Certainly the first one want to talk about the policy statement um in general but there was another item uh that is related to the policy statement that came up as part of the IG committee uh and the committee I just want to say felt it was better suited uh for discussion for the council of the whole um and so want to bring that in similar to what we do um with our FSC committee items as well. So with that I believe Heather I have bought you enough time. >> Thank you Nuria. Thank you, council. My name is Heather Staer, intergovernmental affairs officer for the city. Um this evening I'll be presenting recommendations um for additions and changes to the 2026 policy statement. Um, so our goals this evening are uh to

[95:01] review updates from the policy statement that resulted from the intergovernmental affairs committee direction at their January 2020 22nd meeting and then received direction from council to finalize the 2026 policy statement for adoption with updates. Um, all changes we received as part of the council's November 13th study session. Um, they were reviewed by intergovernmental affairs committee on the 22nd. So those are reflected here. Um, so first up on our state policy priorities, the committee recommended prioritizing the existing human rights language into the state policy priorities section of the policy statement. This was existing language that was in um the uh the the body of the document, but was prioritized to be one of our state policy priorities. Um the committee recommended expanding the existing language in the federal policy priority number five to also include federal grantup supported research jobs

[96:01] within the climate change and community resilience sections um of the policy statement. The committee recommended adding language to the existing food and supply security position to support policies that reduce the number of miles traveled to um from farm to consumer and policies that support local growers. Also, the committee recommended adding language to support the cleanup of orphaned wells and statewide accountability measures that ensure responsible parties bear the costs of cleanup and environmental remediation. Um, under the economic vitality section of the policy statement, the committee recommended adding the same language um, that's reflected in the federal priorities to expand support for federally funded labs within the housing and land use sections of the policy statement. The committee recommended adding language into the housing and land uh, excuse me, into these items reflecting the need for workforce housing options. Um, and the

[97:00] committee also recommended adding language back into the policy statement to support reform of the state's construction defects law. The committee recommended adding language to address the requirement for coal ash mitigation. They also recommended adding language to support the development of guidance to help communities reduce or shift high-risk public activities during extreme fire days. Under the transportation section, the committee recommended adding language um addressing protections against unlawful surveillance and data misuse um to language addressing automated vehicle deployment. And finally, the committee recommended adding language into the policy statement supporting statewide uh legislation that addresses water and energy conservation measures to limit excessive use of water and energy by data centers. So with that, I will turn it over to council. >> So do council members have any questions

[98:00] or concerns about the additions and revisions recommended by the IG committee to the 2026 policy statement? >> Any hands, >> questions or concerns? So comments? Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. >> A comment. Uh thank you. I Yeah. I had submitted, excuse me, numerous items in November. Uh, appreciate Heather and the team's work and and the intergovernment affairs committee on work on this. So, the coash item, the wildfire ignition risk reduction item, the construction defects item. Um, I think it's wonderful those are incorporated. And I also wanted to thank you for helping to clarify that there was uh five other items relating to essentially electrification and distributed generation that we have affirmed or I understand are is a firm that is um part of our existing policy statement. Those are in a hotline and documented. Um I won't itemize them all out, but just to say

[99:00] thanks to um uh you for uh explaining that. And I would just want to make sure my c my council member colleagues understand those those five items are items we have affirmative positions on. And if we need to discuss that further, we should do it. If not, um thumbs up. Yep, agreed that they are definitely covered. So, thanks for your suggestions, Ryan. Any others? Uh, yes, Tina. Yeah, I was um just thinking about the data center edition and I there's a word in there um the excessive use of water and energy which is pretty subjective and also it doesn't define whether it would be the judgment would be done by a state entity or a local entity and I'm wondering if we would want local control over the um over that determination around the excessive use of energy water of a data

[100:00] center. >> Do we have a staff member who might address that thought? Um in terms of who would make the judgment on excessive use of water by data centers, it would certainly be um water providers. I would think that would um be involved in that determination um based on our water resources. So with the city, our water team would definitely be part of that conversation. Um, in terms of legislation that I know is coming, I have not seen yet the um the the legislation and how they plan to address those items, whether it be state or local. Um, so I'm not sure I have a a a great answer for that quite yet on what's coming. However, I'd be happy to get back to you on on some of that. I mean similarly would we be relying on

[101:02] Excel to determine whether they have appropriate energy to maintain the data center and then what the prioritization of the energy delivery would be visav the data center and the rest of the community >> similarly yeah I think we would need to analyze that a bit more >> so Tina may we we have another IGA committee meeting in February maybe as this potential bill moves forward we could learn more about it at that time >> that'd be great and and obviously I'd like to take this to a local level so that we're looking at our water supply and the energy service to our community. >> Yeah, thanks for that point. All right, not seeing any other hands. I think that covers that first question. So, Heather, if you want to proceed. >> Okay, wait one moment.

[102:24] I apologize. My computer is having some issues. Are there other jokes we can share? Here we go. Why did the jaguar eat the tightroppe walker? >> Here we go. >> Tightroppe walker. It was craving a wellbalanced meal. >> Heather, save us from the next joke.

[103:01] That was actually pretty fun. >> Thank you so much, uh, Council Heather Staer, uh, Intergovernmental Affairs Officer once again. Um, so following our intergovernmental affairs committee meeting on the 22nd, the committee recommended that we advance House Bill uh 26101, the Home Act, for a discussion amongst the entire council. Um, so this presentation will summarize the bill, how it might apply to the city of Boulder, and and political considerations as well. So, our goals this evening are to receive direction from council on whether the city should take an official position on House Bill 101 and if appropriate identify any amendments to House Bill 101 that council would like staff to pursue. Um, a quick summary of House Bill 101. Um, this is the Housing Opportunities Made Easier or Home Act. requires a local government on or after December 31st of 2027 to allow residential development to be considered uh excuse

[104:01] me can be to be constructed on a qualifying property in any zone of the city that does not contain an exempt parcel uh subject to an administrative approval process rather than the city's traditional zoning and development review processes. It's being sponsored by representatives Andrew Baynecker and Javier May Mabberry as well as senators Tony Exom and Julie Gonzalez. Um in terms of the bill status, um it was heard in the House Transportation, Housing and Local Government Committee on Tuesday and it was heard in the House floor for second reading this morning. I have sent copies of the amendments that were added in both of those committees and on second reading um through hotline. So you all should have copies of those amendments. So, what is a qualifying property and entity? So, properties that are five acres or less that do not contain exempt parcels as um defined in legislation that are owned by either a nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history

[105:01] of providing affordable housing. I'm going to refer to that as NDH or we'll be here all night. um a a nonprofit organization that provides public transit, a nonprofit organization that has entered into an agreement with an NDH uh provided that the agreement requires the NDH to develop a residential development on the property, a school district, a state college or university, a housing authority, a local or regional transit district, or a regional transportation authority serving one or more counties. So what cities can require under this bill? So we can require uh qualifying entities to go through an administrative process approval process prior to development. Uh within that approval process we can require infrastructure standards in local law um including standards related to utilities, transportation or public works codes. We can also require locally adopted life

[106:00] safety codes, including a building, fire, utility, or storm water code. I'll I'll note that um amendment 16 added today added wildfire resiliency to that list of standards that we can consider. Um under the administrative approval process um we can require regulations related to human and environmental health and safety including oil and gas setbacks, flood plane regulations and airport airport influence areas. Um we can generally um we can require uh generally applicable requirements for the payment of impact fees or other similar development charges in accordance with law um or mitigation of impacts. We can require a statement by a water or wastewater service provider regarding the provider's capacity to service the property as a condition of allowing a a residential development. uh city could require uh inclusionary zoning ordinances, deeds, restriction, deed restrictions, community benefits

[107:00] agreements, development agreements, or other affordable housing policies or standards as part of that process. Um and uh cities are allowed to ask as part of our initial development application that an NDH provide documentation that it meets any one of the criteria listed in the bill to be determined as a a nonprofit with a history of providing affordable housing. So, what we cannot require or deny, um, the city could not deny a residential development based on height if the tallest structure is no more than three stories or 45 ft tall. Um, or it's compliant with the height requirements of the property zoning district or any contiguous uh residentially zoned parcel. Um, so anything touching one side of a building, for example. We cannot restrict the number of dwelling units unless the same standard is applied to all similar housing within the jurisdiction. We cannot deny a child care facility or

[108:00] a social education service if they are allowed by right or conditionally in the zoning district. And development standards must be equivalent. So, the city could not apply a standard to a residential development on a qualifying property that are more restrictive than those applied to similar housing elsewhere in the jurisdiction. Um, they include a list within the legislation of standards. Um, but that list is not exhaustive, so it could include more. I've listed it on the side here. includes property line setbacks, lot coverage or open space, on-site parking requirements, number of bedrooms in a multif family development, uh landscaping screening, amongst others. Um, I will just add also that amendment L15 added today on second reading added solar access to the list of standards that may be applied but must be equivalent. and that was in direct response to a a request from the city.

[109:03] So, benefits and drawbacks of the legislation. Some key benefits. Um, this may encourage the new development of affordable housing. Uh, zoning changes and development review processes can be costly and timeconuming in some jurisdictions. Uh this can be a deterrent to people running nonprofits and churches in the city who may otherwise be interested uh in developing residential property. New administrative processes may encourage the development of new housing by these nonprofits and churches. Um the development of new uh affordable housing would contribute to the city's affordable housing goals. Um we could help it could help Boulder reach its target of 15% of affordable housing by 2035. It does align with broad goals laid out in the Boulder Valley comp plan. Um the draft plan and land use map update contemplates policies which in concept would make zoning changes to allow for

[110:00] denser affordable housing outcomes um on nonprofit lands easier than pre than it previously has been. Uh policy objectives uh for the Boulder Valley Comp plan align with the purposes and intents of House Bill 101. Um however of course the mechanism for achieving those outcomes differs and it may encourage the broader utilization of land. Um it could encourage qualified entities as I've mentioned before to activate school, church, transit and other missiondriven properties which may otherwise sit vacant. Some drawbacks. Um undermines home rule authority. preempts Boulder's constitutional right to regulate land use as a matter of local concern. Um, it does circumvent community planning. The land use code and the related policy documents have been carefully crafted to reflect city goals and values. Um, as the legislation is proposed, this thoughtful framework for location, density, and housing types become

[111:01] secondary to the state mandate. Um, existing codes and processes already contemplate easier pathways for nonprofits and affordable housing. Um, so this is something to consider. Uh, zoning override. Residential development becomes permissible in any zoning district based only on ownership and largely without context. And then uh conflicts with some current development standards. Um we have uh outlined many of the impacts in the memo that you'll see. Um some current city development requirements that are not uh are not all excuse me are also not expressly contemplated in the bill. Um the proposed bill would not allow limits to the number of dwelling units and would permit buildings at 45 ft in areas of the city where 35 ft is typically the maximum height allowed. Um, the allowance for additional height also raises questions about how to implement the city's community benefits

[112:00] requirements um, related to increased permanently affordable housing and solar access in neighboring properties. Um, so I encourage you if you have not yet, I'm sure you have, just to take a look at those potential impacts in the memo. Um, and then the broad definition of nonprofit. While nonprofits have a demonstrated history of excuse me, while nonprofits profits with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing would include some trusted partners that we are familiar with, Habitat for Humanity, Boulder Housing Partners among many others. Uh criteria for be being considered an NDH is broad and it could invite abuse. The bill also allows any nonprofit to partner with an NDH for development, which may greatly expand the number of qualified entities that we're seeing. Um, I will note in that section there was an amendment in committee that was tied to the definition of nonprofit to ensure that all the nonprofits that

[113:00] partner with NDHs are 501c3s. So, some political context and considerations. Um this is a highly uh political and politicized bill. So um just like all the land use bills in the past few years which you have seen, this bill is a top priority for the governor's office. We of course have a long-standing productive working relationship with the governor's team. Um they are carrying Boulder's priority legislation around on bill finance this year. Um and I would expect to work with them on quite a few other bills uh that are important to the city this session. So that relationship is really important to consider within the political framework here. Um last Friday staff was able to meet with the speaker prom basenecker who um and some of the governor's team to talk through the initial technical feedback and suggestions on the bill. Uh they were very receptive to our feedback and indicated a willingness to continue working with us on identified impacts.

[114:02] Um to today, as I mentioned, two of our suggestions were incorporated uh into the bill on second reading around wildfire resiliency and solar access. Um so that those are um political context and considerations for you to consider in your discussion. I will just mention that while last year's um yes in God's Backyard or Yiggby proposal failed, this bill does seem better positioned to pass this year. So, I wanted to provide our policy statement language that addresses this topic for your consideration. Um, I would just draw your attention uh to the criteria listed at the bottom of the policy statement that's bolded um as as criteria as you uh have this discussion. Um, I'd also point to policy item 19 that um directs the city to support items that provide increased support for low-income individuals, families, and

[115:00] workers to maintain, find, and retain housing. So, I think those two statements in the policy statement um are address this bill. So, that concludes my presentation. Of course, happy to answer questions and I will turn it to you. >> Thanks so much for that thorough update. Heather, do we have any questions for Heather? And I if we do, I just encourage them to be targeted and factual. Um, there we go. Rob and Tara and Nicole. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So, this would eliminate home rule, correct? >> Thank you. Um, Council Member Kaplan, this would not eliminate home rule. However, um, it would certainly um it would certainly impact home rule authority around land use. >> Okay. And no requirement for affordable housing for these developments. >> Thank you for that question. So, there

[116:01] is no uh statewide mandate in the bill around affordable housing. However, the bill does state that local governments as part of the administrative approval process can require um inclusionary zoning ordinances, deed restrictions, and affordable housing agreements. So, it would be on the local government to ensure that we have those in place. Um but yes, there is no statewide mandate on affordable housing per this bill. >> Okay. And then I saw an addition for Prop 123, but that's um optional for the developer. >> So the and I'm still analyzing that amendment, but that speaks to um commitments that cities make when they join Prop 123. They um get specific points for um doing certain things related to affordable housing. So that um amendment speaks to the fact that if

[117:00] you develop a property under this bill, you would get um additional points that would go towards your Prop 123 goals. >> Okay. And then under similar housing, is there a boundary around that? What is the area that they're using to define similar housing? >> So it's similar housing um in density and there is an uh an actual definition of it. Let me pull that up really quick. I have it here. Apologize. I have too many documents in my hand.

[118:05] Go. Um I believe it's density and form. So um it speaks to um similar housing within zones. Um so you could not apply a um a different standard to a residential development that um is different than the standards that you apply to the similar housing within those zoned districts. >> So in a residential one, wouldn't that preclude that? That may be something that I need to hand over to Brad and his team. I'm not familiar with residential one. >> Rob, what was the question exactly? >> If you're in a residential

[119:01] zone, like for an example on Evergreen and 7th, there's a church, >> a random church in the middle of the neighborhood. What can the housing look like there since it's a single family neighborhood? >> Yeah. >> So, I Who guys want to take that? >> I think I may have an answer, but Brad, please. >> Well, just eager to hear. >> Is my my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you could build a building that was the same shape as the other buildings in that single family neighborhood except that it could go up to 45 ft tall and it could have multiple dwelling units. >> Yeah. Uh, so Brandan Mueller Planning and Development Services, >> the this the same setbacks, the same like lot coverage, >> but not the same shape, >> but um just a lot taller. >> Yeah, just but taller. >> Yeah, but taller. Sorry, Brad. Go ahead. No, no, that's uh great. Uh Brad

[120:01] Mueller, director of planning and development services. That that's fundamentally true. And I think that is kind of the middle picture that we're trying to understand is, you know, you've got a pattern of lower profile housing and this would be next to it even though it would meet setback and things like that. But yeah, that that's the essence of it. to to get to the factual answer of the question. Yeah. >> So, would solar access then come into play if that building were to block the solar access of the neighboring building? Then it would not be able to go to 45 ft. Would that preempt the height? >> So, they did just add solar access to the list of requirements that you could consider as long as they are um equivalent standards. So as as long as you have that standard everywhere in the city, you could consider that um as a

[121:00] factor >> and everywhere in the zone, not the city. >> I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Thank you so much. Within the zone. >> Sure. >> So as far as the shape goes, can you put a block rectangle or square in that area? Let's say that church that he's talking about. Because when you say shape, are you saying the shape of the actual structure has to look like the other shapes or isn't there absolutely no architectural requirements on this bill? >> You you can impose the same requirements that you have for other housing in the area. So it would still have to have the same setbacks and it would have to our compatible development rules would still apply I think which means you have to have a setback and you can only they get very complicated. >> Can you get a four was it threetory or four story? three story and 45 feet >> 45 foot block with setbacks be I guess what I'm saying is are there any architectural requirements this bill doesn't speak to architectural

[122:01] requirements but in terms of equivalent standards if we had architectural requirements I would anticipate that we could require those because they are equivalent across all zones w within the zone excuse me >> Rob did you have Yeah, it would. >> Yeah, I have. Could could an entity an NDH land lease to another entity to build to develop? >> The bill speaks to the property owner. So, it needs to be owned by an NDH in order to develop. Um, it does not the bill does not speak to whether the property could be leased. So, I don't know the answer to that and I can clarify that for you if that's something you'd like. >> Okay. And my final question, um I just want to clarify there would be no community feedback >> because the uh properties are subject to

[123:01] an administrative approval process. Uh an administrative approval process does not allow elevation to a public hearing or uh decisions by an elected body. So, it would go through an administrative process by staff uh that would speak to objective uh standards in law. >> Okay. But somebody like RTD could take part of their parking structure, take it down, build affordable housing, and that would fit into the TOD. >> I believe that RTD would be a covered a qualified entity and so yes, they could uh develop on their land, residential development. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Terra. >> Thank you. So, is it possible then to get market rate rentals? Just market rate rentals. >> Yes, there is an >> because I know we need so many more of those. No, I'm kidding. >> Thank you. So, as part of the um

[124:01] affordable housing requirements um be because Boulder's inclusion inclusionary home um program does allow for a cash and ll standard. Um a developer could pay the cash andlue and then uh develop market rate homes. >> Okay. They would be rentals though or it doesn't it can be ownership as well. >> I believe it can be uh owned or rentals. Okay. And so getting back to the architecture, you know, I'm obsessing on that, right? Okay. Just to be clear, just getting back to the architecture, if I I would assume at this evergreen church that really you can build whatever you want there. There's we don't have restrictions on architecture here, do we? >> I would ask uh that's not something I'm familiar with.

[125:05] Charles, do you want to take a crack at that? >> Thanks, Charles. >> So, good evening, Charles Frell, Planning and Development Services. Could you repeat the question just so I make sure I understand it? >> Well, I'm trying to see if we could somehow get a rectangular block with big deal setbacks. Got it. So I don't think we have architectural like we don't have any rules on architecture right so we technically could get that >> I think we could um there are architectural controls in place in areas of the city where we have area plans so like north Boulder um east Boulder a vast majority of the city doesn't have um area plans or design guidelines um so we would be left then with the standards that um were included in Heather's presentation. So things like um our setbacks, our volutric standards for compatible development, which kind of controls wall plane and wall length and

[126:02] things like that, but no overarching urban design guidelines or architectural controls. >> Can I just clarify? So that means Charles that while we could get a building that looks like a block, we could also get a building that has architectural features. We don't mandate anything. >> That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. Although our compatible development standards don't allow for cubes, right? I mean, they have a you have to change how you >> Yeah, there's articulation requirements and wall plane >> uh lengths that, you know, you have to break the plane at a certain point. So, there are some controls, but not really architecture, >> but not architecture. Thanks for that, Nicole. >> And then we'll get to you. >> Um, thanks so much for the presentation, uh, and for trying to understand all this as it's happening and changing on the fly. Um, I just had a few questions. one, I just want to um to confirm my understanding there's really um like somebody could make a nonprofit tomorrow, right? Um and then basically come in and say, "Hey, I want, you know,

[127:01] I have these properties. I would like to develop whatever housing on them um whatever I want." Is that right? Like there's no um they don't kind of have to be an established nonprofit. Like people could just create them. is that >> so you have to meet one of the qualifications listed in the bill to be considered a a nonprofit with a um >> demonstrated history of providing affordable housing. Um you have to also own the property for five years I believe. I'm yes own the property for five years um before you can no excuse me let me just double check that. Um, excuse me. Okay. So, you have to be um have a demonstrated history within the last five years of having provided

[128:03] affordable housing. So um a person who uh wanted to become a nonprofit would have had to show that they have have provided de uh affordable housing in the various ways listed within the bill in the last five years. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and then I saw that uh the requirements around wild meeting wildfire regulations were just added um today. Is that uh does that does flood regulations fit in there um as well? So, the bill speaks to locally adopted life safety codes, including building, fire, utility, and storm water code. Um, I would anticipate that flood would fit within that context. >> Okay. >> And you have flood plane regulations up there on the slide. >> Specifically, >> on the top right square. >> Okay. >> There you go. >> That's the square. Thank you. >> There. Thank you.

[129:02] >> Let's see. And uh one of the questions, we could make these changes here in the city if we wanted to, right? Like we don't need the state to unlock this for us. These are changes that we could make here. Is that right? >> I anticipate the city could make those changes decided to if that was a desire. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then um how much would this impact our city? I mean, is this a need that some of our um some of our nonprofits have expressed? Are they are they looking for this kind kind of change? >> There are um several nonprofits that have listed support for the bill. Um I do not believe that any uh of boulders, but let me just double check myself when I say that. I know Habitat for Humanity has supported the bill. Um, the Coalition, Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. Um, but I do not believe any Boulder

[130:01] based uh nonprofits for affordable housing have taken a position on the bill. Um, it is hard to know how much this will be utilized. Um, kind of asking around um with various partners, it's just it's very hard to know. It could be utilized quite a bit. it could not be utilized hardly at all. So, we won't really know until this goes it goes into effect. >> Yep. Okay. Thank you. Um and then are there are there any accommodations for cities that have done really inclusive and extensive planning? I mean, we've we've been going through this three-year Boulder Valley comp plan um update. It is an incredibly inclusive engagement. We are having all kinds of conversations, bringing many many many people into these discussions. What anything come of that? Um like is is there anything that says okay you've done this um you uh we will accommodate um these

[131:00] conversations that you've had. >> Thank you for the question. Um so the build itself does not tie anything to a comprehensive plan. Um we did as staff share that feedback with the sponsors. Um and they were very open and receptive to addressing some of that. Um recognizing that that comprehensive plan really identifies the areas that are suitable for density and suitable for um for more development. So they were interested in um having further conversations around that piece specifically. >> Thank you. Um and then I've got one one more question. Um, is there so everybody has been um starting to do these uh housing needs assessments right regionally as well as within cities and things like that. Is there anything in here that um says that the housing would need to meet a need that is established in the community?

[132:00] >> No. Okay. Okay. Thanks, >> Rick. Um the the purpose of this bill is to enhance the creation of affordable housing. Is that correct? But there's no requirement that anybody provide affordable housing. Is that also correct? >> There's no statewide mandate that um these develops developments be affordable. It would lie on the local level to ensure that they would be meet affordable housing standards. But yes, you are correct. There is no statewide uh mandate in the billing affordable. >> So we we can end up with many fairly intrusive projects that are simply market rate rentals as as we see all the time. Is that am I correct? There are circumstances in which we could see developments um under our inclusionary zoning standards uh that could be market rate or mixed

[133:00] >> and because we cannot limit the number of units um and we don't really have occupancy restrictions. Um you could have a 45 foot high uh multi-unit student housing. um on say Fourth Street or Mapleton Hill that that's also a potential outcome >> potentially. There are um uh it does address standards uh pertaining to minimum dwelling units per acre. >> And again, if we were to apply that uh equivalently across zones, uh these developments would be subject to those requirements as well. >> Okay. Um, >> in terms of density, >> this this is now did you say that there was some receptivity to

[134:01] the fact that we're operating under a number of plans that actually plan out where greater density and housing is appropriate and where it might not be at least at the moment. >> Yeah. From my conversation with Speaker Prom Bayer, he did express um that he appreciates the fact that we have identified areas that would be more appropriate for development versus less appropriate and they agree that um developing in areas that are unsuitable for development is not the goal and intention of the bill. Um so I do believe that they are uh open to having further conversations around that. >> Okay. Um, do you have any sense of the prospect for achieving that? Because that's a fairly fundamental concern. I think >> in term Can I >> in terms of if we're going to have additional uh housing and density, we've identified places where we think it's good for that and we've identified

[135:01] places where we don't think it's good for that. But as I understand this bill, all you need is the parcel of land. it doesn't matter where it is. >> And if if that categorization is correct, I'm asking is there some receptivity on the part of um the legislature to revise that a little bit to accommodate what we are doing. >> You may try to get us to discussion. >> Yep. So I listen to >> I'm sorry. Can I just respond to that question and Heather correct me if I'm wrong? If I'm uh if I'm getting your question, Council Member Wallak, I I think yes, that we have heard that there is receptivity to discuss these concerns and and certainly what we're hearing today. I don't believe we can speculate on whether or not um they would be successful or not, but that the um bill sponsors have said they're open to further conversation. >> Is that accurate? >> Well, couldn't it be that they are saying that just to get it? I first of

[136:00] all, it already passed, didn't it? So with all those mayors speaking and I heard a lot of those mayors and a lot of people that were not happy they didn't seem to care. So why do you think I mean they passed it without changing anything except for those few amendments. So why do you think they would be receptive just because they told you or that's that reason >> that might be speculation. >> So in terms of where the bill is in the process uh the bill passed its first committee in the house and it also passed second reading in the house. it has to go through third reading and then it will go over to the Senate and complete the same process. So it will receive a committee hearing and second reading um in the Senate. So there is still time um for discussions and the sponsors in our conversations have made it clear that they are willing to discuss and and um uh make changes to the bill throughout the process. Um so I can comment on that piece. >> Okay, Mark. Good enough. >> I'm I'm done. >> Great. I I've got a question. So, I

[137:00] wanted to surface something that we were exchanging um emails about earlier today, Heather. So, uh it came to my attention that as written, the local governments that are subject to this are not just municipalities, but also counties. Is that right? >> Correct. >> And so, if there were a parcel in the unincorporated county that had water or sewer service, it would also be eligible for for the development contemplating this bill. Is that right? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Very good. Well, when we get to discussion, I'll have things to say about that. So, um that's all I had. Tina. >> Yeah, just a couple things. Um one is just clarifying that this would not apply to HOAs in the city. >> So, HOAs, as I understand them, and Roberto feel free to jump in at any point, are private contracts. Um so, this bill does not address anything to do with HOA covenants. Um, so I do not believe that this bill would impact HOA requirements or covenants. >> Okay. And what about districts like the

[138:01] Nwood district? And I know um because that was we just talked about that and they have some agreements. Would that apply to that district as >> I am not familiar enough with Norwood to understand what contracts they have. >> We can certainly get back unless somebody on staff has uh um an answer to that. But as a separate entity, we would not have necessarily control other than um they they have some obligations to um comply with some of our um codes. Brad, maybe you have a >> Yeah, I might. Uh Brad, no is the metropolitan district, is it? Yeah. So, metropolitan districts don't have any land use authorities, generally speaking. So, it's a little bit apples and oranges. I'm I'm sure there's some nuanced overlap, but generally not. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and then the other piece is it clarifies in the bill that it cannot you cannot build a shelter or

[139:01] temporary housing. What does temporary housing look like? And so you couldn't build a I mean, could you build an attention homes? Is that considered temporary? Is that long-term? >> That is a great question. I don't know what temporary housing means or if there is a separate definition in legislation of temporary housing. There may be and I can clarify that uh and get back to you unless anyone on staff knows >> and I would imagine that would be considered transitional housing and so we would have to think about how does that fit into it. >> Right. And we might want to call it out specifically then because I think so so many of these words can be interpreted in different ways and some of them have definitions but some don't in the bill. >> Appreciate that. >> Um the other piece is you mentioned that we already do have some um review process processes that make it faster and easier for nonprofits. Could you expand a little bit on what those are like? >> I would invite Brad maybe to address

[140:01] that item. Thanks Brad. It's getting a workout in. >> So, no, it's all good. Uh, so Brad Mueller again. So, as a matter of policy, uh, the city and the department, uh, specifically planning and development services has had affordable housing as kind of the top of the pile, if you will, and priority for review. Uh, that's going to become even more true with Proposition 123, which mandates that actually happening. Um, in theory that doesn't have to be just a nonprofit because of course other entities could do affordable housing, but in in practice that's the case. >> Okay. Um, all right. And then another question I had is so I I I listened to the testimony the other day and a lot of um people from the nonprofit community were actually testifying in support of

[141:00] density near transportation. So it was if they were testifying for 123. Did the sponsors speak at all to why they've sort of shifted to increasing density in places that based on land values are probably going to be further from transportation than what we were shooting for a couple years ago. Like what's the strategy there? >> So um we did not speak to the sponsors specifically about that topic. I will just say that I I think that um increasing supply has been a goal of the administration um and increasing the supply of housing in general to make it more affordable has been a a key um strategy for the for the administration. So whether it fits into that, that may be something to look at. But um we did not have those conversations specifically with the sponsor, but you are correct. It does not tie specifically to uh transportation uh areas served by transportation.

[142:00] >> Okay. Um thanks. >> We got a question from Matt and then hopefully we can get to making decision here. So, I want to get back to the nonprofit piece because I when the way you answered Nicole's question, it got me sort of thinking um what are the situations in which an NDH, you know, let's maybe talk about our partners, whether it be, you know, Thistle or BHP or others, that they would own a property but then let another nonprofit do the development. And so I'm trying to understand how this doesn't become some weird backdoor slippery slope and in what situations is that actually ever utilized from which they would create this provision or this broad nonprofit definition versus just let the NDHs do the development if they are always doing the development. So it just seemed so I'm just wondering if there's real world examples of that. So, I want to clarify that nonprofits um can partner with NDHs and the NDHs

[143:00] are the ones that have to do the development. The nonprofits themselves that are not um do not have a demonstrated history of affordable housing would have to partner with those nonprofits with that demonstrated uh history of affordable housing development to create a development. and they would be h have to be the ones doing the development. So, I hope that clarifies. Um, and by your confused look, I'm thinking maybe >> if that's the if that's the case, then why is there even a need to even state that the NDHs could partner with nonprofits? It doesn't matter who they partner with if the NDH is required to do the development. What it doesn't matter then like it just see why add that extra caveat if it's if if it's a factor relevant. I think that they want to ensure that a a nonprofit that has provided affordable housing in the past is the one doing the development to ensure or encourage that development to be

[144:02] affordable. >> Okay. I mean I I know you you're I hear your answer, but I can tell that it wasn't thought through well on the bill side. >> So, but good answer still. Thank you. >> So, and I I think we we're more or less understanding how things are working, but Tina, because I'm I'm hoping to get decision. >> I forgot to ask a question. Sorry. Um, so if the development is on a piece of property that's owned by a religious organization, can um if the housing is can the housing offer any or give preference to people that have that religious affiliation to live there? What do you think, Roberto? >> I'd have to Roberto Ramirez, deputy city attorney. We'd have to do some research on that issue.

[145:00] >> Okay. I that would be something I'd be really interested in is whether we were creating housing that might not be open to all members of our community. Um and then the other piece is just confirming that any market rate housing built on these tax-free properties would be subject to our property tax and the affordable homes would not be subject to property tax. Is that what that would look like? >> So property tax for non uh profits and charitable organizations is tied to the use of the building. So if it is being used um for a charitable purpose then it was not it would not be subject to property tax as I understand it. Uh similarly there are affordable housing tax credits in statute. Um and so if it is being used for affordable housing under the circumstances laid out in current law it would not be subject to um uh property tax. However, if it is being used for market rate and it is not

[146:01] tied to the charitable cause in any way, then they would continue to pay property tax. >> So, if a church used the property to house their staff, but they paid rent, would that can be considered a charitable cause or would that be considered a market rate because they're paying for a house just like anyone else? I'm looking to Roberto, but um I think we would need to look at that specific instance. Certainly, they're allowed to create housing for, you know, you can create a teacherage, a teacherage, as they call it out in statute. Uh you can create housing for a priest or a a religious um uh leader on your property. Um, but as to whether they pay rent and its market rate, I I don't know the answer to that question right now. Can I quick >> and I have a slightly similar question that I I know you probably won't be able

[147:00] to answer because it was just added but in the case of the um Boseies >> and you know a Boseies is able to buy property and now they would be able to develop the land and they've also been really taking some interesting ways of thinking about different types of educational systems. Um, I'd be curious to what extent they can develop property and whether they can restrict who can access that those housing units. >> We can similarly look into that. Thank you. >> Thanks, >> Mayor. If I may, I just want to recognize that we have um Jay Sugnet here with us, our housing senior manager. And to the specific question Matt was ex asking about examples, perhaps there's um light to be shed. And if there's anything else you want to add, Jay, the floor is yours. >> Yeah. Um what I can do is provide just there are some great examples in Boulder of this happening. Um >> if you can just introduce yourself please. >> Sorry Jay Snuggnet with Housing and Human Services. So um I think the closest correlary to your question Matt is uh Trinity Lutheran. So basically the

[148:03] church owns the land but they partnered with Boulder or actually I'm not sure who the developer was but um in that case they provided senior housing but it's all permanently affordable. Um, same thing happened with Mount Calvary. So, that's an example where it was single family zoning. Um, I remember 10 years ago in front of council going through the whole land use change, the zoning change that followed. It it was pretty, you know, it was pretty tough discussion with the neighborhood. So, um, but similar situation, a church had accessed land. Um, it they basically sold it to Boulder Housing Partners. Boulder housing partners built Helltown. So a beautiful development up there also senior housing and there's also 1440 Pine. Um there's so there are other examples of it happening. That's all I wanted to share. But all of those are that the nonprofit they partner with is the NDH, right? Not some other random

[149:01] nonprofit. That's the piece that's in here that's weird. So you're I agree with you. It's just that other random nonprofit that is sort of tagged in here that seems a little nefarious because we want to trust our NDHs and we do and they do great work but this random little nonprofit thing who doesn't have a record can be a part of this in some way that just seems iffy but appreciate the answer >> Jay thanks for adding that context I appreciate all right so I'd like to get the will of council here so we our options uh broadly are we could monitor the bill we could support it We could ask for amendments. We could oppose unless it was amended or we could oppose um uh or just take absolutely no position. So I would like to hear from folks which of those directions you'd like to go to. I would encourage folks to keep their remarks brief um so that we can get through this and once maybe what we can do is we can get the options out on the table in terms of who would like to take what position and then maybe we can straw poll our way to a will of council decision to figure this

[150:01] out. >> Mark Well, I I am renowned for my judicious and uh careful commentary, so I'll try to do that again here. Um, I am opposed to this statute because it it treats our home rule authority as a convenience uh to be basically stepped on what because the governor wants it to happen and it eliminates our efforts to focus on providing more housing in the areas best suited for it. Use a very broad brush and and basically says you can do it anywhere. Um, our processes are carefully constructed and have been over many years. Matt always likes to point out how um uh that can delay uh housing. Um, and that's true. Uh, and but I believe we will at some point take up Title N and and and try to revise it.

[151:02] Um, but this runs rough shard over all of that. And those decisions with respect to making our processes better and more efficient should be ours to make. It shouldn't be coming from the state house. Um we probably provide more affordable housing certainly on a per capita basis than any other city uh in the state and generally uh outside of Denver. I'm sure we provide more affordable housing and we're not getting any credit for those efforts or any accommodation um for the fact that we have done an incredible job I think in providing affordable housing. So this goes wrong for me in so many ways that I am very hardressed to um support it. I suppose in in theory I could support if a laundry list of amendments

[152:00] were adopted, but I don't really uh believe that that's going to be forthcoming. And because I don't believe it's going to be forthcoming. Um I am in favor of opposing this this bill. Thank you. >> Thanks for that, Nicole. >> Yeah. Um this is a great uh thank you for answering our hundred questions first of all. Um, you know, I think that nonprofits can be really valuable partners partners in meeting some of the specific needs that that we have in the community. Um, I think about low-income senior housing, for example. Um, but that that sort of requires that they are noticing a need and and meeting it, right? and and I see nothing in here about actually having a specific need that our city has um that they are going to be uh fulfilling and and that makes me a little bit hesitant. Um I you know what I I also share some of the concerns having seen this BBCP process unfold the

[153:01] work we're doing with engagement and getting the community involved in this conversation is really extraordinary. Um, and I especially since it's not a need that our nonprofits are telling us that they have, um, I'm not sure that I'm ready to sort of jump jump in into this prey. Uh, but it, you know, it sounds like there is already a pretty strong chorus of no from across the state. Um, so Mark, I have a slightly different um, position and I I would suggest we just monitor um, this bill and see where it's going. Um, I don't know that there is a rush to jump in at this moment. feels like things are changing pretty quickly and probably will continue to change as it moves on to the Senate. Um, and it it also sounds like they are listening to us and and some of the concerns that we have. Um, so I think rather than giving a laundry list of amendments or something like that, we can just continue having some conversation, share out the hundred questions we had tonight, um, and you know, see if anything changes. But um I think that that just monitor position

[154:02] seems to have served us pretty well in getting to this conversation. I would be curious to see how it evolves. Um and yeah, I think that's that's kind of where where I'm at. >> May I call a queue on that for a second? >> Briefly. Yes. >> Yes, briefly. Um, my only concern, Nicole, is that as we are monitoring, this bill moves away from us and we find we are presented with a bill that is coming up for passage and signature. And we're still monitoring. And so I I I would prefer not to do that. Thank you. >> And I I wonder I wonder if we could just have some triggers of maybe when when it would come back to us to have this conversation again. hopefully with less questions. Um but but I think you know we don't um they are clearly engaging with us uh regardless and and I think if we just took an opposed position they wouldn't. Um it seems like they are very uh Heather you mentioned this seemed like it may get through. Um I I think it would be good to be able to stay in a position where we're not necessarily

[155:00] advocating one way or another but monitoring and having conversations um about what our concerns are as they arise. >> Thanks for that Nicole. So, so yeah, Matt, >> maybe it's semantics, but my my my suggestion would just be taking an amend position. Maybe not monitor because at the end of the day, if this passes, I'd rather it be the least worst version of what it could be. And if we oppose, we're not at the table. And if we're monitoring, we're maybe a little sideline. But I think our best foot since we have partnership that's willing to listen, we take an active amend position. And if this thing we get it the best way it could, we don't have to support, but if they hear our amendments and it passes and we still don't like it, at least it's the least worst version of this bill and then we will be able to tolerate that with at least some conditions that have been considered for us versus sitting on the sidelines and not getting anything. So I think that's what I would recommend in that in that version. I just have one question for Heather. Timewise, when do you expect this to go to third reading and then go

[156:00] to the Senate and then work through its process? Are we talking three to four weeks? So a month and a half. So, I'm just sort of curious what kind of runway we have before we might have a more cooked version that comes back to where we might actually take an official position one way or the other. >> Uh, thank you for the question, Council Member Benjamin. Um, it could be heard on third reading as soon as tomorrow. >> Um, I >> Okay, >> so and I do know that there is a desire to move it rather quickly. That being said, I think that they are going to have to work out some of the amendments before it gets to the Senate. the Senate is going to be um a tougher hurdle than the House and I know that there are other organizations who are asking for um amendments that they are working through. So I would anticipate that there would be at least a few weeks uh time to work out amendments before it's heard um in committee. But I would need to confirm that >> since it's an issue for matters. Might

[157:00] it just be that if it gets to a fuller cookspate, we would ask CAC, if the timing allows, to just put it on a on a, you know, upcoming council meeting if we need to make a position. But that's separate to my positioning for tonight, which is I think we should take an amend position. I'll leave that recommendation there. >> Mr. Nicole's got a hold on. We got a quick thing and I know Ty is in the queue, too. Then we'll come back to you. >> An amend position generally implies that we will support it if our amendments are met. Is that correct? like it it seems like it's rare to have all your amendments done and then say no. >> I think that would um depend on what council's desire was. We could amend and then take a monitor position if we get our amendments. We could amend and support if we if we would like. Um so there's options there depending on how what direction you all would like to go. >> Followup question. >> Yeah. Can we oppose unless amended? >> Yeah. Yeah. It's one of our options. And then Tara,

[158:00] >> um, yeah, I really appreciate the, you know, intention of of this particular bill. Um, and I also, um, have concerns around the lack of specificity around uh, affordability. If if our city has been an example of anything, it is more housing does not equate affordability. And unfortunately, there's nothing in the bill currently um that would indicate that there would be anything different um based on the lived experience of the city. At the same time, I am encouraged by the um bill sponsors and others being open and and and available. Even just seeing the four amendments that were passed um and the direction that that that that's moving in is also encouraging. Um based on what we just shared around the level of of involvement, um I would I agree with um my colleague Matt, although I'd flip it on the head to say, you know, I would like to be in the room um so that we can make the best possible bill and if we

[159:02] can't come to that place, then we'll walk away. But um the reason why I don't advocate taking a no position is because we haven't engaged our community and particularly our nonprofits and some of the other key stakeholders that would be impacted by this work. So I I'm hesitant to make a decision without having some of those additional stakeholders which are not represented in the expertise in this on this particular table. Um and so again, I just really would like to have that opportunity. It sounds like it's moving fast. So, um, and I and I'm fine with that level, but I would I would like to take the amended position. Thank you. >> Thanks, TA. I got Tara and then Ryan, and then we'll come back to you, Mark. >> But wouldn't we be making So annoying that thing. Wouldn't we be making a statement to the Senate if we said no? Um, I'm just throwing that out there. So, I'm just going to say obviously with all my comments, I don't really trust

[160:00] human nature. So, I'm I'm not going to say that I think that we well, we have site review. We have enough trouble keeping control. Never mind no site review, no formbbased code. In what world do we think we're going to get housing that we want? I don't I think this is like a fairy tale. And I'm just saying so I I don't I'm not going to go through all the reasons why I think this is bill is a bad idea, but I'm just thinking about our hardworking planning board. and we have TAB and we have DAB and we're constantly saying let's put it through those uh different um com boards and commissions plus the planning board to speak into some of the design and some of the design of the transportation um aspects especially that this can be in a random place far away from any transportation and then what about parking there's like a million things so I can't I don't even know where to go with this bill because I think it's a fairy tale bill where you

[161:00] think that people are going to act. Do should we name all the developers that stabbed us in the back? I mean, we I like developers. I mean, there's good and bad developers, but we had a few doozies with our roles. So, I'm going to say no because there's not enough like what's the word, Aaron? You know, when you >> specificity, >> no guarils. I love that word. There's not any hardly any guardrails at all. So, I can't with this. That's my answer. >> Okay. Got Ryan and then Mark, >> I'll cut my remarks down. There's a lot I could say about background and such, but I'll just um join the um group that's thinking about trying to develop this into something that could be positive. Two things I'd like to see done. One is um that there should be a provision that would drive whatever um uptake there is into urbanized areas and to protect it

[162:00] from being in in sprawl and um rural locations. Ideally, it would be transit oriented. Um but I think that's a there's a def there's a real deficiency in that lacking now. Um, and then this the second thing is I I'm with Matt and being really concerned about the this sort of nonprofit association very what seems like a loose requirement. I I'm just really worried that this could end up if if if we if we don't really tighten the sort of ownership and governance of it, it could end up somehow that investors are owning this, it's a private equity play somehow. Um, so I I think there is something important in the spirit of this and we do we we do owe it to be bold and experimental with how we're going to create more middle housing. So I'm I'm hopeful we could we could try to develop this and those are my my two key points. >> Thanks Ryan. You had a follow-up >> Mark and then I'll call on myself. >> Yeah, I was I was actually very tempted

[163:01] by uh Tina's comment about oppose unless amended. I I thought that had some teeth to it. Um but at least opened the door for further conversation. You know, we're always talking about um uh the impact that Boulder has when it issues its statements and and uses its voice. And I think this is an appropriate time for Boulder to use its voice. I think other municipalities will take some heed. And I'm not looking to kill this bill in its entirety, but boy does it need revision and and it's not geared towards the specifics of our community and I don't want to be telling people who like to come here and speak to us about projects. Your input is no longer required. >> Thanks for that. Okay, Rob, then I'll call in myself. >> I'll try to be brief. It seems like there there are a lot of un potential

[164:00] unintended consequences with this. I I've heard you talk about their intentions, but intentions versus reality. And when you get greed involved, you get money involved, you get ROI involved, it it trickles in. It's just it is what it is. I feel like the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan from my short time being exposed to this, what staff does, the community input is so powerful and so impactful. And you know, to everybody's point, Boulder is looked at for what they do and how they try to move forward. And I feel like we're doing that. I almost feel like we're getting lumped into a statewide problem and we're going to be the ones that are suffering the most from it. And I guess I I would have a question to legal maybe like this is so big like how long would this take? What kind of work does it take to go into like revising this?

[165:08] I don't know, Brad, if you want to take a stab at that. >> Uh Brad Mueller, I think I've missed what the this is. That would take time to revise the bill or >> revisions. Yeah. To the bill. Providing input. >> Oh, I thought implementation. >> I thought implementation. >> No, no, no, no, no. for us to actually do an amendment for the bill. It just seems like we as council and staff would have such a rabbit hole to go into to find all these unintended consequences. >> Um I I'll take your first stab and then Heather's going to >> correct me. Um >> I thought he was saying >> uh we are used to dealing with ambiguity in state law. Um I think it's comedy night. Um but but I think we we have had a history of being able to uh work very directly with some of the

[166:01] bill sponsors. This is a more compressed time frame than we frankly had the last couple years. Um there are things that could be identified. Um you've identified some of them. We've identified and had those conversations. Um it's always a challenge uh council member to administer something and one of the things that we've tried to offer constructively in all discussions is just uh a perspective of the uh administerability of particular bills but I I don't know that I can answer your question directly other than you know we recognize that's always a challenge >> and I can add to that I apologize I thought you were talking about implementing the bill in our own codes, not the legislative process. Sorry, Brad. Um, so we have we have, as I mentioned, offered feedback, technical feedback to the sponsors. So that process is already in place. We are going to touch base with them again next week um to talk

[167:02] about the bill, the amendments that were passed. I think we saw two amendments that spoke directly to the feedback that we have already offered the sponsors today on House second reading. Um and I would expect um that good faith to continue uh throughout the process. So um next week we will continue those conversations around um whatever council identifies um and then also the some of that technical feedback that we've provided. Um so were you asking kind of how long that process will take? I'm I'm struggling with how long it's going to take for us council to come to the details of what we want amended without missing something that's going to be an unintended consequence if it gets passed. >> I I can Rob I think we could take a stab at that tonight and I'm about to make a suggestion in that area. Um but we also have the feedback loop of the

[168:00] intergovernmental affairs committee and if necessary the full council because this will not happen instantly. So, I think there are other opportunities for us to provide feedback. >> Thank you. >> Um, okay. I'm going to go ahead and call in myself and then we'll go to Tina and then Nicole has a follow-up. Um, so I I also would like to take an amend position on this. I I can work with Nicole's monitor idea, too. But I I would probably go to an amend um so that we can stay at the table and uh hopefully have some impact on the outcome of this bill. And I have um three specific areas that I'd like to see us ask for amendments in, some of which have already been referenced. Um one is to not have this apply to unincorporated county uh because we want to make sure that these um this housing that's developed is in places with adequate urban services and not outside of city limits. The the next would be to um really tighten the nonprofit organizations that can do this. And my thought might be to strike entirely the qualification of a nonprofit organization that has entered into an agreement with another nonprofit organization. My my thought would be

[169:01] just take that out entirely and only have it be available to nonprofit organizations with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing. And then my third one is is I do have a um a concern that I I appreciate how the bill says that generally you have to conform to the standards for the structure other structures in the same zone, but it excludes height as one of those. So that you're allowed to go up to 45 ft regardless of the zone that you're in or the rules in that zone. So my other requested amendment would be to add height to the um to the uh what is it permutations or characteristics that would also be subject to the requirements of other buildings in that zone district. So those are my three specific suggestions. That's my piece. Tina, >> um yeah, I like the idea of amend or oppose unless amended. Um, and I mean opposed unless amended is probably where I feel because and I like Erin's um

[170:01] amendments a lot and if those are done that could be possible but I if they're not I really think we should take an opposed position. Um, and the other piece that I'm I'm trying to understand is how much local control do we give away? And are we at risk of losing other types of local control if we can continue to give it up? And local control is so important to our community right now as a sanctuary city, um, as a state with its own voting rights that are not nationalized. And there are times when local control is what saves you. And I I just don't know how much do we give up and what are we opening the door to um when we make these choices. So um and part of it's because going to what uh Nicole was saying is what is the need? We just heard some great examples of how we're already using underutilized space owned by churches. We have lots of different projects with nonprofits. We

[171:00] have the Bluebird which is an amazing partnership that we did an underutilized space and an urban corridor that's transit rich and it's not clear to me why we need to be excited about this bill even if the whole state the idea so if you read the new revised legislative declaration at the beginning I get it they want the whole state to do it but each community is different and unique and has its own wooui that they really don't want density or senior housing because they have no idea how we're going to evacuate those people. And so thinking about these regional pieces that I don't feel that the sponsors are familiar with. I just have a lot of difficulty. And the last piece is it doesn't specifically call out agricultural land and we're not at a place I think where we should be converting agricultural land a residential um because we don't have a clear food security system in place and um so I can maybe live with it. But if we could, my ideal world would be if a

[172:00] community has an administrative process for a nonprofit to um submit an application that that's it and that we we check this box and we don't need any of the rest of it. That just puts this whole puts every piece of um land on the table, but that we can stick with our zoning. The other piece is do we want to have ad hoc residential in our light industrial? this prior council has spent so much time preserving light industrial and right now we would be deciding you know what the state they're right we shouldn't really do that as just light industrial let's mix it up a little bit if this is what we want we can do that but we just decided not to do that so I think that's pretty wild like I I don't so I'm I have a lot of concerns >> you had to follow up Nicole >> yeah no I was I was just going to say it seems like this is moving pretty fast. I think listening to everybody else um I would be okay uh with an amend um and

[173:00] and I think for me some of the additional things to consider is that it it's meeting a demonstrated need that exists in the community for housing. um that it when when cities have done the kinds of um inclusive very engaged comprehensive planning that we have done that it takes that into account and aligns with it and doesn't just sort of I was thinking earlier about how um when my kids were little one of them would build this amazing structure out of blocks and then the other would just come and knock the whole thing down. So, you know, how how are we making sure that we're avoiding that, right? Um given that we are so thoughtful and we've been so inclusive in this engagement process. Um and I loved what um Council Member Adams was saying about checking in with our nonprofits um on whether this is solving a problem that they have in our community. I would I would really love to know that too. And that's not necessarily an amendment, just a I think it's a useful piece of information. >> Okay. Uh thanks for that. So I'm hearing in the people's words a majority of

[174:00] people are interested in amend but I I don't want to um jump the facilitation. So I can certainly do a straw poll. I want to make sure that there's an advocacy for an opposed position. I want to make sure that people are able to kind of register that. But yeah. >> Yeah. I I I'm going to withdraw from the pure oppose. But I do like uh uh Tina's formulation of oppose unless amended. We're still in the game. We're still talking. We're holding our hand out saying work with us but if you don't um this is a bridge too far for us. >> Fair. So I'll straw a poll oppose unless amended and also amend and those will be our two options. So um the uh there is there is a difference in terms of I mean in one case we're opposing unless it's the other one we're saying we'd like these amendments and then we'll talk further. So it's >> I I mean I think we're very close to this. I think so. All in favor of oppose unless amended, raise your hand. And we got four. And all in favor of amend,

[175:01] raise your hand. So we got five on that. And then I I proposed three amendments that I think encapsulated some of the discussion that we have. Are people comfortable with those or does anyone want to add another proposed one? >> I think you two my three. Yeah. >> Yeah. I think I incorporated your two into my three. >> Okay. Can we write in our amendments? or do we have to do it all ad hoc tonight? Can can we >> suggest additional amendments, but I think we'd have to consider them at the IG. >> That's fine. >> Yeah. So, if people want to send follow-up ideas for amendments that we could then consider at our next meeting, Heather, is that >> just a timeline check on that, our next meeting probably won't be until the end of February. So, if >> unless we Yeah, unless we elevate that. Yeah. >> Which we could conceivably could conceivably do. Um, but I don't know how fast that this will move. So, I don't want us to miss an opportunity.

[176:00] >> So, you could, but the timing would be a little uncertain. >> Well, I mean, I'd like to give it some thought, but but if if we can't give it some thought, I'll do it without thought. >> No, absolutely. Think about it. Send them into Heather and then, you know, we can take a look at them. It's just >> Okay. >> All right. Um >> what's >> so I had suggested three and then so my question is are people comfortable with those? Do they want to strike one? Do they want to add a different one? So that's a question we could just go with those three or we could keep adding. >> I I definitely like your three. We can start there. So I would like to support all three of those amendments. >> Okay. I actually wanted to piggyback if I could add one basically. Well, I ask Nicole's permission because she brought it up. So whether she wants to elevate it, but I really like it is having to follow a demonstrated need. There's been so many regional and local needs assessments that are attached to other state legislation. We have to prove that

[177:02] we're doing something in order to trigger some other pieces from the state. So I don't know why we couldn't then just say, "Hey, if we're already doing all these other needs assessments, I mean, we have to fill all this stuff out for to all these other things. We have to show those needs and we have to show our areas and all these things. Why couldn't we just say um you have to do a local needs assessment and that housing has to fit within it or you can stick with the regional. I I just I really like the needs assessment because someone's saying, "Well, we need luxury apartments and that doesn't meet a need." I don't know what problem we're solving here. So, I don't want to scuttle it, but I really like the needs thing. I think that's maybe an important thing to ask for. Yeah, that was a um an amendment I would need in order to um to to get to anything um close to supporting this. But um but I think it like leaving it up to them to figure out what demonstrated need and bring us back some ideas because there I mean there there's all kinds of ways of getting at this information. So I would I would love to have them solve that problem and bring it back.

[178:01] >> Oh, and sorry, >> I just had one one other that I had mentioned. Well, let's let's track this one down first because I know we're already doing a housing needs assessment of some kind, but maybe you could speak to how we might incorporate this. >> I just want to clarify. So, the idea would be that the um person creating a development would create a housing would have to show a housing oh would tie it to a city's housing needs assessment. Okay. that they would basically show that they are meeting a demonstrated need within the housing. >> Meeting a demonstrated need as shown by a needs assessment. >> Got it. Okay. I think that's a a clear proposal. So, I'll stroll that. Who would be in favor of adding that to our list of requested amendments? That's unanimous. Very good. Did you have one other? >> Yeah, I did. The other one was just around um cities that are doing comprehensive planning processes like ours. Um, I really feel like this is the way we're doing it is really a model for for others at the moment with um inclusive engagement, the community. Um,

[179:02] shoot, I'm forgetting. Thank you. Assembly that that sort of thing. And I don't know what that looks like, but I I just don't want anything that's going to come in and basically say, you know, we know we know you spent three years creating this and it was a really inclusive process, but too bad we're we're doing something different anyway. I think that that breaks trust for us with our community here in Boulder when we've spent so much time listening to people's input. >> So, I guess I hear that as a point, but not necessarily an amendment. >> But it is I mean it's something and and I don't this is where I'm not I'm not the state legislator policy person writing this, but it it I don't want something that tramples on our process. Um and and I think there is something around an amendment that if we check some boxes or something like that that that they would have to still comply with our um comprehensive plan. >> I I would just share a comment that the

[180:01] sponsor of the bill said um in response to our request to tie it more comprehensive to the comprehensive plans. um they are open to conversations around how to pull in more clarity around which properties aren't the best fit for residential development but could subsequently be exempted from the bill. Um so that is kind of the framework in which they're operating in. So just wanted to share that. >> So would the suggestion maybe be to make sure that any of these developments are compatible with the municipality's comprehensive plan? That's that seems concrete. >> Um December. >> Okay. So, I'll I'll just draw a poll what was just said that we would ask that to make sure that the um the bill the bill specifies um that the development should be in compliance with the city's comprehensive plan. All in favor of that request. Okay, that's unanimous. And >> I think that contradicts the bill though.

[181:02] >> We can ask. They said they're thinking about it. And I had Mark up next. Yeah, Aaron, just a a question. Um, does your amendment um permit us to um basically put these projects in the transit-rich zones uh where we're anticipating more density and keep them um you know and keep them where they are least appropriate. >> I mean, it says compatible with the comprehensive plan, which says a lot of things. >> Okay, then. And um uh do I recall that you you had a comment on height limitations? >> That was one of my amendments. Yes. Is to to say that height would be one of the an additional requirement where you'd have to be the same as in all the other buildings in that zone district. >> Oh, okay. If we get that and we get the compatibility with our plan, I think we've gone a long way. >> Okay. I'm hearing some positivity. But >> sort of a call sort of a colloquy. I'm just wondering is there does it makes I

[182:02] think we just voted on that but um I'm just thinking if maybe there's an andor of compre compliant with the comprehensive plan andor the transit the sort of transit oriented plan that the state has a has a regime for like maybe there's it's not just the comprehensive plan I'm just imagining maybe there's towns that haven't updated the comprehensive plan or I don't know but if it's compliant with the state's um to sort of mapping maybe that's also good enough. >> Well, >> yeah, I was wondering if we should just say you have to have the administrative process for um housing certified nonprofits in the same area as the transit area and then everything else would still have a site review. >> I I'm personally not in favor of that one. Um, >> why? >> Well, because I think once once you're if we got our amendments, then the buildings could be no larger than the buildings that we allow currently. And

[183:02] so I don't mind if um a nonprofit that does affordable housing can get an administrative review for that um in same size building as you could do currently. I mean, there's an intention to streamline things and given that you wouldn't be building monstrous tall buildings, um, let let the nonprofits have a quicker avenue towards getting those permitted. I I was just thinking about more like the area of gun bureau and I'm just wondering if it has a certain amount of units then do we and they're not close to transit do we can we require a a transportation manage demand management plan if we may not in general because they might have much more density than the buildings that are there and if they don't have a way to for the people to move around it's kind of we're sort of exacerbating our transportation issue. Yeah. So, I mean, >> yeah, I I would like to wrap up if we could the Any other specific

[184:00] suggestions? We haven't heard from Terry in a bit. And then we'll go to >> Mark. >> Well, my first thought is so I think it was Tina that talked about the industrial zone. Can we can somebody think of an amendment? I'm not like that person, but I don't want to lose our industrial zone and just randomly put in non-ontiguous housing. So, I'm worried about that. Yeah, I think the comprehensive plan, but we do have standards for residential and industrial. Would that be one of those things that we would still be allowed to have as long as we don't do it differently for these qualifying properties? >> I believe so. >> Okay. So, I think that protects us because we already have rules about where you can put residential and industrial and they're pretty strict. >> Okay. So, then my next You want Okay. So then my next question for all of us council is if we get none of these are we then going to say fine we'll just agree with it or are we going to actually oppose it? >> That'd be a discussion for a future time. >> Okay. >> Can I call on that residential

[185:00] industrial? >> Okay. >> I don't believe that this bill contemplates that. So I don't I'm not 100% sure that's correct that we can say that you can't build a housing development in an indust a light industrial >> and unless you do it but we already do it for other kinds of developments and it's saying that the bill is saying you can't have additional prohibitions here but maybe staff could get back to us on that question >> according to what I heard. >> Yeah and I would like to close this out if we could. My last comment um is is there an argument to be made that at some level of size and significance of a project um there ought to be some approval that comes back to this body. We're we're basically um taking a good portion of our development in this town and basically saying go on vacation guys. You have no input and sometimes you know planning board doesn't you know follow what we would follow. >> It does cap it at five acres.

[186:02] >> That's big. >> That's big. That's that's that could be 200 units. And I'm thinking at at 200 units that maybe we ought to have a say. >> Would you I mean are you off requesting a specific amendment? >> Yes. Um if if a project is over 150 units candidly just making it up. Um the presiding body has the opportunity to weigh in on it. >> Okay. So um I can stle that things that have been suggested already. So I just want to make sure >> we're only st your three plus one more. That's always >> two more. But yeah, and now we're about to straw pull this one of a cap of 150 units >> after which we can >> for this. >> We can weigh in. >> Okay. All in favor of asking for that amendment, raise your hand. >> I got three.

[187:01] >> Um >> you got a threshold question. Threshold question for Heather. Are any of what now I count as five amendments in your opinion a poison pill? Because that kind of my concern is we have this amend position and if we come in with sort of a poison pill, it doesn't really in good faith mean that we're amending. So are any of these in your view kind of just dead on arrival non-starters or extraordinarily difficult? because again we want to preserve the ability to amend but if we come in with a poison pill uh then we might not be taken seriously. >> Thank you for that question. Um I do think that tying the bill specifically to what is in a city's comp plan will not be something that they are willing to add. Um to the point it kind of um um what we spoke about was you know

[188:00] some bad actor cities who use comp plans as a way to reduce development and and um housing in their communities. And so I think that the sponsors would be really hesitant to draw parallel with uh a city's actual comp plan. There may be ways to draw parallels with, you know, a needs assessment or something of that nature, but just in my brief talks, I do think that that one is least likely to pan out. >> So then, can I ask a question of this body? I I I voted in favor of the comp plan addition, but I also want to be sensitive to having amendments that have a chance of succeeding and being taken versus a one that effectively will force our opposition to the bill without a serious consideration. So, I want to be sensitive to that. So, I would like to maybe reconsider if we could that comp plan uh amendment uh for that exact consideration because I don't want to submit a poison pill in our attempts to amend. We're deacto basically taking an

[189:01] opposed position if we do that >> point taking we can do a quick reconsideration. Um I will I will say you can ask for things that you don't get and still stay at the table and get other things. So um all all in favor of removing the comprehensive plan from our list of um he's changed his own mind. So I was like yes I'll do real quick. All in favor of rem all all in favor of removing that pro uh ask raise your hand. Okay we got we got one. So I I would love I would love to to finish us out. So can we uh u conclude the discussion? Um does anyone have any burning last things to say before we conclude the discussion? >> Yeah, me. I'm burning with telling you something. Um did we decide that the transit oriented development is just going to be in our comp plan big tent or can we focus on that as outside of it? Because if they dump the whole comp plan thing at least they'll

[190:00] listen to our request for transit oriented development be do you know what I mean? >> Yes. So the andor transit plan. >> Do you know what I mean? >> Yeah. Maybe what we could do is provide some direction that along with the hope for compatibility of the comprehensive plan would be a look at transit oriented development to the extent that it's contributing to that. And seeing no other hands raised, I will go ahead and close that item out. Heather, thanks for bearing with us through that whole set of questions and discussion. And we can go to our last item from the matters from mayor, members of council. Our

[191:09] last item on tonight's agenda is our item number seven, matters from the mayor and city council. Item number 9A is the council retreat follow-up discussion. Thank you so much. Uh our next item is uh presented by Matt Chisanski. And you may wonder why the former arts guy is here with us. Uh because he is no longer the former arts guy. Um >> former >> well former I suppose. Um when we um switched over and changed uh and uh created a new division and CMO um we looked at where community vitality talent was and realized what I had known for quite a few years now that our own Mr. Shinzanski has a keen strategic mind and is a super thought partner and so he

[192:00] is now coming into CMO. um he will be leading some of the strategic planning efforts and um helping us make sure that um the work that we are doing to fulfill your council priorities remain on track. I'll say that I appreciate wanted to appreciate council for a good retreat as we move forward. I know that the five priorities not six Mr. Benjamin, I saw that earlier. The title N um are moving forward uh with two of our uh priorities um that were already long-standing. And so I pass it over to Matt Chazenski. >> Thank you very much for that warm introduction. Um and thank you members of council for letting us follow up on the discussion at the retreat and talk about the progress so far and where we're headed. Um, we're going to do two things with this agenda item. Is go through uh your priorities. Um, talk about uh staff's interpretation of them and uh the direction as we uh wrap up scoping these and then also briefly

[193:01] touch on the process improvements that you discussed. So, uh the goal for this meeting um is around that followup. uh you decided on those priorities and took time to describe your intent and add details to the vision for each. Since then, staff has been forming the teams to address each and drafting project charters to define the operational tools needed to achieve your goals. Tonight, we would like to share those ideas with you. Uh these are at a high level and there is more work to be done to kick off all of these projects. This is our opportunity then to share the work so far and make sure the direction is clear and in line with your intent. So, um I'm going to take a moment to uh talk through uh the priorities that you decided on and uh read the descriptions that staff has developed uh so that we're all on the same page. We can all hear this and um so you'll linger on the slide for a hot second. So, um the first

[194:00] one we're going to talk about is bicycle security and theft reduction. This is to create a coordinated data-driven program to reduce bicycle theft and increase public confidence in bike parking and storage. >> Focusing on measurable results. >> Matt, do we have a presentation? >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm running slides right here. I thought it was totally fine. >> Be connected. >> Oh my gosh. >> I just >> I'm already done with this agenda item. Where have you been? All right. I said strategic thinker, not IT specialist. >> I know. We're like, >> I was going to do great and this has just ruined my >> take a breath. >> I object. >> Want to run it? I don't mind if you

[195:16] >> Hey, thank you Nura for that warm introduction. Okay, I feel good about this. I told you about what we're doing. So, make sure I linger here for a second because we do have a goal and I want to make it clear that uh we're looking for your input on where staff has been so that um we can start this work and u make sure it's right for you. All right. So, there's the list of uh the priorities that you discussed. Uh that first one, bicycle security and theft reduction. Uh create a coordinated data-driven program to reduce bicycle theft and increase public confidence in

[196:01] bike parking and storage focusing on measurable results. Key strategies include problem solving policing with targeted bike theft operations as well as public education on bike registration and secure locking. In 2026, because of lack of capital resources, staff will pursue education and partnerships for creative approaches that will advance the project's bike parking goals. The effort will include coordinating with community partners such as CU, RTD, local businesses and residents to promote a unified bike security culture for the city of Boulder. The project is planned with both police expertise for theft reduction and transport transportation expertise for the bike parking infrastructure components. So next, the costbenefit list of measures to become a fire adapted community/w wildfire home hardening implementation hub. That was a combined um set of proposals. Um, I'll just make a note that staff rewarded the title to become um not more succinct but uh more

[197:03] precise enhancing Boulder's wildlife resiliency through one the development of a comprehensive wildfire home hardening implementation hub and two a comprehensive assessment and analysis of current or planned city wildfire related programs projects and actions. These two projects advance Boulder's wildfire res wildfire resilience through leveraging the city's 10 department wildfire resilience team and building on the 2024 community wildfire protection plan and its follow-on implementation plan to encourage and strengthen homeowner action and prioritize, accelerate, and measure city-led wildfire mitigation efforts. Next is exploring our new authority to modify the tip credit. State legislation passed in 2025 allows jurisdictions with a higher minimum wage than the states to adopt an ordinance that increases the local tip credit as long as a resulting tipped minimum wage is not less than the state's tipped minimum wage in line with the city's goals to support economic

[198:00] vibrancy businesses and diverse workforce. The project will explore the this authority to help inform whether to modify the city's tip credit beginning in 2027. Next is power resiliency, including timing and barriers. Reliable electricity is a critical for for public safety, economic stability, climate resilience, and community well-being. Especially as Boulder experiences increasing climate driven hazards such as extreme winds, wildfire risk, and heat events. City Council has expressed a desire to better understand Excel Energy's current and planned actions to improve grid reliability and resilience and to identify what roles, authorities, and strategies the city of Boulder could pursue to reduce outage risk and community impacts. This project aims to clarify risks, responsibilities, and options so that the city can make informed decisions, advocate effectively with Excel Energy and regulators and explore local actions that can improve resilience for residents, businesses, and critical

[199:01] facilities. And finally, the sister city language updates. The purpose of this project is to update the sister city program resolution and related processes to clearly define how the program is administered. This includes application submission, internal review, and approval workflows, ongoing reporting expectations, and governance requirements. The update will create a consistent, transparent, and repeatable process for managing the sister city relationships. Um, I want to note that work continues on two council priorities from the last term, the long-term financial strategy and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. So, we're also um monitoring those as well. And you'll noticed in the memo that we identified a lead department for each project. Just want to clarify uh it's important to know that each of those projects involves a team across uh multiple departments and specifically that most of the projects will involve our communications and engagement department and the city's attorney's office on some level.

[200:02] So touching briefly on the council process improvements that you identified. Um uh I'll read quickly through our descriptions here so you can have those in your mind. Uh board packets timing when packets are delivered early due to subject matter that is long and complex. Staff will also post them on the hotline. CAC request criterion tracking. This process improvement aligns with work that is already underway. Staff are working on a formal method for council members to submit and track CAC requests. Regarding historic designation decisions, per your discussion, staff will use our discretion to review options for processing historic landmark presentations. As part of the review of the historic preservation plan that is anticipated for this year, staff will also examine the type and amount of information that appears in presentations and look for additional streamlining where possible without compromising the requirements of the quasi judicial process. Staff does not recommend changes to the process required by city code as it will be a high amount of effort for with little impact on streamlining the process or

[201:01] saving time in meetings at this time. And uh this year also staff will begin exploring a mechanism for council members to provide ongoing input on study session topics um to select when they are in um openings in the agenda and shorter council meetings. Council asked that CAC make a concerted request uh made a concerted effort to not schedule meetings past 10 p.m. except in rare circumstances. And a note on that last one on the list, um it was decided not to move forward in creating a new more formal way to host debate among council members. So, uh before we move into questions for staff and your discussion, uh just wanted to identify next steps. Um our project teams will be finalizing project charters based on tonight's feedback and begin work on all of these priorities. Uh the city manager's office will support teams on project management, tracking progress, and reporting. And

[202:00] then we'll be taking that reporting back to you um on individual projects as well as summarizing overall progress through a dashboard like we did in the last term. So I can hand that back to you, Mr. Mayor, and uh we can take questions. I want to point out that we have uh several team members here and online to make sure that you have your questions answered. And Nuria, did you want to >> Yeah, Mayor, before you go to that, I just wanted to clarify a couple things. Um one is I realize the memo lists uh perhaps Title 9 as a six priority item. We had said as the presentation shows five. I want to acknowledge however there was a lot of conversation about the potential rescoping of title 9 and I believe and uh staff can correct me if I'm wrong. We certainly want to take a look at what that looks like in the future um if at the end of the BBCP process there is an opening for staff to consider. They want to lean into that. But I want to recognize that that is not um that we did not count that as a as a priority at the staff retreat. The other thing I want to say and I know that um Matt you mentioned that there are

[203:00] council priorities that most of our council priorities uh just like all our work involve multiple departments. In particular, I want to recognize that uh as we were leaving the meeting and the retreat, the bicycle security and theft reduction there wasn't asked to make sure transportation and mobility was specifically included in that. I want to acknowledge that that is actually the case. Um and uh in the description as we talk about it um we do intend to make sure uh that um availability of safe parking as um part of um bike security is indeed part of what we will be talking about. I know there have been conversations with transportation and mobility. We will continue to do so as we recognize that is a integral part of that priority. >> Thanks for that questions for city staff on these. I got Matt and Tina. >> Uh, thanks for front running my question, Nuria, but that does require some extra clarity and so I'd like to sort of get it. It does say in the packet here that um, council agreed to

[204:02] make scoping future efforts to reform and rewrite Title 9 an official council priority. as it was my recollection this was sort of like 5.5 because it had sufficient votes and it was sort of as as as you mentioned as time allowed for staff on the back side of the BBCP. Um I know we're saying that here. It would just be nice that in our documents we confirm that so that nine 10 months from now when we're having this discussion we can look back and say that we're all clear on the same page that okay we're done with this and staff can move forward and we don't have to then relitigate or or you don't have to review hours of film. We just have it in our documents and we're all on the same page. So, so I think it would just be nice to get it right now to futurep proof us so that staff has that direction when the time comes that we're done with the BBCP that they could embark on this process. Is that a fair request? >> I I appreciate that and and under the guise of time I will never get back, which is what I say when I go back and look at videos. Um I would like to not do that as well. But I do also want to

[205:01] honor the collective body. At the meeting we did talk about certainly it got five uh dots and we were talking about what does that look like with sister city getting six and we limited at that time the priorities to five. There was certainly just like we have done in the past with other priorities if and when time allows these are things that is on council minds. We have not in the past included them as a formal council priority, but we have listed them in the memo as something that staff uh that council talked about that mentioned and if there is time, we will get to that. So, we can certainly amend um the memo to reflect that. If council wants to take a different direction today collectively, then we will have to have that conversation and certainly would invite staff to do. But I want to honor the the retreat itself. >> And that's really all I'm asking because it's under the section of what we didn't approve. >> Yet we've gave it the caveat if time allows. We didn't give that caveat to any other of those priorities. And I think we can reflect that to have an

[206:01] asterisk to that to say if time allows this is something staff would embark on. I'm just sort of I'm not trying to force fit anything. I'm just trying to honor the conversation we have for just accuracy for future proofing to save Nuria hours of YouTube watching. >> I appreciate that. We can certainly reflect that. Great, Tina. >> Yeah, I just wanted to offer a comment for the um the power resiliency. I really thought the way it was written was clear and show just how we're going to have a short timeline to understanding what's happening and moving quickly on to what we can do locally to help our community through these um power variations. Uh understanding that we don't have a lot of influence over Excel. So, I just um I thought for me it captured it really well and I'm excited to see what that looks like. >> Thanks, Ryan. And >> thank you and thank you Nuria for um developing the the bike security um concept a little more and I'll just I'd like to just pick up on that and I know this is questions so um I will this will

[207:00] be a question. Um I think the um this one was was I think maybe a little bit confusing because there were actually two proposals and there was a merger of it. So, what I'd like to do, you know, I I talked with you, I've talked with BLE, um to to try to just clarify a little bit what the sort of plan is around bicycle infrastructure. So, if I could, I'll just say a few quick things and then ask if I seems like I've got that right and then if council colleagues want to weigh in and see if they see it differently. Um this maybe I think is a good time to just get get that done and off off the desk. Um so the first thing is uh a goal of the bicycle security and theft reduction initiative is to improve bicycle the bicycle parking experience in order to increase bicycle use and that was in both of the the proposals. Um the second thing is that um a main pillar of the bicycle and security and theft reduction initiative is bicycle parking infrastructure that's informed and excuse me that's informed and led by our expertise in transportation network design and user engagement and you did

[208:00] point to that. Um that includes short-term and long-term barking bike parking which we have um uh developed in city code and we have design and construction standards around it. So there's a lot to build from to sort of make that go forward. Um and then the final thing is definitely acknowledging that at the moment we don't have resources to focus on a capital project in 2026 for bike parking uh infrastructure roll out. But there is a lot we can do with educations partnerships and planning to advance innovation. Um, that includes creating a beacon to all of our community members about what good bicycle secure bicycle parking looks like, creating a structured feedback to hear from the many community partners who who care about this, and then making sure with the BBCP update, we're incorporating um the best that we can into that. So, I just wanted to offer that as some of the things we talked about and see if that comports with what you're thinking and give others a chance to thumbs up or down any of that. It it is council

[209:00] member Shuhard and unless there's um any additional uh information from staff that wants to provide I do believe this is what we spoke about. We spoke about it with the director of transportation and mobility I think it captures um some of the conversation uh we had at the retreat and certainly um other priorities that were lifted up. So appreciate that. Um, I've got Terara, Rob, Mark. >> I just want to ask Matt if you could, you know, that you made such a good speech earlier. Can you send the revised language to all of us so we could share it >> that you started with >> um on the specific what I said about each of the >> Yeah. Um, yeah, absolutely. >> Great. Thanks, >> Robin. Mark, >> thank you, Mayor. Um, I just want to say

[210:02] thank you for putting all this together. Nura, thank you for the two for one that you said you would never do. Um, really appreciate it. I have a question. I have a question. Um, on the wildfire. Um it says the assessment and analysis project will focus on highlevel comparative first pass assessment rather than a deep dive quote academic analysis or formal economic analysis of any single topic project or program. I just could you give me clarity on what that means or doesn't mean? >> I'll start and see if uh any of staff want to um want to weigh in. I believe at the retreat we talked a little bit about um the broad nature of perhaps the deep dive that we could do uh at that time um as uh director Burke was speaking about the priority we want to look at some of the things that are already that the team had already identified as part of the work um and

[211:00] there are a lot of items over 150 I think action items that could be done um what staff was saying would not be feasible in a one-year priority is to look at maybe academic is the right term a complete comprehensive list of what could be possible out there in the world because that just wouldn't comport to a one-year priority. I think that's the distinction that is intended to be made. >> Okay. Then that kind of ties into um what I was thinking more of a focused approach. Um maybe the study could focus specifics on the WOOI code and the red zone. um the uh continuity of fuels um just basically where the nature is meeting our built environment where it's the most um where it's going to have the biggest impact on our community and I know I just want to say this out loud because I've heard this before that it doesn't feel equitable because those are the bigger homes and some of the more expensive homes but that is where the

[212:00] fire does start and when it takes out uh for example a mobile home park. Those are the people that can't rebuild and those are the people that are impacted the most. So, I really just want to like create that um bigger vision for it and really focus on like I get it. We can't go through all of these things, but can we really focus on that first row of homes, the grass, looking at maybe mowing, shaded fuel brakes, and the way that interfaces so we can stop it before it turns into a marshall. No, I appreciate that and I think that's exactly what staff has been looking at and thinking about because those are ideas and areas that have been identified um as part of the current um uh many many uh action items that they have seen. So I appreciate it. I think we are aligned in that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Please couple colloquies chair and then Matt. So when it comes to your assessment or your pros and cons or

[213:00] whatever you're calling it now, are you go ultimately I think that a lot of us on council do want to do retroactive work. Is that the word retrofit? Retroact retroactive work especially along the WOOI and like this line that uh Rob is talking about. So can we make sure that when we do the cost assessments it is also includes the retroactive work so we can see what to do next year when we have more uh time at staff level >> and and I will just say and correct me Pam if I'm wrong I don't believe and I think we've had conversation about retro work and that has not been something that council has asked us to move forward. Though, if in the course of looking at the and I correct myself, not 150 actions, but 130. So, excuse me for adding 20 to that team that's out there listening and um in the land. If there

[214:03] were something that would make sense because we're looking at areas that would make the most impact to our wildlife effort or wildfire resistant effort um resilience efforts, then certainly we would bring that forward. Um >> that's true. >> Got it. Okay, good. Matt, >> sort of also call on on where Rob's going with this. You know, it it also behooves us, you know, as we look at that analysis with like a good example is the DHAs, the detailed home assessments. Um, we don't prioritize the DHAs in any sort of like we don't prioritize their preference in class one WOOI. someone out at 55th in Arapjo can just get in line and get a a detailed home assessment, but someone right along the edge has to wait to get theirs where the higher impact for the conflation of that fire is on the western edge. And so there there's those sorts of costbenefit prioritization things that I think are relevant to this discussion in terms of where we focus our resources for bang for the buck where the risk is. So

[215:01] that's the kind of thing that I'm hoping we get out of that in in this process. I will just say as a comment as well on that 130 seems like we're spread real thin and maybe we pick less and do them faster and better. I worry that we're maybe spread a little thin with too many priorities across too many areas trying to be everything to everyone. So appreciate that and and 130 is the level of action items that are conceivable. But to the point we were just talking about staff throughout this year, we'll be looking at what has the most impact, highest, best use of time and resources. And so some of those conversations about prioritization must happen because we cannot do it all at once and if we expect to do it all at once, we will not do it all well. So >> glad you're thinking about that, Ed, Mark. >> Yeah. I just want to express support for that that approach. Um I would like to have a a series of action items presented to us that we can uh implement and actually move forward on the topic.

[216:01] Um not something that's that's a little more researchoriented and academic. You know, we're looking to you tell us what we need to do and we will do it. Um my other comment was on bicycle security and theft reduction. I I unless I missed it, I assume that there is no element of that that that will encompass even preliminary research on um ebike regulation. Um because we've gotten a lot of comments on that and people are concerned about that and and we may not be in a position to do an ordinance this year, but we ought to at least start getting some background together as to, you know, what other cities have done, what we can do, what we can't do. Um because you're you're already working on that separately, right? >> We are. Um we are looking at some of that research and we will see what comes of it. I will say as the team looks at bicycle security and theft reduction, if they again come across something that speaks to regulation in a variety of different ways, then we will take a look

[217:00] at that. But the ebike regulations were something that were asked previously by council, not as part of the council priority process. But we have a question into legal about that and we will certainly get back to you. >> Thank you. I am content. Tina and maybe we'll wrap up. >> Yeah. Um and just one question just to clarify for people who are watching this for priorities from last year and for instance we adopted the clutch report on homelessness. It's not considered carried over, but how is that work seen in our work plan now? >> So I'll take a stab at that and if certainly if other staff want to um chime in. Um, as we mentioned at the retreat, the council priorities are but one area of the entirety of work that staff have, right? The other work continues in the process just like we are doing permitting process improvements or we continue to do um the work to implement the clutch report. There's a million other things that the city does. Um at our last high priority level we had over 700 some items in our

[218:00] own work plan let alone the continuous uh work that we do to serve our community. So those works continue. Nothing of that stops. >> Good clarification. Matt, >> you have a scheduling question with regards to the uh priority of around tip credit. I appreciate the detail that that staff put in here about wanting to have an ordinance considered to be completed by June 2026 and and I'm looking at the sort of CAC summary of sort of the longer term items that are coming out. I don't see this showing up in through April. So, I'm a little concerned about our timing. If we're working backwards from June, that leaves us really only four business meetings if we're truly alternating to actually have a real convers conversation about that. So, so I just want to know is there a plan to have that in the March or April and it's just not there yet? If not, maybe we gota we got to hit the gas. >> Yeah. Oh, go ahead, Mark. Although I was going to say that we have a scheduling exercise uh do usually we only show

[219:00] certain items on the council agenda through six weeks out and through that quarter. But we certainly already have staff putting and stuff into our scheduling calendar so that we know what's coming up and we're aware of those timelines. But um Mark, >> yep. All of that. Good evening, Council Mark Wolf, assistant city manager. Uh, we were waiting for the discussion tonight to confirm scope and that'll help us understand timeline for scheduling items. Thinking probably April is is best to have a check-in on um, you know, ultimately the different policy parameters for um, the the priority. So, I'm thinking some feedback uh, in that time frame to land a June uh, ordinance perhaps. Um, I was just checking in with my clients. I might I would suggest maybe a little sooner than that if it's possible. I think just at least throwing out some of the things for staff to work on because right now there's a informal stuff being sent to CEO and staff. I think it's better to have a more formal conversation short about just what are

[220:01] our options that we want to quickly start studying so we don't run ourselves against that timeline. That would just be my suggestion. appreciate that and again we'll take that into uh advisement as we look at there are some items that are time critical for council particularly those items that involve P&Ds and we just have to accommodate that if that if there are opportunities to bring this forward depending on the timing and frankly spring break does those snow um favors here we will try to bring that as we can but we will know a little bit more when we do our own internal scheduling >> okay that's good to hear and that you are eyeing the June completion so Good. All right. I'm not seeing any other hands raised here. So, um, Matt, is that good enough for the discussion? >> Yeah, >> if you've uh given us the direction that you want to give, then we can move forward with all of our projects. >> Okay, fantastic. Really appreciate your followup from the retreat. No, Ty has got something. >> Thank you. So, in addition to the things

[221:01] that were approved for the council for the priorities, there were other things that we had discussed that didn't quite make it to approval. Um, and I'm just curious about where those land. So, specifically, um, my request on food systems and some of the zoning that I was told that the climate initiatives teams was working on. So, just wanting to make a flag of when we would get information about that. Um the other piece is on public safety where um the council did agree on two public safety updates inclusive of all aspects. So that would be um the Boulder Police Department, the Boulder Police Oversight Panel, um the court and um any I guess any updates from the the newly developed task force. So um just wanted to make sure that those components are not lost and um Yes. Thank you. >> Yep. No, I appreciate that, Council Member Adams. Uh, as part of our scheduling item, uh, scheduling

[222:00] exercise, we will be adding particularly the public safety one. We know that was something council asked us to move forward, similar to the emergency management training, um, that we discussed and, um, you had asked for previously. Um, I don't recall right now. I believe we have uh, an A lunch and learn coming up. Um, and I will have to get back to you on the climate initiatives one because unless somebody recalls that off the top of their head, >> the Aframe temporary zoning pieces, I think there were something that was already and then while I'm here um I know that the agricultural plan was um last completed in 2017. Just wanted to get an update on and there's been no comprehensive reporting around that since then, although we have been getting some select highlights. Curious if there was any considerations of an update to that plan or um uh a report that's inclusive or is that something that um some of the outcomes and um outputs that were

[223:02] related to that 2017 plan if those are something that will be covered at the lunch and learn um although I do appreciate that unfortunately that lunch and learn is not necessarily open to the public. So I would also be interested in where is the public opportunities to learn more about our agricultural portfolio and food access. Thank you. >> So appreciate that and uh unless um I've got staff members who can talk a little bit more in detail about that, we'll have to get back to you. I I know um certainly there was a desire to have more of a robust conversation about agriculture um at some point. Um at the time scheduling uh CAC uh asked us to put this we offered that we were going to do a lunch and learn. It was not scheduled. If that changes we will certainly bring it forward. Um but I will ask the team about your specific questions so I can get back to you with the details of that. >> Thank you. >> All right. And with that that brings us to the end of that item. Thank you again Matt and uh very happy to see you with

[224:01] these additional responsibilities. So thanks for all the work you're doing. And that also brings us to the end of our meeting agenda. And Tara wants to say something quick before we close. >> Really quick, I just wanted to bring up that I was parking downtown and could not believe how much I had to pay. So, um I'm worried that it is pushing people to come less and for shorter times. So, I did talk with Nura about doing some um research. Not research. Nuria, what was it? Uh I was looking into some of the trends behind uh how the parking is changes given that council had approved a 50 cent increase just as part of the budget and wanted to um take a look at that for further conversation. >> Yeah, I just wanted everybody to know that. >> Thanks Taiisha and then Tina. >> Yes. Um I wanted to just follow up on um the request for um some more information related to the ENCAR property. I know

[225:01] that's something that you all are looking on into as well. Um, but we're just getting a lot of emails with different perspective on who owns what and so it would just really be wonderful to get a frequently asked questions or something that outlines the information as it's being compiled. Thank you. Appreciate that, Council Member Adams. Yes, it is a topic that we have heard a lot from from a variety of folks. We ourselves are interested in the topic. We are diving into um some archives and some information. We will be sharing uh some of that with council soon. Uh uh depending on the type of information um and whether or not it includes legal advice, we may have to go into executive session. Um and so we will keep you posted, but we know it is on our radar just like it is on communities. >> I have the same question as council member Adams. All right, seeing no other hands raised, I will go ahead and gavl 11 uh p.m. 4 minutes early.

[226:00] Thanks everybody.