►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Meeting 4-20-23
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
B
B
Motion
in
a
second
all
in
favor
raise
your
hand.
Okay
looks
like
that's
unanimous.
The
agenda
is
duly
amended,
and
so
we
are
going
to
start
tonight
with
a
guest
speaker.
We
have
Kevin
Baumer
the
executive
director
of
the
Colorado
Municipal
League
joining
us
here,
Kevin,
it's
a
pleasure
to
have
you
and
looking
forward
to
hearing
about
the
100th
anniversary
of
the
league.
That's
coming
up
in
just
a
few
days
here.
So
thanks
so
much
for
joining
us.
Well,.
F
I
appreciate
being
here,
thank
you
mayor.
Thank
you,
council
members
and
staff.
Boulder
is
one
of
the
cities
that
is
nearest
and
dearest
to
me,
not
just
because
of
my
23
years
at
the
Colorado
Municipal
league
and
having
had
folks
from
Boulder
on
our
board
and
a
lot
of
interaction
with
staff
over
the
years.
Carl
and
I
have
each
other
on
speed,
dial,
it's
just
it's
it's
a
pleasure.
I
have
like
I,
said
been
with
CML
for
23
years,
I've
been
the
executive
director
since
2019
and
I
was
just
reminiscing.
F
It's
been
too
long
since
I've
been
in
Boulder,
but
the
last
time
I
was
in
the
council.
Chambers
was
four
years
ago
shortly
after
I
started
as
executive
director,
I
was
doing
a
2500
mile,
24
municipality,
listening
Tour
all
around
the
state,
and
one
of
my
stops
was
was
here
in
Boulder,
and
we
circled
some
chairs
up
here
and
I.
F
I
got
a
lot
of
info
about
things
that
I
should
be
considering
as
I
was
starting
as
executive
director
and
things
I
think
of
every
day,
I
think
for
those
of
you
that
are
familiar
with
CML.
This
may
be
a
little
repetition,
but
CML
is
a
member
based
organization.
Every
municipality
in
the
state
say
for
a
couple:
little
tiny
ones
and
I'm
working
on
them,
our
members
of
CML.
G
F
Colorado
Municipal
began
right
here
in
Boulder
Colorado
on
April
26
1923,
there
were
representatives
from
15
Colorado
municipalities
that
gathered
at
Mackey
Auditorium,
which
was
a
year
old
at
the
time,
I
understand
in
a
room
which
we
still
don't
know
which
one
it
is,
but
it
was
called
the
Senate
room
at
the
time.
So
if
anyone
knows
any
historians
of
Mackie
find
out
which
room
was
the
center
room
if
it
still
exists,
but
they
they'd
gathered
for
three
days
and
they
discussed
like
we
do
at
every.
F
Have
we
done
it
every
conference,
since
they
discussed
Municipal
issues,
including
things
that
we
still
talk
about
like
Transit?
They
were
talking
about
street
cars
back
then
they
were
talking
about
Municipal
Finance,
the
growing
city
manager,
movement,
Council
manager,
former
government
movement
and
and
so
at
the
end
of
that
conference,
there
were
15
municipalities
there,
11
of
them,
including
Boulder,
I'll,
just
name
them
all.
Grand
Junction
Windsor
Haxton,
Loveland,
Longmont,
Boulder,
Arvada,
Denver,
Fort,
Morgan,
brush
Littleton,
Creek,
Kansas,
City,
Pueblo
and
Trinidad
all
adopted
a
Constitution
which
now
are
bylaws
informed.
F
The
Colorado
Municipal
CU
President,
George
Norland
was
the
opening
speaker
and
obviously
a
storied
figure
here
in
Boulder
and
at
CU
and,
and
he
said
something
which
is
worth
repeating.
The
community
is
a
partnership
not
for
the
sake
of
personal
security
of
police
protection
alone,
but
a
partnership
in
the
promotion
of
health
of
intelligence
of
morals
and
of
Beauty,
and
the
best
thing
which
has
happened
is
the
dawn
of
the
conviction,
Among
Us,
that
the
municipality
can
and
should
be
a
partnership
in
promoting
the
best
and
fullest
of
life.
And
that's
what
that's.
F
What
led
off
the
the
CM
of
the
first
CML
conference
that
created
CML,
the
the
first
CMO
president
was
the
council
president
from
Pueblo
Colorado.
His
name
was
John
Jackson
and
he
was
a
bit
of
a
funny
guy
and
at
our
conference
last
year,
I
read
I,
read
something
I'm
not
going
to
read
tonight,
but
he
he
told
jokes
and
his
response
address
to
President
norlen.
But
he
did
to
get
serious
for
a
second,
he
said.
Municipal
problems
are
not
easy.
F
On
the
other
hand,
they
are
often
complex
and
naughty
k-n-o-t-t,
that
kind
of
naughty
and
and
at
times,
call
for
great
resources.
We're
gathered
here
for
the
purposes
of
discussing
problems
that
are
vital
to
all
of
us
and
to
the
cities
and
towns
we
represent.
Our
particular
Mission
here
at
this
time
is
to
discuss
specific
subjects
in
relation
to
our
Municipal
governments,
hoping
thereby
to
benefit
ourselves
in
our
constituency.
That's
what
you
do
every
day
and
that's
what
the
league
does
in
bringing
together.
F
So
you
know,
a
lot
of
things
happened
even
back
then,
at
that
first
conference
and
with
people
that
were
involved,
that
that
are
the
foundation
for
obviously
the
Colorado
Municipal
league,
but
but
also
the
city
of
Boulder,
and
so
here
we
are
a
hundred
years
later
and
on
the
26th
we'll
be
up
at
up
at
mackie
again
and
we're
going
to
celebrate.
We've
invited
representatives
from
each
of
the
founding
municipalities,
our
honorary
life
members,
past
presidents
and
and
League
directors,
and
one
very
talented,
Municipal
attorney.
F
In
fact,
one
of
the
buildings
I
mean
I,
can't
remember
the
address
and
I
apologize
is
actually
still
still
there
and
and
then
the
league
bounced
around
a
little
bit
before
we
finally
found
I
think
what
is
our
permanent
home?
It's
been,
such
since
1998,
that's
1144,
Sherman
Street
in
Denver.
Some
of
you
have
been
there.
It's
your
building,
so
come
visit
anytime
I
just
worked
there,
but
it
belongs
to
the
members
and
I.
Thank
you
for
that.
So
I
hope
that
you
are
able
to
I
guess
Relish
in
the
celebration
with
us.
F
That
Boulder
is
where
it
all
started.
We
will
celebrate
a
lot
more
at
our
annual
conference,
which
is
at
Gaylord
at
the
end
of
June,
Gaylord,
Rockies
and
I
hope.
I
hope
you
can
come.
I
will
say
that,
and
this
is
hard
to
believe
when
you
consider
how
big
Gaylord
is
it's
it's
sold
out
now,
it's
not
all
CML,
because
there's
it's
a
big
place.
F
They
got
a
couple
other
conferences,
but
if
you're,
if
you
are
looking
for
lodging
for
that,
we
do
have
some
of
the
surrounding
places,
because
it's
certainly
a
little
a
little
bit
of
a
a
ways
out
there,
but
I
sure
hope
you
can
come.
Those
of
you
who
haven't
been
to
a
annual
conference
seek
out
members
that
have
and
and
we're
always
able
to
see
in
the
next
newsletter.
F
Second
time
we
posted
we've
got
board
vacancies
and
10
10
seats
are
up
every
year,
three
from
small,
medium,
large
category
and
and
one
in
the
actually
there's
four
in
the
medium
category
this
year
and
one
in
the
largest
category.
Boulder
is
one
of
the
large
municipalities.
So
let
me
know
if
you're
interested
and
I
can
get
you
more
information.
Juni
knows
the
drill,
so
so,
if
but
I
appreciate
you
having
me
here,
I
know
you
got
a
lot
on
your
agenda.
B
Well
thanks
so
much
Kevin
for
joining
us
in
for
that
bit
of
History.
It's
fascinating
stuff
and
I.
Look
forward
to
the
26th
event.
I
will
be
reading
a
declaration
in
honor
of
the
100th
anniversary
at
that
time
and
I
hope.
My
Council
colleagues
will
be
able
to
join
us
as
well
at
Mackie
at
two
o'clock
at.
H
Thank
you,
mayor
Brockett.
This
is
a
really
important
declaration.
It
doesn't
speak
to
anyone
individual
or
group,
but
speaks
to
the
planet.
We
reside
on
and
the
precious
nature
of
of
life,
and
so
it's
important
that
we
recognize
it
and
the
changes
that
our
planet
are
undergoing
every
year
on
April
22nd,
we
celebrate
our
natural
environment
and
bring
awareness
to
the
ongoing
need
to
build
more
resilient
systems
that
protect
our
community
from
the
threats
of
climate
change
from
the
2013
floods
to
the
2021
Marshall
fire,
we
have
already
felt
climate
change
in
Boulder.
H
Communities
across
the
world
are
forced
to
confront
dangerous
climate
events.
The
most
severe
damages
are
sustained
in
the
least
resilient
places,
deepening
disparities
and
weakening,
already
vulnerable
communities.
This
harm
has
been
inflicted
by
human
systems
that
extract
degrade
and
harm
our
planet.
Humanity
has
a
practical
and
ethical
obligation
to
redefine
redesign
and
recover
a
healthy
relationship
with
the
natural
world.
Our
community
has
a
legacy
of
adaptive
leadership
in
taking
a
holistic
approach
to
climate
action.
H
We
were
some
of
the
first
in
the
nation
to
trailblaze
efforts
like
curb
siding
recycling,
Municipal
carbon
taxes
on
electricity,
our
Ambitions
city-wide
climate
goals
are
set,
pursued
and
periodically
updated
in
accordance
with
specific,
with
scientific
consensus,
consensus
on
the
level
of
carbon
reduction
needed
to
stabilize
the
planet.
To
meet
these
goals,
our
climate
initiatives
department
has
evolved
their
work
into
three
key
action
areas:
Energy
Systems,
circular
economy
and
nature-based
climate
Solutions.
Regionally,
we
collaborative
collaboratively,
launched
and
continue.
I
H
Co-Lead,
a
Vanguard
group
called
Colorado
communities
for
climate
action.
This
Coalition
of
42
local
governments
sets
aggressive
targets
and
network
with
other
jurisdictions
to
share
best
practices
and
Advance
the
field
at
the
state
level.
Our
city
leaders
collaborate
year
after
year
to
advance
policies
that
grow
green
jobs.
Empower
local
approaches
improve
how
we
handle
materials
and
identify
and
build
complementary
Solutions
Boulder
Beyond
Colorado
Boulder
is
an
active
member
of
several
consortiums
of
City
governments
such
as
the
urban
sustainabilities
directors,
Network,
local
governments
for
sustainability
and
the
carbon
neutral
cities
Alliance
our
threats.
H
F
B
E
E
We
want
to
make
sure
each
of
you
know
that
we
appreciate
your
thoughts
shared
here
tonight
and
that
the
city
has
engaged
with
community
members
to
co-create
a
vision
for
productive,
meaningful
and
inclusive
Civic
conversations
that
this
Vision
supports
physical
and
emotional
safety
for
community
members
staff
and
Council,
as
well
as
democracy
for
people
of
all
ages.
Identities
lived
experience
and
political
perspectives,
more
information
on
this
Visions
on
our
website
and
on
the
next
slide,
we'll
go
into
a
bit
more
detail.
E
E
Participants
are
required
to
sign
up
using
the
name
they're
commonly
known
by.
Please
display
your
full
name
if
you
are
joining
by
Zoom
before
you're
allowed
to
speak
currently
on
the
audio
testimonies,
permitted
online
and
then
in-person
participants
are
asked
to
refrain
from
expressing
support
or
disagreement
verbally
or
with
Applause,
with
the
exception
of
support
for
declarations,
please
know
that
traditionally,
support
is
shown
silently
through
American,
Sign,
Language,
Applause
or
jazz
hands.
B
J
Annette
James
good
evening,
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
we
witnessed
two
Tennessee
lawmakers,
be
expelled
from
the
legislature
for
an
egregious
attempt
to
silence
their
voices.
Talking
about
this,
with
my
fair-minded,
well-informed,
Bolder,
friends
and
neighbors,
they
offered
a
clear
insightful
repudiation
of
this
outcome,
calling
it
a
farce
of
democracy.
J
This
discussion
tonight
treads
in
those
same
tracks.
We
have
a
dually
selected
unanimously
confirmed
slate
of
individuals
having
ability
to
perform
the
duties
of
police
oversight,
as
attested
to
by
a
committee
comprising
representatives
from
two
Community
organization,
current
police
oversight,
panelists
a
city
director
and
a
consultant.
Yet
it
is
in
Jeopardy
of
being
dismantled
because
a
member
or
members
have
exercised
their
right
to
criticize
their
government
or
for
fear
that
a
critical
opinion
might
emerge.
J
Will
you
my
community
and
friends
and
neighbors,
see
the
same
verse
of
democracy
here
at
the
base
of
the
Rockies
that
you
saw
in
the
Smokies
of
Tennessee
NAACP
Boulder
County
is
fully
experienced
with
the
city's
efforts
to
control
a
meaningful
exchange
of
ideas
centering
around
policing.
Therefore,
we
ask
Council
to
reject
the
special
counsel's
recommendation.
Thank
you.
K
My
name
is
Joanne
Corson
I'm,
a
long-standing
member
of
the
Boulder
Community
I
went
to
Platte
Junior
High
I
graduated
from
Boulder
high
in
1987,
with
one
of
Penfield
Tate
II's
daughters.
My
dad
worked
for
IBM.
My
aunt
was
a
emergency
room
physician
for
many
years
at
Boulder,
Community,
Hospital
I'm,
a
member
of
First
Congregational
Church
of
Boulder
and
a
member
of
the
NAACP
I'm,
also
an
administrator
at
CU
Boulder.
Just
up
the
hill.
K
K
L
Taking
the
recommendations
of
a
single
lawyer
for
the
removal
of
the
member
Suni
Miran
would
once
again
silence
the
voices
of
historically
excluded
communities
or
voices
the
complaints
file
where
complaced
against
the
police
oversight
panel
selection
committee.
Now
the
police
oversight
panel
nominees.
Why
was
the
selection
committee
never
interviewed?
L
If
you're
looking
for
people
who
have
never
had
a
bad
experience
or
bad
interaction
with
police
to
form
the
panel,
you
may
as
well
just
call
it
police
fan
panel
having
a
police
oversay
panel,
but
not
effective.
Police
oversight
is
only
symbol,
a
symbolic
gesture
and
not
a
real
path
to
create
Community
Trust,
which
is
what
you
claim
to
want.
L
Once
again.
It
is
obvious
that
what
is
wanted
as
a
continuous
continued
continuation
of
a
system
that
is
ruled
by
white
supremacy
that
protects
the
wealthy
white
land
owners
Landa
was
violently
stolen
from
indigenous
people
at
the
wealth
that
was
built
on
the
Blood
and
Tears
of
people
stolen
from
Africa
and
their
descendants.
B
M
My
name
is
Jude
lanceman
I
served
as
the
NAACP
County
representative
to
the
police
oversight
panel
selection
committee,
along
with
Anna
from
El,
Centro
Amistad
and
two
serving
oversight.
Panelists.
We
carefully
chose
our
slate
with
discussion
of
pros
and
cons
and
consideration
of
the
interviews
of
each
candidate
and
the
needs
of
the
police
oversight
panel.
M
M
M
The
oversight
panel
was
created
for
to
assure
community
members
that
efforts
would
be
made
to
hold
police
accountable
for
misconduct.
Complaints
Boulder
is
not
unique,
special
or
Progressive.
It
is
just
like
any
other
mid-sized
City
in
the
nation
with
a
union
that
is
currently
resisting
police
oversight.
I
urge
city
council
to
consider
the
chilling
wider
implications
of
following
this
manipulative
ruling.
Thank
you.
N
My
name
is
Hope
Michaelson
and
I'm
here
to
speak
against,
supporting
SB
23213,
even
in
its
present
rendition
I'm,
a
professor
of
mechanical
and
environmental
engineering
I've
been
studying
atmospheric
and
combustion
science
for
over
30
years
and
in
my
professional
opinion,
SB
23213
is
a
direct
assault
on
efforts
to
accept
the
reality
of
climate
change
and
adapt
to
it
in
a
sustainable
way.
After
two
day,
Decades
of
drought
in
Colorado,
we
are
facing
diminished
water
resources
and
greatly
increasing
risk
of
wildfires
and
uncontrolled
fires
like
the
Marshall
fire
at
the
Wildland
Urban
interface.
N
Climate
models
consistently
predict
continued
drought
in
the
future.
According
to
a
recent
report
by
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences,
one
of
the
main
factors
for
high
risk
of
Devastation
from
Wildland
Urban
interface
fires
in
their
spread
is
increased
density
and
of
Housing
and
other
structures.
Many
of
Colorado
cities
and
towns,
including
Boulder,
sit
at
the
Wildland
Urban
interface
and
are
susceptible
to
wildfires.
Increasing
density
in
these
areas
is
irresponsible
at
best.
N
In
addition,
water
resources
are
under
strain
in
Colorado,
the
Colorado
River
is
already
overdrafted,
and
climate
models
predict
further
depletion
of
the
Colorado
River
by
10
to
30
percent.
Increasing
growth
increases
water
demand
and,
in
addition
to
increasing
risk
of
devastating
fires,
SB
23213
will
put
additional
strain
on
depleting
Water
Resources.
Yes,
urban
sprawl
is
irresponsible,
but
is
unconscionable
to
encourage
population
growth
in
climate
driven
drought-ridden
regions,
particularly
those
at
the
Wildland
Urban
interface,
without
first
developing
well-designed
goals
of
sustainability
and
implementing
an
effective
set
of
policies
for
adapting
to
climate
change.
N
We
need
Boulder
leadership
to
have
the
courage
to
demand
comprehensive
status
strategy
and
not
ignore
or
deny
the
reality
of
climate
change
in
consideration
of
council
member's
Benjamin
statement
to
begin
with,
let's
think
more
deeply
about
this
subject,
and
please
do
not
support
SB
23213.
Thank
you.
Thank.
O
Good
evening,
council
members,
my
name
is
Claudia
Hansen
theme,
I'm,
a
resident
of
Boulder
and
I'm
speaking
this
evening
on
behalf
of
the
boulder
progressives.
I
have
two
comments
or
comments
on
two
issues.
Tonight
I'll
try
to
be
brief
about
both.
The
first
involves
the
police
oversight
panel,
as
we
shared
in
our
statement
earlier
this
week.
We're
extremely
concerned
that
the
recommendation
of
the
special
counsel
undermines
the
independence
of
the
pop
and
jeopardizes
the
entire
project
of
civilian
police
oversight
in
Boulder.
O
The
second
issue
also
on
your
agenda
tonight
is
the
state
land
use
and
housing
Bill
known
as
SB
213.
The
bill
that
passed
out
of
committee
on
Tuesday
is
diminished,
but
it
is
still
alive
and
it
still
matters
we're
incredibly
grateful
to
members
of
our
Boulder
Community,
who
took
time
off
work,
wrangled,
child
care
and,
in
some
cases,
waited
over
10
hours
to
testify
for
the
bill
before
the
Senate
local
government
and
housing
committee.
O
O
P
Being
up
here,
52
percent
of
the
voting
public
said
no
to
bedrooms
are
for
people.
Yet
what
we
heard
from
Council
was
that
you
wanted
to
tweak
out
some
reasons
that
a
few
people
gave
you
as
a
justification
for
pushing
forward
on
your
own
ideas
about
how
to
go
more
dense
and
then
you
surrender
to
the
governor
home
rule,
which
was
something
we
also
voted
on,
except
when
I
suppose
you
want
it,
which
is
for
safe
injection
sites,
and
it
seems
like
there's
this
disparity.
P
So
my
question
is:
when
do
you
represent
me
now?
I'm,
a
disabled,
retired
Widow
of
a
veteran
when
do
I
get
represented
at
52
percent?
Apparently
not
I.
Don't
I!
Rarely
get
a
response
from
the
progressives
on
this
Council
I
used
to
call
myself
a
progressive,
so
I'm
mystified
I
really
am
mystified.
You
come
to
counsel,
you
do
all
this
reading.
You
do
all
this
research
and
then
you
ignore
us.
I,
don't
have
a
sign,
but
I
did
want
to
say.
P
B
Q
Good
evening,
Council
Darren,
O'connor
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
NAACP
Boulder
County
Branch,
regarding
the
recent
recommendation
of
special
counsel,
Claiborne
Douglas.
First
off
the
code
of
conduct
complaint
was
directed
at
the
actions
of
the
selection
committee,
who
recommended
police
oversight
panel
candidates
to
this
body.
No
one
from
the
selection
committee
was
interviewed.
Q
The
special
counsel
recommendation
to
remove
a
pop
member
that
this
very
body
voted
on
and
approved
is
a
shoddy
error-prone
document
that
appears
to
have
been
written
conclusion
first,
this
by
a
man
who
appears
to
have
little
to
no
knowledge
of
important
movements
like
abolition
and
deep
fund.
The
police,
unlike
Mr
Douglas
selection
committee
members,
included
diverse
community
members
with
insight
into
such
topics.
This
included
selection
committee
members
representing
the
NAACP
and
El
Centro.
Q
R
Understanding
that
this
entire
process
of
code
of
conduct
appears
to
be
invalid.
Understanding
that
a
proper
investigation,
as
so
many
have
testified
tonight,
does
not
appear
to
have
even
been
taken
to
get
a
response
from
this
third
party
special
investigator,
making
a
recommendation
that
you
do
something
that
you
do
not
have
the
power
to
do
all
in
order
to
overturn
what
the
people
on
the
selection
committee.
What
you
all
ultimately
decided
I
find
this
baffling.
How
did
we
get
here?
R
I?
Have
to
be
honest
reading
through
the
depth
of
illegal
issues.
Here
reminds
me
a
lot
of
three
years
ago,
when
myself
and
Chelsea
Castellano
sued
the
city
with
bedroom
server
people
because
of
the
absolute
malpractice
the
city
managed
on
that
issue
and
I
see
I
see
this
to
be
very
similar,
overturning
decisions
potentially
taking
actions
that
are
not
legal
I'm
asking
you
not
to
do
those
things.
R
S
S
Sure
I'm
the
land
use
attorney
for
the
Viewpoint
Office
Park.
This
is
on
the
call
up
check-in
as
item
4B
I'm.
Simply
here
to
say,
please
don't
call
this
up.
We
don't
ask
for
it
to
be
called
up.
It's
a
very
simple
use
review
that
was
approved
unanimously
by
planning
board.
I
am
here
to
answer
questions
if
there
were
any
during
that
call-up
discussion,
but
we
would
just
simply
request
that
you
pass
on
a
call-up
and
that
the
planning
board's
unanimous
decision
be
affirmed.
Thank
you.
T
Jared
Polis
always
dressed
the
king
for
his
lavish
Halloween
parties
a
few
years
back,
I'm
a
no
on
hb23
I
want
to
see
more
housing,
but
with
guarantees
of
affordability
and
less
car
use
and
I
want
it
done
locally
and
democratically
number.
One
Boulder
and
Denver
already
have
the
highest
density
in
the
state
and
the
most
expensive
housing.
So
without
affordability
mechanisms
this
bill
will
not
get
affordability.
T
T
Etc.
Now
only
Boulder
is
asking
for
the
state
to
preempt
local
land
use
laws,
because
the
council
majority
can't
get
what
it
wants
democratically.
Since
mayor
Jones,
The
Motto
here
is
get
her
done,
Ram
it
through
quick
and
dirty.
This
would
set
a
precedent
to
impose
other
preemptions
what,
if
a
future
legislature
wants
to
again
prohibit
local
gun
laws
or
to
prevent
us
from
being
a
sanctuary
City
or
to
stop
our
first
in
the
country.
T
Gay
rights
law
passed
in
1987
by
citizen
initiative,
the
city
asking
for
amendments,
but
approving
the
power
grab,
even
without
amendments
I
believe
shows.
Council
members
are
cravenly
kissing.
The
Ring
of
the
king,
hoping
for
a
job
with
him,
like
jobs
held
by
former
mayor,
will
tour
former
mayor
Sean,
McGrath
and
former
commissioner
Elise
Jones
were
not
your
stepping
stone.
B
U
Lynn
Siegel
just
testified
at
the
state
house
today
about
Excel
and
the
rate
hikes
our
utility
rate
ice,
and
they
prefer
that
I
use
my
video
window
get
that.
Do
you
hear
that
they
prefer
and
the
city
of
Boulder
can't
even
provide
me
a
video
window,
and
they
don't
want
to
see
me.
What
is
this
you
know,
and
yet
the
contradictory
yes
of
Jared
Polis
pushing
this
land
use
reform
liberalization.
That
is
just
mind-boggling
four
plexes
in
all
residential
rl1,
unbelievable.
U
You
know,
adus
doesn't
really
matter
so
much
because
they
aren't
going
to
get
built
all
that
much
because
they're
expensive,
but
the
the
occupancy
level
and
I've
had
up
to
17
people
at
my
house
before
Airbnb
dumped
me
so
I
I've
had
plenty
of
folks
here,
but
I'm
opposed
to
that
just
being
as
high
as
you
want
to
go,
that's
ridiculous,
and
especially
for
University
Hill.
You
know
this
land
liberalization
has
a
major
effect
on
Boulder,
with
use
of
open
space
fire
after
the
Marshall
fire.
U
You
know
this
morning
on
kgnu,
the
guy
that
was
addressing
fire
issues
or
I
mean
addressing
growth
issues
didn't
even
phase
him.
That
more
density,
like
Al
Bartlett,
said,
means
more
dead
people
when
the
fire
comes
like
this
is
just
obscene
what's
happening
with
our
state
government,
and
you
know
what
it's
doing.
It's
gonna,
it's
gonna
bring
people
from
all
over
the
United
States
to
this
state
and
then
they're
going
to
be
spread
out
at
the
edges
into
all
the
other
states.
It's
and
he
says
it's
not
a
sprawl.
It's
the
biggest
sprawl.
U
V
Two
things
stand
out.
My
various
Communications
with
chip,
one
chip,
stated
Boulder
downtown
functions
as
a
quasi-government
entity
and
two
after
being
told
about
his
interviewer
requesting
my
son's
social
security
card
chip
dismissed
me
and
the
incident
only
stating
it
was
blocked
by
Block's
problem.
V
I
asked
city,
council
and
Boulder
residents
if
Chip
claims
that
Boulder
downtown
has
no
responsibility.
Yet
the
website
has
a
page
dedicated
to
the
ambassador
program
and
ambassadors.
Then,
who
holds
this
quasi-government
entity
responsible
when
he
won't
hold
his
ambassadors
and
program
Partners
to
Legal
hiring
standards
and
practices?
I
searched
sam.gov
for
Boulder,
downtown
registration,
active
or
otherwise,
and
this
quasi-government
entity
is
not
listed
or
registered
as
a
quasi-government
entity.
W
Hi,
my
name
is
Milan
Villard
I
am
a
resident
of
Boulder,
a
core
member
of
Boulder
search
showing
up
for
racial
Justice
and
a
member
of
the
NAACP
bullet
County
Branch
I'm.
Also
a
new
police
oversight
panel
member
tonight
I'm
not
representing
Boulder
search
the
NAACP
Northern
police
oversight
panel,
but
only
myself
for
several
months
now
have
been
I've
seen.
W
The
purpose
of
the
panel
be
at
best
ignored
and
at
Wars
trampled
by
privileged
and
Empower
Savvy
members
of
our
community
and
some
city
council
members
who
have
been
loud
and
clear
in
wanting
the
mission
of
the
pop
to
fail,
a
mission
which
is
a
quote
to
ensure
that
historically
excluded
communities
have
a
voice
in
police
oversight.
Unquote,
there's
been
a
huge
amount
of
noise
lately,
but
most
of
it
has
been
to
silence
them.
Let's
not
forget
the
Vera
report.
W
That
was
done
not
too
long
ago,
where,
if
Boulder
County
was
a
state,
it
would
rank
among
the
worst
in
terms
of
racial
profiling.
Let's
not
forget
either
why
the
pop
started.
It
started
with
Zayn
Atkinson,
an
Arabia
student
of
color,
who
was
held
at
gunpoint
for
doing
his
job
of
picking
up
trash,
and,
let's
not
forget
also
that
the
gun
was
only
lowered
when
Atkinson's
boss,
a
white
man,
showed
up
and
without
showing
any
form
of
ID
confirmed
that
Atkinson
was
indeed
a
student.
W
After
this
there
was
Sammy
Lawrence
and
many
others
could
have
similar
experiences
and
no
recourse.
What
we've
been
talking
about
tonight,
it's
not
about
Lucy
Sweeney,
Moran's
competencies
as
a
panelist.
It
is
an
overreaching,
mentally
discredit,
the
independence
of
the
panel
before
it
even
gets
to
work
this
year.
W
If
you're
going
to
judge
one
person,
whether
post
on
social
media,
let's
check
each
other's
posts,
that
of
any
and
all
police
officers
and
of
anyone
involved
with
the
panel
I
would
also
like
to
know
how
much
Dei
work
special
counsel
Douglas
has
done
I'm
disconcerted
by
the
many
blind
spot
in
lack
of
awareness
in
their
conclusion,
please
reject
their
recommendations.
Thank
you.
B
X
Great
thanks,
my
name
is
Kathleen
Hancock
I
live
in
Boulder
and
I
help
run
a
group
called
I.
Think
Boulder.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
tonight.
We
advocate
for
a
variety
of
actions
and
policies
related
to
housing
and
climate
change,
because
we
support
home
rule
we
oppose
sb213.
It
will
do
nothing
to
lower
housing
rates
in
Boulder.
Instead,
the
open
market
envisioned
in
this
bill
will
lead
to
unplanned
development
that
works
well
for
wealthy
developers,
but
not
the
rest
of
us.
X
The
sheer
number
of
amendments
shows
the
Folly
of
trying
to
legislate
from
the
talk
down
for
cities
as
diverse
as
Boulder
and
Pueblo.
Okay,
we're
already
on
my
next
slide.
That's
fine!
We
created
a
petition
for
those
who
cannot
come
tonight,
but
want
you
to
know
they
oppose
this
bill
and
why
they
oppose
it.
I'll
highlight
just
two
points
here:
simply
building
more
undermines
our
climate
change
goals,
with
no
opportunities
for
helping
reduce
housing
costs
in
high
demand
markets
like
Boulder
0.8
lists
other
ways
the
state
can
help
without
infringing
on
local
rule.
X
X
Next
slide
here
are
some
additional
comments
against
this
bill.
Is
it
doesn't
consider
the
impact
of
overbuilding
on
the
environment?
Local
policies
are
what
have
made
Boulder
a
special
place,
there's
no
sense
in
terms
of
creating
more
affordable
housing
in
Boulder.
The
local
control
has
a
long
way
to
go
to
serve
the
people
of
Boulder
I,
strongly
support
local
control
and
housing
and
land
use.
X
There
are
proven
ways
to
get
more,
affordable
housing.
We
need
to
double
down
on
those
policies,
for
example
the
cash
and
lose
should
be
doubled.
This
will
bring
in
more
money
for
non-profits
to
build
permanently
affordable
housing.
It
will
also
incentivize
developers
to
build
more
affordable
housing
units
mixed
in
with
market
rate
units.
That's
the
ideal
way
to
build
more
housing
that
creates
diverse.
B
Y
How
to
Echo
when
people
have
already
said
tonight,
I
expect
the
police
oversight
panel
to
hold
the
police
accountable.
Therefore,
I
expect
panel
members
to
be
informed
interested
and
to
have
opinions
about
how
policing
is
practiced
in
Boulder.
Removing
releases
Vinnie
Moran
for
having
these
qualities
would
make
me
seriously
doubt
the
Integrity
of
the
police
oversight
panel.
Y
Furthermore,
she
was
recommended
by
diverse
community
members
who
were
authorized
to
recommend
her
and
the
city
council
subsequently
voted
for
her
appointment.
Removing
her
would
continue
a
long
pattern
of
protecting
wealthy
white
property
holders
over
the
welfare
of
black
people
and
other
minority
groups.
Y
If
Sweeney
Iran
is
removed,
I
have
to
question
whether
the
city
council
is
in
fact
committed
to
police
or
Farm
inequity,
or
whether
the
existence
of
a
police
oversight
panel
is
meant
to
be
for
show
a
panel
that
can
only
have
positive
opinions
of
the
organization.
It's
supposed
to
be
holding
accountable
would
be
worse
than
useless.
I
stand
in
solidarity
with
the
community
organizations
that
were
part
of
the
selection
committee,
including
NAACP
Boulder
County
and
El
Center
Amistad.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Z
Good
evening,
Council
Emily
Reynolds,
my
topic
this
evening
is
the
breathtaking
overreach
of
SB
23-213,
in
which
city
leaders
see
local
control
of
zoning,
land
use
and
home
rule
to
the
state.
This
flawed,
inconsistent
land
grab
document
requires
18
amendments
totaling
dozens
of
pages.
It
does
little
more
than
give
lip
service
to
affordable
housing.
Is
that
the
new
vision?
Z
This
bill
is
in
direct
conflict
with
the
decisive
defeat
of
the
bedrooms
initiative
and
with
the
Boulder
Valley
comprehensive
plan,
the
fullest
expression
of
how
this
community
wishes
to
develop
going
forward?
How
is
this
Council
so
willing
to
divide
the
will
of
the
people?
A
home
rule
City,
like
Boulder,
can
operate
independently
as
long
as
it
does
not
violate
state
law.
Weeks
ago,
Council
wanted,
under
this
home
rule
authority
to
have
the
right
to
establish
safe
injection
sites
and
now
to
obtain
drastic,
controversial
changes
to
housing
policy.
Z
You
want
to
surrender
that
authority
to
the
governor
asking
the
governor
to
override
our
Municipal
Authority
is
an
abdication
of
council's
responsibilities.
What
if
we
had
a
different
Governor
supporting
State
legislation,
diminishing
a
woman's
right
to
choose
what?
If
the
state
decided
that
we
should
dedicate
half
of
our
open
space
to
housing,
please
listen
to
constituents
and
vote
no
quick
side.
Note
I
request
that
Council
observe
the
findings
of
bias
by
the
special
counsel
they
hired
to
investigate
the
disgruntled
Lisa,
Sweeney,
Moran
I
hope
she
hasn't
bullied
her
way
into
your
heart.
Z
B
AA
I
said,
I
know
that
two
of
the
items
major
items
that
have
been
spoken
to
today
are
something
that
we're
going
to
be
speaking
to
later
on
this
evening
and
I
just
want
to
appreciate
everyone
who
has
shared
their
voice
on
difficult
issues
and
I
hope
that,
as
we
continue
to
discuss
particularly
the
role
of
police
oversight
in
the
city,
that
we
don't
overlook,
the
tremendous
and
great
work
that
the
current
panel
is
doing
panel
members
before
them
had
been
doing
as
that
work
continues.
Thank
you.
300.
AB
How
is
removing
Lisa
I,
don't
know
her
Heritage,
but
I
don't
want
to
go
there,
but
anyway,
I
just
I
was
not
sure.
How
would
that
be
discrimination
in
itself
and
I
thought
to
myself?
Okay,
I
think
I
get
it
because
I've
had
community
members
who
just
reached
out
to
me.
Essentially
what
I
heard
today
is
that
going
with
the
special
counsel
would
somehow
lead
to
marginalization
of
excluded
groups,
because
the
panel
members
were
chosen
by
the
NAACP
and
Central
Amistad,
or
at
least
that's
what
I
heard
tonight.
AB
B
Thanks
Judy
anybody
else,
I'll
just
make
a
quick
comment
about
if
Kim
McCarthy
is
still
on
the
line,
she
was
talking
about
some
potential
misbehavior
by
a
block
by
block
who
is
contracted
by
downtown
Boulder
partnership.
I,
don't
believe
we
have
direct
oversight
over
the
HR
practices
of
that
contracted
organization,
so
you'll
probably
encourage
her
to
to
reach
back
out
to
block
by
Block
in
in
downtown
Boulder
partnership,
but
thanks
and
thanks,
everyone
very
much
who
came
with
us
came
here
in
person
or
virtually
to
share
your
thoughts.
It
is
much
appreciated.
C
AC
Just
one
on
I
think
it's
three
h:
it
was
a
consideration
for
a
motion
to
waive
the
12-month
prohibition
of
a
former
board.
Member
and
I
just
wanted
I
wondered
if
staff
could
explain
that
why
we
would
go
for
that
in
this
situation.
I
haven't
seen
that
before
so
wonder
what
the
proper
consideration
is
there
and
I
think
that
that
individual
was
replaced
on
Clap
by
someone
else
from
her
organization.
So
I
wonder
why
that
person
could
not
represent
what
the
outgoing
lab
member
could
represent
as
well.
AD
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
that.
Thank
you,
council
member
friend.
So
this
came
as
a
request
from
the
Cannabis
board,
which
is
also
known
as
collab,
and
they
expressed
a
desire
to
have
this
member
come
back
and
share
her
expertise
and
certain
products
that
she
manufactures
and
they
wanted
to
know
more
information
about
the
products
and
thought
that
it
would
be
helpful
to
have
her
available
to
provide
that
education
to
the
board.
AC
AD
That's
fine
I
know
of
at
least
one
circumstance
in
which
we've
done
this
in
the
past
think
that
it
had
to
do
with
the
downtown
management.
Commission
I
think
it
was
called
the
time
and
might
have
involved.
Sean
Maher
I
can't
recall
exactly,
but
they
wanted
him
to
come
back
and
also
you
know,
as
kind
of
an
expert
in
the
field
provide
some
additional
information.
So
that's
the
same
reason
that
it's
been
being
requested
here
as
well.
B
Sure
I'm
just
going
to
call
on
myself
and
just
to
highlight
item
3G,
which
is
expanding
two
of
our
state
natural
areas
on
our
open
space
areas
and
creating
a
new
one.
The
Coal
Creek
Tall
Grass
Prairie
in
the
jewel
Mountain
area,
just
thanks
staff
for
your
work
on
that
and
celebrate
the
designation
of
those
special
natural
areas
and
with
that,
if
we
have
no
other
comments
or
questions,
perhaps
there's
a
motion
out
there.
AD
D
AA
B
C
B
B
AG
AF
B
AF
AF
This
concept
plan
went
to
planning
board
on
March
21st
2023
city
council
may
vote
to
call
the
item
up
for
a
council
hearing
to
provide
additional
feedback
and,
as
noted,
the
applicant
is
requesting
that
this
item
be
called
up
by
city
council
for
a
public
hearing
for
public
notification,
written
notice
was
sent
out
to
Property
Owners
within
600
feet
and
posted
on
the
property
staff
has
received
numerous
comments
from
neighboring
property
owners
and
residents.
Some
with
concerns
over
proposed
site
access
and
the
majority
expressing
support
for
the
proposed
project.
AF
AF
In
terms
of
the
zoning
on
the
site,
it
is
split
zoned
between
residential,
medium
one
and
mixed
use.
Two
the
proposed
project,
as
was
described,
is
17
000
square
feet
of
Museum
space,
roughly
17
500
square
feet
of
backgrade
storefront
commercial
space,
67
residential
units,
including
19,
live
work,
units
and
96
parking
spaces,
which
represents
a
29
parking
reduction.
AF
The
museum
would
be
three
stories:
two
three-story
mixed
use:
buildings
as
well:
two-story,
wraparound,
mixed
use,
building
on
the
corner,
Broadway
and
violet
and
three-story
apartment
buildings
along
violet,
19
live
work.
Units
are
proposed
on
the
interior
of
the
site.
Access
would
be
as
currently
shown
as
proposed
from
Violet
and
10th
Street,
and
the
applicant
is
proposing
roughly
17
555
square
feet
of
shared
open
space
on
the
rm1
portion
and
37
000
square
feet
and
change
on
the
mu-2
portion
of
the
site.
AF
So
the
modifications
to
the
land
use
code
that
they're
requesting
that
can
be
requested
through
site
review,
include
the
29
parking
reduction
modification
to
maximum
number
of
stories,
setback
reductions
and
an
increase
in
the
maximum
allowable
building
size
for
the
museum
to
go
up
to
17
500
square
feet.
There
are
also
modifications
to
the
land
use
standards
being
shown
that
would
require
either
rezoning
land
use,
map
change
or
changes
to
the
use
and
or
intensity
standards,
or
some
other
type
of
special
ordinance
by
Council.
These
include
a
museum
as
an
allowed
use.
AF
That's
currently
prohibited
in
the
mu2
zone.
District
live
work
units
on
the
western
portion
of
the
site,
which
are
currently
prohibited
in
rm1,
approximately
585
square
feet
of
open
space
per
unit
on
the
western
portion
of
the
site,
where
3
000
square
feet
of
open
space
per
unit
are
required
at
an
far
of
approximately
1.02
on
the
Eastern
portion
of
the
site,
where
the
maximum
far
and
mu2
is
0.6.
AF
So,
as
we
kind
of
discussed
in
the
planning
board
hearing
a
summary
of
the
required
processes,
that
kind
of
represent
the
most
I
guess,
the
most
efficient
path
forward.
If
this
project
is
supported,
would
be
a
targeted
update
to
North
Boulder
subcommunity
plan
land
use
map
to
amend
the
underlying
language
designations
there.
AF
That
would
then
lead
to
a
Boulder,
Valley,
comprehensive
plan,
land
use
map
Amendment,
which
would
then
allow
for
a
rezoning
of
the
site
to
a
higher
intensity,
Zone
districts
that
would
allow
both
the
proposed
uses
and
the
far
and
overall
residential
density
and
then,
ultimately,
a
site
review
which
could
be
processed
concurrently
with
the
land
use
map
Amendment
and
the
rezoning,
as
I've
noted
here.
Three
out
of
four
of
these
required
processes
would
require
approval
of
an
ordinance
by
city
council.
AF
At
the
planning
board
hearing,
we
discussed
four
key
issues.
These
are
all
outlined
in
the
city
council.
Memo
first
key
issue
is,
would
would
planning
boards
support
either
changing
the
me2u
standards
or
potentially
rezoning
the
nb2
portion
of
the
site
to
allow
for
the
proposed
Museum
use
key
issue.
2
was
considering
Boulder
Valley
comp
plan
and
nobo
plan
goals
and
policies
with
the
planning
board,
support
a
land
use,
map,
change
and
or
a
rezoning
to
one
or
both
portions
of
the
site.
AF
Regarding
key
issue
number
one,
the
board
generally
expressed
support
for
the
proposed
Museum
use
and
supported
a
targeted
update
to
the
North
Boulder
Southern
community
plan
and
a
subsequent
Amendment
to
the
Boulder
Valley
comp
plan,
Landis
designation
on
the
site
to
facilitate
rezoning
of
the
property.
The
board
generally
did
not
feel
that
updating
the
youth
standards
in
the
land
use
code
to
accommodate
a
single
project
was
appropriate
and
preferred
a
broader
Community
feedback
driven
process
to
change
the
underlying
land
use
and
Associated
zoning.
AF
The
board
was
split
on
the
issue
whether
the
proposed
units
would
provide
market
rate,
affordability
and
some
expressed
interest
in
seeing
a
provision
of
on-site,
affordable
units.
Key
issue
number
three.
Generally
three
board
members
felt
it
was
consistent
with
the
bbcp
four
four
board.
Members
generally
agreed
that
it
was
to
be
determined
based
on
the
outcome
of
the
noble
Plan
update
and
the
final
project
plans
and
key
issue
number
four.
Generally:
the
board
liked
the
site
layout.
AF
So
for
next
steps
again,
the
applicant
has
requested
that
the
item
be
called
up
if
Council
votes
to
call
the
item
up,
public
hearing
will
be
scheduled
for
a
date
within
60
days
likely
June
1st,
a
public
hearing
will
be
held
for
Council
to
make
comments
and
provide
additional
feedback
to
the
applicant.
That
is
all
thank.
H
I'll
say
comment
than
my
response,
or
actually
no
I
do
would
like.
I
would
like
to
call
this
up
and
I'll
say
why
so
I'm
just
for
transparency,
I'm,
the
council
representative
on
the
B
mocha
board
and
just
sitting
in
on
those
meetings.
I'll
just
say
that
this
process
has
been
very
thoughtful,
very
intentional
and
really
in
line
with
what
I
think
was
really
some
of
that
core
intention.
H
20
some
years
ago
with
the
North
Boulder
sub
community
plan
in
the
North
Boulder
Arts
District,
this
seems
to
be
part
of
a
culmination
of
the
success
of
that
work
in
that
part
of
our
community.
So
we
have
some
challenges
to
work
through,
but
I
think
this
is
exactly
in
the
kind
of
direction
we
want
to
go
and
I
think
we
can
work
through
these
challenges.
AE
AE
Some
of
these
will
facilitate
the
the
private
sector
if
I
may
call
it
that
housing
and
and
other
and
Commercial
development
and
I'm,
asking
because
I
my
concern
is
that
we
don't
end
up
with
a
project
in
which
we
have
done
all
of
these
things
to
facilitate
a
museum
and
a
private
sector
development,
and
we
don't
end
up
with
the
museum
for
lack
of
fundraising
or
something
like
that.
So
are
they
tied
together?
Is
the
applicant
standing
behind
the
museum
or
are
they
simply
two
separate
entities
left
to
swim
on
their.
B
I
There
Danica
Powell
trestles
strategy
group
I'll,
take
a
first
blush
at
it,
and
Andrew
godimi,
who
is
the
property
owner
and
The
Joint
developer
with
bimoka,
is
in
the
zoom
land.
If
he
could
be
promoted,
he
could
probably
help
answer
this
question.
The
public-private
partnership
is
based
around
a
land
donation
to
the
museum
for
the
museum
site,
which
is
a
a
decent
value,
a
high
valuation
of
land
donation,
and
so
the
private
development
market
rate
development
would
help
fund
that
land
donation.
So
it
was
very
much
a
public-private
partnership.
I
I
M
G
Executive
director
and
chief
curator
for
the
boulder
Museum
of
Contemporary
Art,
the
only
thing
I
would
like
to
add
is
that
we
really
would
love
to
hear
your
feedback
and
we're
grateful
for
your
time
and
we
want
to
make
this
project
the
best.
We
have
started
fundraising.
The
total
integrated
Capital
campaign
right
now
is
somewhere
around
25
million
dollars
and
we
have
secured
30
of
that.
B
A
B
H
B
C
B
AA
AH
and
it's
worth
noting.
We
have
a
lot
of
very
different
approaches
to
affordable
housing
in
our
city.
We
have
a
lot
of
rental
stock.
We
have
800
units
or
800
homes
of
ownership
units,
many
are,
are
middle
income
and
each
each
approach
in
a
high
income
in
a
high
priced
City
takes
investment
by
the
city.
This
approach
that
you'll
be
hearing
tonight
is
no
different
than
that
and
I
I'll,
just
thank
our
former
Mayor
Sam,
Weaver
and
and
and
current
council
member
Bob
Yates.
AH
They
were
initiated
this
this
conversation
with
us
a
few
years
ago
and
the
the
middle
income
nut
is
hard
to
crack
and
takes
Innovation
and
creative
ideas.
We
don't
know
if
we
have
the
answer
tonight,
but
we
have
some
creative
ideas
and
we're
looking
forward
to
your
feedback,
so
Holly
Hendrickson
will
be
presenting
tonight
and
Jay
segnott
sitting
next
to
her,
we'll
also
be
supporting
the
conversation.
So
thank
you.
AJ
AI
This
this
brief
here
is
to
really
review
some
of
the
history.
In
the
background
of
this,
like
Kurt
said
it's
been
around
for
a
while,
so
we
want
to
just
ground
ground
ourselves
in
where
this
came
from
and
review
some
of
some
of
that
history.
We
also
want
to
review
some
of
the
details
of
this
unique
program.
It's
pretty
Innovative
and
we
want
to
kind
of
make
make
that
clear.
AI
So
so,
like
I,
said,
there's
this.
This
there's
been
a
quite
an
evolution
and
quite
a
history
of
this
pilot
program.
So
the
concept
was
developed
back
in
2016
2017.
in
2019
it
was
The,
Big
Year.
The
council
provided
there's
a
lot
of
research,
a
lot
of
time
put
in
by
staff
to
identify
ways
to
move
it
forward
than
Council
Council
in
2019
provided
Direction
on
some
of
those
mechanics
and
then
in
November
of
2019.
AI
There
was
a
ballot
initiative
to
fund
the
to
create
a
funding
mechanism
for
the
pilot
program
that
was
approved
by
voters,
so
we
were
all
set
to
go
but
of
course,
coveted
like
like
everything
else
it
put.
Covid
put
this
on
hold.
There
were
huge
changes
in
the
housing
market
and
economic
and
the
economy,
obviously,
and
so
early
or
sorry
mid
last
year,
work
was
restarted.
AI
AI
Expenses
when
we
talk
about
a
deed
restriction,
it's
this
permanent
deed
restriction
that
preserves
affordability
and
perpetuity
and
then
of
course,
area.
Median
income
is
a
huge
one
and
we
we
use.
We
we
utilized
a
lot
in
the
memo
and
for
in
2022
for
a
household
of
three
that
area.
Median
income
was
about
a
hundred
and
thirteen
thousand
dollars
all
right.
So
we
can
dive
into
the
specifics
now
that
we
have
everything
all
those
other
details
out
of
the
way.
AI
So
we
wanted
to
I
wanted
to
First
say
how
kind
of
unique
and
Innovative
this
program
is.
As
far
as
we
know,
there
isn't
another
model
like
this
out
there,
and
so
this
is
there
there.
This
is
a
quite
a
unique
and
Innovative
approach
to
middle-income
housing
and
it
combines
the
uniqueness
that
combines
these
two
components,
this
down
payment
assistance
and
the
permanent
deed
restriction
to
create
this
pilot
program.
AI
AI
So
the
bolded
text
here
on
the
slide
is
the
the
parameters
that
were
changed
from
2019
to
today.
So
I'll
highlight
some
of
those,
so
the
interest
on
that
down
payment
assistance
loan
is
at
zero
percent
for
the
the
household
getting
that
down
payment
assistance.
That's
at
zero
percent
repayment
is
due
at
15
years
or
when
the
home
is
sold,
and
then
this
final
bullet
is
a
pretty
big
change.
AI
Before
between
2019
and
today
and
in
the
original
pilot
concept,
there
was
no
cost
assumed
for
the
city,
but
in
this
new
iteration
the
city
would
bear
a
cost.
So
these
are
estimated
costs
here,
but
because
this
is
a
new
change,
a
new
cost
that
wasn't
contemplated
in
the
first
iteration
I'll,
just
kind
of
dive
into
some.
What
what
those
costs
assume
and
what
those
costs
outline.
AI
AI
These
costs
assume
we
kind
of
like
assumed
the
max
for
everything
we
assumed
a
Max,
250,
000
or
sorry.
Two
hundred
thousand
dollar
loan
over
that
Max
term
the
15-year
limit
at
these
different
interest
rates.
We
feel
we
wanted
to
kind
of
identify
what
those
maximum
costs
would
be.
The
kind
of
the
upper
end
of
that
cost
Spectrum
to
identify
what
that
upper
end
would
be
for
each
unit
brought
into
the
into
this
program,
and
so
the
natural
question
that
I
had
When
I
Was
preparing
this
was
well.
AI
How
does
that
compare
to
other
costs
of
bringing
in
other
middle
income
units
into
the
city's
portfolio?
So
in
this
table?
The
second
row
or
I'd
say
the
third
row
down
is
the
costs
that
are
brought
into
the
city's
portfolio
by
scatter
site
acquisition
for
these
middle
income
units
and
then
the
the
very
bottom
row
is
the
the
down
our
current,
the
city's
current
down
payment
assistance
program,
which
is
the
house
to
home
ownership
down
payment
program.
AI
So
now
we
can
transition
into
that
other
component,
the
deed
restriction
on
homes
purchased
and
the
program.
So
in
exchange
for
that
zero
percent
interest
down
payment
loan,
the
homeowner
also
agrees
to
make
their
home
permanently
affordable
through
a
deed
restriction.
That
limits
appreciation
that
appreciation
rate
is,
is
an
important
one
for
this
program
and
we'll
dive
into
that
in
the
next
few
slides.
AI
We
have
a
recommendation
on
how
that
can
be
determined
so
we'll
dive
into
that.
But
before
we
go
before
we
go
another
big
change
again
is
this
last
bullet
the
income
so
for
all
subsequent
and
second,
the
second
and
all
subsequent
home
buyers?
There's
no
income
qualification
requirement
to
purchase
the
home
so
that
first
homeowner
is
income
qualified
because
there's
a
down
payment
assistance
component
to
it,
but
all
subsequent
home
buyers
are
not
income
qualified.
AI
We
had
to
make
this
change
because
the
kind
of
no
matter
how
we
we
looked
at
it-
the
appreciation
growth,
just
simply
outpaced,
income,
growth,
and
so
in
order
to
keep
that
Home
Affordable
for
a
middle-income
household,
a
subsidy
would
be
an
ongoing
subsidy
would
be
required.
We've
done,
we
hired
a
consultant
last
year,
we
kind
of
we.
We
beat
this
one
over
and
over
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
make
it
work,
and
this
is
what
this
is,
what
we
came
out
with
so
back
to
that
appreciation
rate.
AI
So
this
appreciation
rate
you
know,
we've
worked
really
really
hard
to
figure
out
an
appreciation
rate
that
would
kind
of
serve
the
short
term
and
the
long
term.
So
there's
this
balancing
act
that
we
have
to.
We
have
to
figure
out
here,
so
the
the
appreciation
rate
has
to
serve
the
function
of
being
being
high
enough
for
that
first
household
to
repay
the
initial
down
payment
assistance.
AI
So
to
do
this,
you
know,
like
I
said
we
worked.
We
worked
quite
hard
to
figure
out
where,
where
this
balance
could
be,
we
utilize
the
10-year
average.
So
our
recommended
methodology
is
using
the
10-year
average
appreciation
rate
for
the
current
permanently
affordable
home
ownership
program,
that's
kind
of
where
we
started
in
terms
of
trying
to
model
out
how
this
can.
This
appreciation
rate
would
work
over
time
and
then
simply
we
we
use
that
as
a
Baseline
and
added
percentage
points
from
there
to
see
what
what
could
serve
those
two
functions.
AI
That
I
mentioned
before
low
enough
to
preserve
affordability
and
high
enough
for
some
kind
of
wealth,
Generations,
Equity
participation
incentive
in
exploring
and
exploring
this
and
modeling
out
modeling
that
out
over
the
long
term.
We
identified
this
option
too,
so
the
10-year
average
appreciation
rate
which
right
now
is
2.2
percent,
but
obviously,
since
it's
an
average,
it
might
change
and
then
adding
two
percent.
AI
AI
AI
This
graph
so
I'll
just
I'll,
just
wow,
sorry
that
was
cute,
so
this
graph
kind
of
shows
what
we're
trying
to
do
in
this
program
and
where
that
appreciation
rate
kind
of
lives
over
time.
So
this
rate
shows
that,
if
a
if
a
program,
if
a
house
was
brought
into
this
program
today,
how
where
it
would
be
in
terms
of
area
median
income,
affordability
in
15
years
and
in
30
years.
AI
So
I
will
say
that
that
kind
of
exceeds
those
those
area.
Median
income
exceeds
what
we
traditionally
think
as
affordability
in
terms
of
middle
income.
But
it's
this
middle
space
right
here
that
we're
really
trying
there's
this
huge
gap
between
our
current
offering
and
the
permanently
affordable
homeownership
program
and
where
the
market
is
going,
and
so
we're
trying
to
kind
of
you
know,
use
this
tool
to
fill
this
Gap.
AI
Now,
of
course,
I.
Should
you
know
quickly
note
that,
when
we're
looking
at
this
Gap,
that
market
rate
is
assumed
we're
assuming
a
7.5
appreciation
rate
which
has
been
which
has
you
know,
we've
just
projected
what
has
been
happening
over
time
and
we've
also
we're
also
assuming
an
area
median
income
growth
projected
over
kind
of
what
has
been
happening
recently.
AI
So
those
are
some
of
the
assumptions
but
I
think
the
big
takeaway
here
is
we're
really
trying
to
fill
that
Gap
in
terms
of
creating
this
pilot
program,
so
I'll
just
quickly
close
up
here
with
what
we
see
in
terms
of
next
steps.
So
you
know
given
the
green
light,
we
would
go
ahead
and
implement
this
program.
AI
AI
Do
we
change,
or
are
we
going
to
consider
refining
pilot
program
parameters
to
incentivize
participation,
kind
of
looking
at
that
participation
as
like
the
real
evaluation
in
the
short
term,
but
in
terms
of
measuring
success?
Because
this,
the
the
term
of
the
loan
is
15
years,
and
it
is
a
zero
percent
interest
loan.
AI
There
might
not
be
a
lot
of
incentive
for
a
homeowner
to
exit
to
refinance
to
sell
their
house,
and
so
it's
possible
that
we
won't
know
what
that
what
success
looks
like
in
terms
of
the
how
the
first
homeowner
exits
exits
the
pilot
program,
how
the
that
product?
How
that
house
looks
on
the
market
in
for
15
years
and,
of
course,
the
impact
on
the
city
finances
first
for
15
years.
AI
AI
B
A
A
B
D
Thanks
Aaron
and
thanks
Holly,
that
was
a
great
presentation.
I
know
that
staff
has
lived
with
this
for
a
really
really
long
time
and
I
really
appreciate
the
Persistence
of
Staff
as
you've
consulted
with
Realtors
and
bankers
and
consultants
and
experts,
and
look
at
programs
similar
programs
in
other
cities.
I
know
it's
been
many
many
years
that
you
all
have
worked
on
this
and
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
time.
A
lot
of
money
and
I'm
glad
that
we're
very,
very
close
to
launching
this
pilot
hope
we're
very
close
to
launching
this
pilot.
D
I'll
have
some
comments
later,
but
I
did
have
some
questions,
some,
some
of
which
are
things
I'm
still
not
quite
sure
about,
and
some
of
them
are
are
just
two.
Maybe
elicit
a
little
bit
more
clarification
on
on
the
memo
and
the
presentation,
four
or
five
questions.
If
you
know
minor
first
question
for
Holly
or
Jay,
could
you
explain
why
the
program
is
not
limited
to
first-time
homebuyers?
Some,
some
programs
in
some
cities
are
and
I
I,
think
there's
some
good
reason
for
that.
AI
AG
D
The
city
was
providing
either
interest
only
or
maybe
some
sort
of
payment
to
to
not
have
the
city
go
out
of
pocket
or
not
just
go
outside,
go
out
of
pocket
as
much,
but
the
program
has
shifted
so
that
there
is
actually
no
payment
of
interest
during
the
term
of
the
loan
and
then
the
loan
is
repaid
either
upon
the
sale
of
the
house
or
15
years.
Whichever
happens
first,
could
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
why
there's
no
payment
during
that
time.
AI
Yeah
so
we
we
spoke
to,
we
spoke
to
impact
Development,
Fund
who's,
a
community
development,
financial
institution
who
it
would
would
help,
administer
this
program,
and
they
basically
said
that
the
having
this
kind
of
dual
the
deed
restriction
and
a
a
loan
that
would
require
payments-
or
that
would
balloon
over
time
is
just
kind
of
a
no-go
for
a
big
financial
institutions.
And
so
there
was
really
no
way
around
requiring
that
interest.
Bearing
loan
and
having
financial
institutions
be
comfortable.
Lending.
D
D
The
because
the
city
would
be
paying
the
down
payment
assistance
and
would
be
holding
a
second
mortgage
or
saying
that
we've
been
advised
that
the
first
mortgage
lenders
would
not
be
happy
with
that.
They
they
want
to
be
in
first
position
and
they
want
to
make
sure
that
payments
go
into
them
and
there's
no
payments
coming
to
the
city
and
they
have
negative
amortization.
D
D
AI
A
C
Q
D
D
Okay,
just
a
couple
more
questions,
I
know
that
the
city
would
once
we
launched
this
pilot.
We
launched
this
pilot.
The
city
would
need
to
go
out
and
borrow
money,
which
is
the
very
question
we
presented
to
voters,
of
course
in
2020,
which
they
overwhelmingly
approve
D,
but
I
seem
to
recall
that
that
there
is
some
money,
some
kind
of
seed
money
that
we
have
kind
of
in
a
fund
that
might
be
repurposed
for
this
pilot
program,
at
least
for
the
first
few
loans.
D
AG
D
D
That's
great,
that's
super
and
just
I'm
gonna.
Ask
you,
especially
here
I
know
that
there's
a
measuring
periods
on
this
pilot
to
determine
whether
it's
a
success,
but
you
guys
have
any
like
any
feeling
like
if
you
got
like
three
houses
in
the
program,
five
thousand
program,
fifty
thousand
program
we're
like.
D
AI
No,
we
so
so
I
think
one
of
the
this
is
one
of
the
difficulties,
and
this
is
the
this
is
like
a
real
Innovation
and
how
you
know
the
down
payment,
indeed
deed,
restricted
home,
and
so
we
we
really
don't
have
a
good
idea
about
who,
what
the
uptake
in
terms
of
participation
would
be,
and
that's
kind
of
that
short
term.
If
there
isn't
any
we'd
have
to
really
go
back
and
take
a
harder
look
on
on
some
of
those
terms
to
figure
out
how
we
can
incentivize
the
program
a
bit
more.
B
B
AK
H
H
So
are
we
pulling
anything
that's
in
this
ballpark
of
what
we're
trying
to
Target
with
this
into
our
overall
deed
restriction,
deed,
restricted
portfolio
in
the
city,
so
I'm
just
kind
of
curious,
what
the
rolling
average
or
how
many
we've
pulled
in
over
a
bit
of
time,
because
that
might
be
a
baseline
from
expectation
if
we
pulled
in
one
and
we
can
pull
in
six,
then
we're
doing
pretty
well.
But
if
we
pulled
in
10
we're
only
getting
four,
maybe
it's
the
other
direction,
so
I'm
just
sort
of
curious.
AG
AL
AL
If
people
lose
their
jobs
or
need
to
work,
move
for
work
or
family
care,
or
something
like
that
and
they
duck
out
before
that
15-year
period
is
up
what
what
do
we?
What
do
we
do
if
they
don't
have
enough
appreciation
in
their
homes
to
pay
off
that
loan
so
say
that
somebody
gets
a
new
job
after
two
years
and
they're
making
120
Ami
they're,
not
somebody
that's
independently
wealthy
and
can
stay
in
their
spot.
What
what
happens
in
that
case
yeah.
AI
So
I
I'd,
say
first
I
would
say
that
when
we
were
kind
of
tinkering
with
these
numbers
and
modeling
some
of
the
Supreme
these
appreciation
rates,
we
did
keep
that
in
that
in
mind,
that
very
scenario
of
what.
If
that
exit
needs
to
happen
at
year,
one
and
with
the
appreciation
rate
that
we've
proposed,
we
feel
like
because
there's
this
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
potentially
of
the
city
down
payment
with
an
appreciation
rate
there's
a
buffer
there
that
exists
for
that
homeowner,
but
I.
AI
What
I
will
also
say,
which
is
something
we've
struggled
with,
and
when
we've
talked
to
lenders
and
a
lot
of
other
people
is
we
just?
There
is
a
level
of
risk,
that's
being
taken
by
both
the
city
and
the
homeowner
in
terms
of
it's
a
real
estate
transaction,
and
so
we
can't
remove
all
of
that
risk.
So
we,
by
by
kind
of
selecting
a
a
healthy
down
payment
assistance
and
by
really
making
sure
we
get
this
appreciation
rate
right.
We
feel
like
we're
providing
a
good
enough
safety
Network.
B
AL
A
AI
Or
the
whole
might
not
appreciate
it
a
hundred
thousand
dollars,
but
that
was
a
bump
in
the
purchasing
power
right.
So
you
were
able
to
purchase
a
home
that
was
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
more
and
assuming
that
that
appreciation
didn't
fall
by
a
hundred
thousand
dollars,
then
that
return
should
be
available.
Yep.
AL
Okay
got
it.
Thank
you,
okay,
that
helps
and
then
do
we
know
of
people
who
are
making
120
Ami
are
more
likely
to
have
to
move
for
jobs,
and
you
know
not
necessarily
have
control
over
when
they
may
leave.
I
mean
are,
they
is?
Is
that
you
know
so
I
heard
seven
years?
Is
that
number
any
different
for
folks
I.
AL
AI
AG
I
would
just
add
so
one
thing
that
we
did
back
in
2018
was
we
started
an
interest
list,
so
people
who
did
call
they
heard
about
it
or
they
voted
for
it
back
in
2019
we
took
their
email
and
address
and
you
know
have
been
trying
to
keep
track
with
them.
A
lot
of
them
have
moved
on
so
and
part
of
that's
a
challenge
right.
AG
It's
only
a
certain
segment
of
the
population
at
one
point
in
their
life
is
ready
to
go
out
and
look
for
a
home
to
buy
so,
if
they're
not
finding
what
they
can
find
in
Boulder.
Our
experience
with
other
surveys
and
discussions
is
a
lot
of
people
look
elsewhere.
They
look
outside
of
Boulder
lower
cost
communities.
A
AL
AJ
AL
B
AL
AI
I
I,
don't
so
I'm,
not
I.
I
can't
speak
to
have
whether
there's
a
more
accurate
or
more
like
locally
sourced
self-sufficiency.
The
only
the
only
thing
that
I
can
respond
to
I
think
which
I
made,
which
I
responded
with
is
in
terms
of
figuring
out
affordability.
We
in
terms
of
like
housing,
affordability.
We
don't
look
at
like
the
whole
budget
portfolio.
It's
really
that
the
30
rule
is
kind
of
the
rule
of
thumb
and
how
we
determine
affordability.
AI
AL
AL
AB
AI
A
AI
AG
AI
M
AB
AI
AM
AI
I
think
I
think
one
of
the
main
reasons
we
did
it
was
to
differentiate
this
this
program
and
to
kind
of
incentive
that
incentivize
that
participation
and
I
I
think
that
this
was
that
the
balancing
act
that
we're
talking
about,
we
need
to
figure
out
how
to
make
it
high
enough,
so
that
first
so
there's
there.
There
is
a
hook
for
people
to
participate
for
those
home
those
potential
homeowners
to
participate
and
to
be
able
to,
because
there's
this
down
payment
assistance
component
to
be
able
to
repay
that.
A
AB
H
So
in
our
conversations
about
this,
when
we
met
a
few
a
couple
months
ago,
one
of
the
pieces
of
this
journey
was
there's
trying
to
build
the
equity
of
scaffolding.
So
as
people
appreciate
and
they
sell
out,
they
maybe
have
enough
equity
to
move
up
the
ladder
and
get
a
different
house.
And
if
you
cap
it
too
low,
then
the
Gap
continues
and
they
they're
sort
of
they're
they're
stuck
against
the
ceiling
and.
H
Move
anywhere
in
our
housing
market
and
then
they're
pushed
out
anyway,
which
is
futile.
We
give
them
in
and
then
we
force
them
right
back
out.
So
we
wanted
to
create
enough
of
a
scaffolding
with
appreciation
so
that
they
could
stay
in
Boulder,
but
not
so
much
that
they're
at
Market
rates.
It
was
trying
to
find
that
that
sweet
spot
to
keep
folks
in
our
community.
AB
You
would
have
a
your
home
would
be
worth
1.5
million
after
15
years
and
then,
if
you
did
take
advantage
of
the
two
hundred
thousand
dollar
of
the
two
hundred
thousand
dollar
and
at
3.2
percent,
you
would
have
a
net
of
five
hundred
thousand
after
15
years
of
equity
on
the
property,
okay
and
then
option
three.
But
my
question
to
you:
3
3.2,
4.2
5.2,
which
one
would
someone.
AI
A
AI
AB
AN
Oh,
we
got
a
lot
of
takers
tonight,
so
I
think
that
the
4.2
is
good,
because
when
I
have
talked
to
some
friends
up
at
holiday,
they're
in
affordable
housing,
their
major
complaint
was
always
that
the
appreciation
was
too
low,
and
so
they
were
disappointed
that
they
took
advantage
of
the
affordable
housing,
even
though
they
couldn't
have
lived
here.
So
that
was
kind
of
interesting
to
me.
So
I
feel
like
this
is
a
good
place.
AN
Option
too
my
question
and
help
me
through
this
because
I'm
stuck
at
this
question,
so
the
person
can,
let's
say
the
person
is
right
in
that
Ami
where
they
can
buy
this
first
house,
then
they
decide
to
sell
it,
and
then
anybody
else
can
buy
it.
Anybody.
So
what
is
presented?
What
is
preventing
somebody
with
plenty
of
money,
lots
and
lots
of
money
to
say,
hey
I
need
a
house
from,
let's
assume
the
worst
of
human
greed.
Okay.
AN
So
what's
going
to
prevent
someone
from
saying,
I
need
a
house
for
my
kids:
it
doesn't
matter
who
cares
I'm
going
to
slap
down
five
hundred
thousand
dollars,
I,
don't
care
if
it
doesn't
appreciate
or
not.
What's
going
to
prevent
that,
so
we're
taking
we're
spending
a
lot
of
money
as
a
city
doing
this,
so
if
it
doesn't
do
that,
then
what's
it
for
yeah.
AI
Yeah,
so
this
is
a
great
question
and
this
is
a
a
worthy
concern.
I
think
so,
one
of
the
we
we've
talked
about
this
a
lot
internally
and
one
of
the
things
we
we
fell
to
was
the
idea
of,
if
you,
if
you
there's
two
things,
I
want
to
mention.
So
if
you
do
have,
if
you
can
compete
with
your
resources
in
the
regular
Market,
there's
not
a
lot
of
incentive
to
purchase
one
of
these
homes,
because
there
is
this
cap
on
appreciation.
AN
AG
AG
O
AE
D
I
I
think
the
answer
is:
is
no
that'll
it'll
be
up
at
the
borrower,
obviously
to
figure
out
their
own
tax
consequences,
but
obviously
you
don't
have
tax
consequences.
If
you
get
a
one
percent
or
two
percent
mortgage
I.
Suppose
a
lawyer
may
take
the
cautious
position
that
if
it's
both
below
Market
there
may
be
a
benefit,
that's
taxable
to
the
to
the
home
buyer,
but
it
obviously
would
only
be
the
difference
between
that
zero
percent.
D
AE
Picking
up
on
something
you,
you
said
a
little
earlier
and
by
the
way,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation.
It
was
really
really
quite
good
if
it's
it
is
going
to
be
owner
occupied
only
correct,
there's,
no
rental
possibility
we're
not
going
to
find
one
of
these
homes
as
an
Airbnb
at
any
point
in
time,.
AE
Okay,
yeah,
that's
that's
important.
Yes,
the
subsidy
that
we're
going
to
pay
is
going
to
be
a
number.
It's
going
to
be
three
million
five
million
10
million.
Depending
upon
how
large
the
program
is.
Are
we
looking
to
the
general
fund
to
to
pay
that,
or
are
we
going
to
bond
it?
Are
we
going
to
do
a
letter
of
credit.
AE
AE
That's
a
lot
of
affordable
housing
that
we
will
be
foregoing
for
these
subsidies.
When
you
look
at
the
leverage
that
BHP
uses
in
in
developing
housing,
that's
a
lot
of
housing
and
we
need
to
think
a
little
bit
about
that
trade-off.
I
think
as
we
move
forward,
because
10
million
dollars
could
be
a
hundred
units
of
middle
income,
housing
versus
a
lot
more
units
of
affordable
housing,
I'm
just
throwing
that
out
there
as
something
to
think
about
and
I
guess.
My
last
question
is.
AE
What
if
there
are
changes
to
the
financial
condition
of
the
resident
borrower
to
the
positive
they
suddenly
get
a
great
job
at
Google?
Assuming
anybody
gets
a
great
job
at
Google
these
days
now
they
are
occupying
a
house
that
that's
intended
for
Middle
income
residents
and
they
have
far
exceeded
the
Ami
requirements.
Do
we
have
any
kind
of
protection
on
that.
AG
AG
AE
AG
No
because
the
so
the
program
rules
same
as
our
current
program,
we're
trying
to
keep
them
as
close
as
possible
is
that
we
do
have
methods
for
making
sure
that
people
are
actually
living
in
the
home.
So
they
get
a
letter
every
year.
We
do
check
their
addresses
on
their
their
tax
records,
so
there
are
ways
and
if
there's
any
sort
of
Investigation
or
complaint,
that's
also
another
opportunity
where
we
look
at
that
and.
P
AC
B
AC
Why
didn't
we
do
30
years
like
if
we're
worried
that
people
won't
be
able
to
repay
it
10
you
know,
for
those
of
us
who
aren't
wealthy
and
I
had
to
refinance
like
you
know,
if
you
go
down
from
a
30
to
a
15
which
I
think
we're
saying,
people
would
assuming
that
their
salaries
haven't
gone
way
up.
That
might
be
a
mortgage
that
they
can't
afford.
So
one
question
is:
what's
wrong
with
30.
AC
AI
My
question
so
in
terms
of
extending
to
30
I
think
we
we
moved
from
the
10-year
to
the
15-year
upon
a
recommendation
from
Impact,
Development,
Fund
and
I.
Don't
think
we
really
contemplated
the
extending
out
the
this
this
out
to
30
and
I.
Don't
know
if
you
want
to
add
anything
to
this
but
I
when
I,
when
I
think
about
extending
it
out
to
30.
Since
there's
this,
the
city
is
absorbing
the
cost
of
this
down
payment
assistance.
I
that
seems
problematic
to
extend
that
out
for
30
years.
AI
AG
It
would
significantly
increase
our
costs
right,
so,
instead
of
paying
interest
over
15
years
at
the
most,
we
would
be
paying
up
to
30.
and
I.
Think
Holly
had
a
great
slide
that
showed,
or
maybe
it
was
in
the
memo
that
showed
what
typical
appreciation
my
house
would
have
at
15
years,
and
it
shows
that
they
could
very
easily
pay
back
through
appreciation
alone.
The
two
hundred
thousand
dollars.
A
AC
B
Thanks
for
chilling,
I
got
a
couple
of
be
quick
here
so
in
when
you
model
the
cost
to
the
city.
So
if
these
are
like
the
eight
first
eight
hundred
thousand
dollars
that
we
have
already
available
for
another
program,
we're
not
going
to
be
paying
interest
on
that
money
right.
So
is
this
like
an
opportunity
cost
to
the
city
of
the
loss
of
Interest?
We
would
have
gotten
if
we
had
not
used
it
for
this
program.
B
AG
AG
A
AG
B
B
But
thanks
thanks
for
clarifying
that
so
to
Mark's
earlier
question:
we're
not
using
the
affordable
housing
funds
to
pay
the
200
000
correct
down
payment,
we're
using
it
to
pay
the
interest
on
the
loan,
so
that's
actually
a
much
smaller
number
than
two
hundred
thousand
dollars.
Since
you
know
a
few
thousand
a
year
per
unit.
Thank.
B
B
M
B
Saw
your
graph
in
terms
of
the
numbers
start
to
get
away
from
you
right.
So
if
you
could
no
longer
income
restrict
120
and
have
it
work
out
for
them,
but
have
we
thought
about
in
continuing
to
Ami
restrict
but
at
a
somewhat
higher
number
right
so
like
as
as
time
goes
on?
Maybe
it's
the
140
or
150
Ami
instead
of
just
saying
you
know
what
anybody
can
buy
it.
Did
you
all
consider
that.
AG
We
did,
and
so
that
was
back
in
20
2018.
That
was
one
of
the
options
that
staff
presented
and
you
know
and
I
think
the
the
direction
from
Council
at
that
time
was
to
you
know,
based
the
idea
was,
we
would
still
keep
it
would
stay
at
120
for
subsequent
buyers,
but
since
we
found
that
we
couldn't
do
that,
it
seems
simpler
just
to
say
no
we're
not
going
to
require
it
for
subsequent
buyers.
AG
The
challenge
is,
it
all
depends
on
what
the
market
does
right
and
it's
going
to
be
challenging
to
try
to
predict
what
exact
percentage
is
going
to
be
available
for
future
buyers
which
may
limit
the
the
seller's
ability
or
the
person
that
owns
the
home
to
resell
that
home
in
the
future.
Does
that
make
sense
so.
H
A
B
Okay,
yeah
I
mean
well,
you
might
want
to
lock
in
the
terms
for
the
that
one
buyer,
but
for
the
next
buyer
you
could
change
the
terms
right,
and
the
last
thing
is
so.
You
presented
us
with
these
three
appreciation
rate
options,
and
you
made
good
cases
for
pros
and
cons
there,
but
there's
not
necessarily
a
magic
number
to
3.2
4.2
5.2
right,
because
they
there
there's
a
trade-off
between
the
appreciation
for
the
buyer
and
how
viable
it
is
for
them
versus
how
unaffordable
it
gets
to
other
people
over
time.
B
AI
AM
AI
AM
AI
AG
O
AM
AG
AG
AG
AI
What
would
for
the
so,
the
city's
down
payment
assistance
would
be
the
second
or
the
subordinate
loan
so
that
that
first
loan
would
get
repaid
off
in
any
kind
of
home
sell.
They
sell
their
home
that
first
loan
would
get
repaid
the
city
that
would
then
be
made
whole
and
then
the
if
possible.
It's
a
risk,
of
course,
that
the
city
absorbs
and
then
the
the
homeowner
would
gain
the
remainder.
AB
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
think
I
still
have
a
lot
of
questions,
but
I
won't
be
asking
them
right
now.
I
can
always
follow
up
with
you.
My
only
question
would
be
this
particular
pilot
program
as
designed
by
the
city
of
Boulder.
Are
there
any
see
other
cities
that
I've
implemented
a
similar
pilot
and
has
it
been
successful?
Thank
you.
AI
B
All
right
great
questions
now,
let's
move
to
answering
staff's
questions
for
us,
and
maybe
we
can
be
efficient
with
our
comments
as
the
power
continues
to
move
on.
So
should
the
city
pursue
this
pilot
program,
considering
these
program
changes
and
discounts
to
agree
with
the
staff
recommended
rate
of
appreciation
firms
in
the
pilot
I
just
encourage
people
to
Target
comments
at
both
of
these
out
so
who'd
like
to
start
Nicole.
AL
AL
AL
If
people
aren't
achieving
market
rate
appreciation,
their
chances
of
moving
to
another
home
in
Boulder
seem
minimal,
because
wage
increases
are
not
keeping
up
with
housing.
Cost
increases.
Many
Working
Families,
who
bought
homes
here,
40
or
50
years
ago,
have
since
sold
their
homes
at
Market
rates.
So
they
could
move
into
and
afford
a
retirement
community
here
in
Boulder.
AL
But
what
happens
to
people
who
can't
appreciate
at
market
rate
when
they
are
no
longer
able
to
live
independently,
mapping
out
the
costs
that
families
have
to
pay
every
month,
especially
if
they
have
child
care
costs
and
student
loans?
The
numbers
don't
work
out
for
me
and
it
doesn't
sit
well
with
me
to
put
any
of
our
City's
affordability
Solutions
on
the
backs
of
people
who
can't
afford
homes
here
to
me,
wealthy
homeowners
and
out
of
town
buyers
and
restricted
growth
policies
and
low
wages
have
caused
these
problems
that
we're
facing
and
I
don't
like.
AL
AL
So
I
would
like
to
point
number
two
I
would
really
like
to
let
people
appreciate
at
market
rate
and
I
understand
that
that's
at
odds
with
the
the
permanent
affordability,
but
what
if
we
gave
people
15
of
the
purchase
price
and
then
when
they
sell
the
home,
they
give
us
15
of
that
sale
value
when
they
leave.
It
won't
necessarily
keep
homes
affordable,
but
it
seems
a
much
more.
It
seems
much
more
fair
and
in
line
with
our
Equity
values,
I'd
like
to
see
lower
and
middle
income,
people
have
the
same
opportunity
to
build
wealth.
AL
I'm,
not
sure
it's
right
for
me
to
ask
this
from
others
who
have
less
wealth
than
I
do
so.
If
we
move
forward
with
this
pilot,
I
think
it's
absolutely
essential
that
we
talk
to
a
diverse
range
of
households
who
are
renting
and
making
120
Ami
before
we
get
started
just
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
going
to
do
more
harm
than
good.
Thank
you.
H
Aaron
well
so
the
voters
mandated
that
we
give
this
a
try
and
pilot
this.
So
I'm
going
to
say
yes
I'm,
going
to
stick
with
the
voters.
This
is
a
pilot
I
think
we
owe
it
to
try
this
and
see
what
works,
I,
think,
there's
a
commitment
to
throttle
and
adapt
to
the
changing
conditions,
the
needs
of
those
customers
and
residents
who
are
looking
to
do
this.
H
You
know
this
was
not
meant
to
be
a
silver
bullet.
It
works
for
some,
but
not
all
I
appreciate
the
spreadsheet
you
put
together
and
it
sort
of
shows
case
in
point
that
it
would
work
for
some
and
not
others.
What
it
really
shows
is
the
real
stressor
is
the
child
care
Factor.
So
maybe,
let's
have
a
conversation
about
child
care,
but
that's
independent
about
creating
a
scaffolded
approach
to
get
more
people
into
our
housing
market,
which
this
does
and
again,
if
we've
only
gotten
a
handful
over
the
last
two
years.
H
But
if
it
is
successful,
I'd
hate
for
us
to
Scuttle
it
before
we've,
given
it
a
chance
to
to
work,
we
have
800
000
that
we
can
give
this
a
try,
can
work
on
a
few
and
we
have
no
takers.
We
either
know
this
is
a
bad
project
or
it
needs
massive
tweaking.
So
I
think
we
owe
the
the
pilot
chance
for
success
and
not
sort
of
Think
Tank
our
way
through
this
we
got
to
just
sort
of
act
on
this.
A
H
Only
other
point
I'd
make
is
you
know
this
is
for
perhaps
people
wanting
to
move
away
from
renting
and
paying
someone
else's
equity
and
being
able
to
then
buy
into
their
own,
and
so
I
think
that
scaffolding
is
worth
a
try.
So
that's
my
my
point.
Number
one,
two
I
think
the
option
two
is
a
good
place
to
start
again,
as
was
committed.
We
can
throttle
that
if
we
realize
the
next
home
or
the
market
shifted,
maybe
we
need
to
change
that
number
for
the
subsequent
home
buyer.
AE
Just
one
comment:
Nicole
took
to
your
your
comment
about
the
differing
appreciation
rates.
Our
affordable
housing
is
very,
very
deeply
subsidized
through
City
funds
through
Equity
that's
raised
for
light
tech
programs
by
the
federal
government.
I
mean
the
the
left.
Level
of
subsidy
is
extremely
high,
much
higher
than
what
we're
providing
here
and
so
I
I.
Don't
know
that
there
is
that
I'm
dissatisfied
with
saying
on
our
affordable
housing
projects.
AE
This
is
the
trade.
This
is
the
trade
where
you're
going
to
get
to
live
in
Boulder
you're
going
to
live
in
a
beautifully
designed
Community,
but
we
need
to
keep
these
homes
permanently.
Affordable
and
two
percent
is,
is
what
the
deal
is
and
we've
had.
We've
heard
comments,
I've,
gotten
emails
from
people
who
said
if
I
had
known
this
20
years
ago,
I
I
wouldn't
have
you
know
I
would
have
bought
in
Louisville.
AE
But
it's
hard
for
me
to
believe
that
somebody
didn't
understand
the
implications
of
what
they
were
entering
into,
but
I
I
agree
with
Matt
it's
a
pilot.
We
we
see
how
it
works
and
we
adjust
I.
Don't
want
us
to
have
a
misapprehension
as
to
the
kind
of
housing
we're
going
to
be
putting
people
in
675
thousand
dollars
doesn't
buy
what
it
used
to
I
used
to
be
able
to
buy
a
rather
nice
home
in
Table
Mesa
for
that
money.
AE
Today
or
last
week
there
were
78
listings
in
the
MLS
for
homes,
675
000
or
less
only
two
of
them
were
single
family
homes.
Out
of
the
78.
62
of
the
78
were
under
100
under
a
thousand
square
feet,
and
only
six
of
them
were
three
bedrooms
so
in
in
terms
of
providing
family
housing.
I,
don't
think
this
is
going
to
necessarily
meet
our
objectives,
but
I'm
happy
to
try
it
because
it's
been
authorized
by
the
voters.
AE
D
We've
been
working
on
this
since
June
1
2016.,
that's
when
this
idea
was
first
half
by
our
former
mayor
Sam
Weaver
and
we've
been
working
on
this
for
almost
seven
years
now
and
City
staff
have
includes
consultation.
All
sorts
of
experts
has
tweaked
this
and
modified
it
and
approved
it
along
the
way.
So
I
really
complement
City
staffer
the
persistence
over
the
last
seven
years.
D
Anyone
who
is
opposed
to
launching
this
pilot
I
challenge
them
to
come
up
with
a
better
idea.
Nicole
mentioned
a
shared
appreciation
program.
We
actually
have
one
of
those
programs.
It's
called
the
H2O
program
and
Jay
can
tell
you
how
many
people
participate
in
that
program.
It
is
exactly
what
you
described.
Nicole
we've
had
that
for
many
many
years,
and
this
is
another
tool
in
the
toolbox.
D
As
far
as
the
4.2
percent,
it's
a
swag
where
I
think
we're
all
guessing
here
about
what
what
rate
is
high
enough
to
entice
people
to
participate
in
this,
but
not
so
high
as
to
make
that
house
ultimately
unaffordable
to
the
subsequent
buyers.
No
one
knows
that
that's
the
right
number
I
compliment
staff
for
taking
the
average
15
year,
10
or
15
year
average
on
on
the
other
program
and
adding
two
percent
to
it.
D
D
D
This
is
a
first
of
its
kind
of
program
in
the
country
and
so
we're
the
Pioneers
here
and
we're
guessing
that
four
four
is
the
right
number,
there's
only
one
way
to
find
out,
and
that
is
to
launch
it
at
four
and
see
where
we
go
and
we
can
always
adjust
the
number
of
subsequent
buyers
and
then,
finally,
with
respect
to
I.
Think
a
few
of
you
have
already
raised
this.
This
point
and
I
think
we
have
to
keep
Faith
with
our
voters.
D
Well,
let
me
just
read
a
small
portion
of
the
ballometer.
This
is
about
limitature
2i
in
2019,
so
so
three
and
a
half
years
ago
we
asked
the
voters.
This
question:
shall
city
of
Boulder
debt
be
increased
by
an
amount
not
to
exceed
10
million
dollars
without
raising
taxes,
to
provide
for
a
housing
assistance
program?
And
this
is
to
Nicole's
point
about
what
does
this
do
to
provide
for
a
housing
assistance
program
that
will
include
permanently
affordable
deed
restrictions
and
make
loans
to
middle-income
households
to
purchase
homes
sold
in
Boulder?
That
was
the
two-part
question.
D
D
Voters
said:
yes,
please
go
out
and
spend
up
to
10
million
dollars
to
do
that.
I,
don't
know
how
we
cannot
do
that.
We
haven't
moved
forward
since
that
was
approved
in
2019
because
of
covet,
and
that
was
a
good
reason
to
pause
that
for
a
couple
years,
but
we
are
out
of
good
reasons
and
I
think
if
we
don't
watch
this
program,
we're
going
to
have
70
percent
of
Voters
asking
us.
Why
are
you
guys
not
doing
it?
We
told
you
to
do
thanks.
AC
Thanks
for
that,
Bob
I
was
going
to
make
a
similar
point
about
the
the
voters
and
things
for
your
work
on
this
all
these
years
as
well.
Yeah
I
would
I
would
caution
us
not
to
be
tempted
to
move
goal
posts
when
they
were
established
by
the
voters,
and
this
is
on
our
work
plan.
So
you
know
this
is
this
is
like
massaging
something
that's
pretty
pretty
near
the
end
zone,
not
not
a
70-yard
line,
because
that
doesn't
exist,
but
a
two-yard
line,
so
I
I
favor
option.
AC
That
will
you
know,
even
if
it
is
to
tears,
worry
a
parent
buying
it
that
home
is
still
going
to
remain
affordable
or
for
its
lifetime,
and
that's
that's
to
the
good
to
to
get
some
homes
on
the
market
that
that
anyone
could
buy
I.
Think
it's
better
if
we
keep
it
available
to
to
people
who
really
need
it,
though
that's
all
I
got
thanks.
I'm
excited
to
roll
this
out.
B
Thanks
Rachel
I'll
call
myself
I'll
be
quick.
I
would
like
to
see
us
proceed
with
this.
The
voters
approved
it.
It's
an
Innovative
idea
that
I
think
is
worth
trying
and
we
certainly
have
not
solved
affordability
to
Middle
income
households.
The
need
is
very
great
in
that
sector
of
our
community,
so
I'd
love
to
see
the
see
us
give
this
a
try
and
then,
in
terms
of
the
recommended
rate
of
appreciation
I'm
just
going
to
throw
out
there.
B
If
people
don't
like
that
idea,
that's
fine,
but
I
would
like
to
see
us
come
back
to
exploring
the
idea
of
continuing
to
have
Ami
restrictions
for
subsequent
buyers
and
totally
get
that
they
will
need
to
be
higher
numbers.
But
I
would
still
like
to
see
those
Amis
those
income
qualification
for
subsequent
buyers.
B
AM
AM
I
still
understand
why
we
would
have
a
set
appreciation
rate
and
I
could
see
four
percent
making
sense.
I'm
gonna
support
Aaron's
motion
there,
but
I
would
like
to
see
that
for
the
affordable
housing
program
as
well
and
not
have
because
one
of
the
concerns
I
hear
is
people
not
understanding
the
variability
and
I
think
having
a
set
rate
would
actually
make
education.
AM
AN
I,
don't
care
which
percentage
404.2
is
fine
I.
Do,
though,
as
a
voter
who
voted
for
this
I
would
have.
If
you
would
have
said
in
the
question
on
the
ballot,
are
you
going
to
be
okay
with
there's,
you
know
anybody
being
able
to
buy
it.
Second
time,
I
probably
would
have
said.
No.
So
I
would
very
much
like
to
see
what
Aaron
proposed
some,
even
if
we
have
to
change
it
at
least
have
something
that
controls
you
know
the
next
buyer
and
making
sure
that
they
fit
in
that
income
break.
AN
AN
AB
AB
This
is
a
pilot,
and
maybe
this
is
an
opportunity
to
learn
and
also
again
we're
going
to
be
Pioneers
right
and
maybe
other
cities
can
ultimately
use
this
model
if
it
is
successful,
but
if
it
is
not
we'll
come
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
learn
from
it
and
I
do
agree
with
my
colleagues,
I
agree
with
Nicole
the
rate
difference
between
affordable
housing
and
the
middle
income.
It
feels
a
little
bit
off
it
it.
It
does
smell
that
you
know.
If
you
can
afford
a
more
expensive
house,
you
get
a
higher
rate.
AB
AB
About
the
option
to
and
going
lower
than,
four
four
percent
or
going
to
four
percent
instead
of
4.2
again,
because
we're
trying
to
help
community
members
to
get
into
homes
but
at
the
same
time
we're
putting
these
arbitrary
caps
that
also
limit
the
amount
of
equity
they'll
have
in
these
properties.
Knowing
this
is
how
you
build
generational
wealth,
so
I
think
that's
a
problem.
AB
Ultimately,
I
would
have
picked
option
three,
because
that's
what
would
give
them
that
better
chance
at
building
that
generational
wealth,
because
someone
can
buy
a
market
rate
and
then
at
the
end
they
come
out
with
1.5
million.
Yet
someone
who's
buying
through
this
particular
option
only
comes
out
with
six
seven
hundred
and
twenty
three
thousand.
So
again,
there
is
that
it's
a
bit
lopsided
But.
Ultimately,
I
am
a
yes
thank
you.
B
A
B
Staff
and
I'll
throw
mine
out
next
all
right
and
we
got
majority
support
there.
So
we'll
go
with
the
4.2
rate,
as
you
all
proposed,
and
then
I
generally
heard
support
for
the
idea
of
future
income
qualifications.
I'll
do
a
straw
poll
on
that.
How
many
people
would
like
some
form
of
future
income
qualification?
D
D
But
let
me
Jay-
and
anybody
else
can
ask
that
question
if
we
were
to
then
in
addition
to
that
say,
and
by
the
way,
Mr
Mrs,
Byer
or
Mr
Mr
buyer
whoever's,
the
homeowner,
you
can
only
sell
to
somebody
who's,
making
a
certain
amount
of
money,
and
so
they've
got
to
be
income
qualified.
Would
that
require
some
Administration
I?
Don't
know
who
administrates
that
I
guess
it
would
be
the
city?
Would
there
be
required
some
Administration?
D
So
when
that
buyer
wanted
to
go,
sell
their
house,
somebody,
presumably
us,
would
have
to
come
in,
be
a
party
to
that
new
transaction.
Many
many
years
down
the
road
and
do
the
same
income
qualification
for
the
second
and
third
and
fourth
of
the
fifth
virus,
to
make
sure
that
they
income
qualified
as
we
did
for
the
purse
and
so
we'd
have
to
kind
of
some
level
of
administration
around
that
and
I.
D
Presumably,
that
would
also
would
diminish
the
enthusiasm
of
a
buyer,
because
not
only
are
they
not
allowed
to
get
a
certain
amount
of
money,
or
only
a
certain
amount
of
money
for
the
house.
They'd
also
have
to
find
a
buyer
that
meet
that
income.
Qualification
are
those
two
assumptions
that
it
would
dampen
the
enthusiasm
and
we
require
ongoing
City
Administration
Fair.
AG
Yes,
I
would
I
would
agree
with
both
of
those
I
mean
that
that's
my
main
concern,
so
we
do
have
staff
that
can
income
and
asset
qualify
and
the
reason
it
works
well
with
the
current
program.
Is
that
there's
huge
demand
so
for
every
home
we
typically
have
anywhere
from
10
to
20
households
that
are
interested
with
this
program.
I
think
we
might
be
challenged
to
find
when
that
home
comes
up
for
resale
in
15
years
to
have
that
same
pool
of
applicants,
so
people
who
are
it'll
slow
down
the
transaction
process
as
well.
AG
If
they
have,
if
buyers
realize
they
find
this
house
that
they
want
to
purchase,
then
they
realize
they
need
to
go
to
the
city
and
get
income
and
asset
qualified.
They
have
to
provide
all
their
documentation
in
terms
of
how
much
do
they
earn,
what
are
all
their
assets.
So
it's
just
it's
an
administrative
burden,
not
just
for
the
city
but
for
the
future
buyer
as
well.
It
doesn't
mean
we
can't
do
it.
It's
certainly
feasible.
It's
just
I
think
you
is
something
to
keep
in
mind.
I.
AG
B
I
appreciate
the
question.
The
answer:
I
I
would
say
it
to
me
would
be
worth
it.
I
mean
we
do
it
for
the
low
and
moderate
income.
Affordable
and
people
make
it
work
out.
So
but
again,
like
you
say,
if
we
get
crickets
and
nobody
has
any
interest
in
applying
to
the
program,
we
can
ask
them
why
or
can't
ask
them
why
if
they
don't
apply,
but
if,
but
we
could
do
some
focus
groups
or
just
remove
it
if
nobody's
interested,
so
I
would
leave
it
as
it
stands.
AM
X
AG
A
AE
I
think
I
would
be
interested
in
in
that
as
well,
if
for
no
other
reason
than
administrative
convenience,
just
knowing
what
the
rate
is
and
not
having
to
do
averages
and
do
a
look
back
for
the
last
10
years,
it's
just
easier
set
the
rate.
Whatever
the
rate
is
going
to
be
I
think
we
should
simply
live
with
that
again.
B
B
B
B
It's
like
a
four
it's
a
close,
close
right,
so
I
guess
we
will
go
with
this.
The
staff
recommendation
of
the
two
percent
above
that
and
did
anybody
want
to
change
their
strap,
will
vote
on
the
future
limits
on
Ami
based
on
the
combo?
No
okay.
So
if
you
all
could
look
into
that,
please
and
and
we'd
look
forward
to
your
recommendations
on
the
best
way
to
do
something
like
that.
So
thanks
so
much
for
the
excellent
and
extraordinary
work.
D
So
it
sounded
like,
with
the
exception
of
the
income
qualification
for
the
subsequent
buyer,
a
majority
of
council
supported
staff
recommendation.
You
know,
I
think
I
heard
Holly
say
that
the
program
could
be
launched
within
a
month.
It
sounds
like
we're
sending
staff
back
to
look
at
the
income
qualification
for
the
second
buyer
and
tell
us
whether
it
works
or
not.
Are
we
asking
staff
to
do
that
and
then
come
back
to
Council
in
a
month
or
two,
and
then
we'll
have
this
discussion
again
and
decide
on
that
point
or
what
are
we
doing.
AG
AG
H
A
little
confused
are
we
saying
because
they
said
they
could
start
this
in
a
month.
So
are
we
saying,
go
ahead
and
start
this
a
month
or
hold
off
until
we
understand
what
we're
doing
for
the
subsequent
home
buyer?
That's
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
I
I'll
just
voice,
because
is
that
I
mean?
Is
that
what
you're
I'm?
What
are
we
asking.
B
AL
AC
I,
don't
know
that
I
would
pull
people
on
on
the
whole
program,
because
all
we're
looking
at
I
think
taking
back
to
staff
is
whether
you
know
impacts
the
the
next
home
buyer.
So
I
don't
know
how
people's
current
income
would
factor
into
that.
But
I
just
wanted
to
say
in
terms
of
whether
to
come
back
or
not
that
I'm
not
saying
I
I
for
sure
want
that
income
restriction.
If
it's
going
to
kill
the
program,
so
I
need
to
see
staff's
recommendation.
AC
I
think
before
I'd
be
comfortable,
saying
that
for
sure
we're
going
to
have
some
kind
of
limit
on
it,
because
I
think
the
staff
analysis
will
be
valuable,
so
I
don't
think
we
should
go
out
with
this
and
and
then
you
know
say
to
people-
and
you
know
after
they're,
halfway
through
the
process
and
we're
gonna,
you
know
change
your
expectation
in
terms
of
resale,
so
I
would
slow
down
by
a
month
get
the
information
we
need.
Bring
It
Back
make
that
decision
and
then
go
for
it.
AG
B
B
Put
together
some
some
suggestion,
a
proposal
that
could
they
could
check
back
in
with
us,
and
we
would
then
go
out
to
begin
the
program
after
checking
in
with
that
and
I
think
you
know,
if
there's
a
possibility
of
you
know
chatting
with
some
folks
in
the
meantime,
but
I
think
that
would
be
helpful,
but
I
think
it
would
probably
need
to
be
focused
around
the
Ami,
a
future
Ami
restriction,
because
I
think
we're
we
are
do
we
do
have
strong
interest
moving
forward
with
the
program.
So
can
we
work
with
that?
Thank
you.
B
C
AO
AO
Mr
Douglas
recommended
that
Council
consider
requesting
her
resignation
from
the
panel
and
if
she
refuses
that
Council
consider
removing
her
under
Boulder
Revised
Code,
section
2-3-1,
which
allows
Council
to
remove
a
board
or
commission
member
for
any
just
cause
next
slide,
please
the
recommendations
are
not
binding.
On
Council
Council
may
choose
to
follow
the
recommendations,
take
no
action
or
take
other
action,
as
Council
decides
next
slide.
Please
removal
requires
a
vote
of
counsel
similar
to
panel
appointments.
The
vote
can
be
done
on
the
consent
agenda.
AO
The
just
cause
found
by
Mr
Douglas
in
his
report
is
the
procedural
irregularity
of
not
exploring
bias
Prejudice
in
Conflict
as
a
part
of
the
public
interview
process,
no
conduct
complaints
have
been
brought
against
Miss
Sweeney
Marin,
and
the
removal
recommendation
is
not
based
on
her
performance
as
a
panel
member
next
slide.
Please.
AO
E
B
Path
forward,
so
Aaron
is
the
Deputy
City
attorney
or
to
the
city
attorney's
office,
so
I
understand
that
the
this
special
counsel's
recommendations
are
not
binding
right.
We
do
not
have
to
take
those,
but
do
you
feel
like
it
is
incumbent
upon
us
to
you
know,
decide
what
to
do
with
those
recommendations,
in
other
words
that
we
have
to
at
least
make
a
decision
about
what
to
do
with
them.
AO
B
Okay,
thanks
for
that,
so
folks,
I'm
going
to
well,
first
of
all
from
a
facilitation
standpoint.
I
would
like
for
us
tonight
so
we're
giving
direction
on
scheduling.
So
if
we
can
not
weigh
in
on
the
merits
of
the
recommendation
tonight,
but
instead
talk
about
when
we
might
schedule
a
time
when
we
would
discuss
the
merits
of
the
recommendation,
whether
to
follow
up
on
that
in
terms
of
our
scope
for
tonight,
and
so
one
one
potential
path
would
be
to
put
something
on
on
the
agenda
for
a
future
meeting.
B
That
would
give
us
the
different
options
of
paths
that
we
might
take.
So,
for
example,
we
could
have
something
on
a
consent
agenda
that
says
you
know
we
have
a
potential
for
a
motion
to
remove
Ms
Sweeney
Moran
from
the
panel
to
ask
for
her
recommendation
or
to
take
no
action
to
not
follow
the
council's
recommendations.
So
we
could
get
something
on
an
agenda
that
gave
us
those
Alternatives
say
these
are
three
Alternatives
that
we
could
consider
so
I'll
put
that
out
there
as
a
possibility
for
a
future
meeting.
Junior.
B
AB
How
do
I
put
it
it's
great
to
have
you
speak
here
to
be
here,
but
you
I
would
imagine.
There
are
certain
things
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
speak
to,
or
maybe
you
would,
but
ultimately,
I
would
rather
hear
it
through
the
council,
because
again,
this
is
a
contentious
issue.
Community
members
are
feeling
a
certain
way
by
on
either
side
by
the
decision,
or
the
recommendation.
I
think
hearing
from
the
special
counsel
himself
would
actually
lend
some
extra
credibility
to
the
process.
AO
If
I
can
respond
to
that
I
agree,
the
reason
special
counsel
was
appointed
was
because
a
possible
conflict
or
perception
of
conflict
with
the
city
attorney's
office.
So
we
have
not
investigated
his
investigation.
However,
he
is
retained
under
illegal
Services
agreement,
so
there
is
an
attorney
client
confidentiality
about
his
work,
so
One
path
forward
could
be
that
if
you
give
us
questions
for
him,
we
could
forward
that
and
then
respond
to
you
in
a
confidential
report
to
maintain
the
confidentiality
of
those
Communications.
AO
A
AB
It
would
be
great
to
have
him
again
we're
discussing
a
very
contentious
issue
and
if
we
have
to
make
a
decision
based
on
his
recommendation,
but
getting
some
extra
Clarity
I'm
happy
to
send
the
question
because
it
wouldn't
be
a
gotcha
but
to
share
the
questions
with
him.
But
having
him
here
to
respond
would
be
helpful
as
opposed
to
get
it
through
it,
an
extra
medium
who's,
Miss
Aaron.
Thank.
AO
You
I'd
like
to
make
one
possible
correction.
Under
his
Legal
Services
agreement.
There
was,
there
was
a
scope.
Part
of
the
scope
is
prosecution
of
any
complaint.
However,
I'm
not
sure
that
him
actually
coming
in
and
appearing
is
part
of
his
scope.
So
that's
something
that
we
would
want
to
check
to
make
sure
that
that's
something
he's
agreed
to
already
in
that
legal
services.
Agreement.
AO
B
A
AC
B
AM
AO
H
We'll
consider
that
one.
This
is
a
clarifying
question.
If
we're
asking
do,
we
want
to
remove
versus
seeking
resignation
only
and
then
the
other
do
no
action.
Two
of
those
three
options
are:
are
decisions
that
we
execute
in
that
moment
that
asking
for
resignation
isn't
because
then
we
need
a
response,
and
so
then
my.
H
The
process
from
there
is
it
answer
right
there
on
the
spot
or
then
do
we
have
a
period
in
which
we
wait
for
a
response
and
come
back
to
then.
If
it's
accepted
and
there's
a
resignation
we
move
forward.
If
not,
then
we
come
back
to
those
other
two
options
of
do
nothing
or
remove
I'm,
just
sort
of
wondering
the
other.
Two
are
self-explanatory.
That
middle
option
seems
like
there's
more
process
that
is
unknown.
AO
AO
That
could
be
something
you
decide
or
give
direction
to
each
other
tonight
to
do
that,
it
could
be
direction
to
staff,
to
please
draft
a
request
for
resignation
and
send
it
and
you
in
in
such
a
request
you
could
specify
we
would
like
to
know
by
such
and
such
a
date,
and
if
you
don't
hear
back
or
you
get
a
no,
then
you
could
proceed
with
scheduling
next
steps,
so
you
can
set.
You
can
set
the
timeline
on
that
option.
AL
AL
Another
couple
weeks
or
longer,
just
just
feels
like
a
hard
ask
for
the
community
and
I
also
appreciated
dooney's
suggestion
of
trying
to
get
some
clarity
from
the
special
investigator
as
well
so
anyway,
I
think
I'm,
probably
leaning
a
little
bit
more
toward
Lauren's
suggestion
tonight,
holding
out
that
we
could
still
get
the
special
investigator
here
to
answer
some
questions.
If
we
were
going
to
vote
at.
B
AL
AC
Couple
questions
we
received
I
think
a
request
from
Lisa's
attorney
to
refer
this
to
the
back
to
pop
for
consideration.
I'm,
not
saying
your
do
or
don't
want
to
do
that,
but
under
the
scenario
that
you've
set
out
Aaron
that
wouldn't
be
captured
right.
So
I'm
just
wanted
to
clarify
if
yours
is
maybe
limiting
other
possible
creative
options.
B
So
I
guess
I'm
suggesting
that
the
the
consent
item-
T
Up,
3
potential
kind
of
motion-
slash
path
forward,
but
we
would
not
be
restricted
to
those
three
really
I
mean
somebody
could
make
a
different
motion
to
take
a
different
path.
At
that
time.
You
just
have
to
have
something
on
consent
to
base
up
the
agenda
item
on.
AC
So
I
might
I
might
just
broaden
it
because
I
don't
know
what
I'm
going
to
hear
in
the
next
week
or
two
that
I
might
maybe
you
know
maybe
something
behind
door.
Five
that
I
haven't
thought
about,
and
there
are,
there
was
more
than
one
recommendation
we
may
agreed
apart
or
you
know
some,
but
not
all
of
the
recommendations,
so
just
want
to
make
sure
that
our
our
motion
captures
that
and
then
a
question
for
Aaron
Poe.
AC
AO
No,
the
the
ordinance
requires
this
report.
It's
been
received,
it's
been
made.
Public
Council
can
choose
not
to
follow
the
recommendations.
That's
there's
no
Prohibition
in
the
ordinance.
It
is
merely
a
recommendation.
It
would
still
be
out
there
for
others
to
consider
such
as
the
police
oversight
panel
themselves
in
how
that
they
are
also
able
to
suggest
removal
of
members.
AC
Okay,
I
guess
I'm
I'm,
maybe
just
thinking
more
broadly
I
have
I
have
and-
and
you
can
like,
throw
something
at
the
screen
if
I'm
overstepping,
because
I
know
that
this
is
you
know
legally
semi-dicey
but
I
have
concerns
about
if,
if
there's
a
finding
against
a
panel
member
of
conflict
of
interest,
that
would
call
into
question
impartiality
in
panels
that
she
was
a
part
of.
But
if,
if
we
reject
the
recommendation,
but
that's
still
on
the
record
and
can
be
pointed
to
I
would
have
ongoing
concerns.
AC
AO
I
want
to
clarify,
though,
that
the
code
of
conduct
complaints
are
not
against
the
panel
member.
They
are
against
the
appointment
process.
So
what
is
out
there
right
now
are
complaints
against
the
appointment
process.
The
special
counsel
in
his
report
acknowledge
that
there
is
a
requirement
of
recusal
by
a
panel
member
if
there
is
a
question,
a
reasonable
question
about
their
impartiality,
so
that
is
now
out
there
as
part
of
the
public
record,
so
that
maybe
a
factor
you
want
to
consider,
because
the
next
round
of
complaints
could
be
against
a
panel
member.
AE
I
actually
could
support
that
I
I
think
one
of
the
things
the
community
needs
at
this
point
is
certainty
we
need.
We
need
to
resolve
this
whatever
it
is
we're
going
to
do.
We've
heard
the
pros:
we've
heard
the
cons
we
have
a
voluminous
amount
of
testimonials
for
and
against
and
I
just
think
it
at
some
point.
You
need
to
get
to
resolution.
Whatever
that
resolution
is
going
to
look
like
and
having
it
can
kicking
the
can
down
the
road
and
not
grappling
with
the
the
tough
decision.
AE
I,
don't
know
if
that's
serving
anybody
very
well
other
than
perhaps
us,
because
we
we
get
to
go
a
couple
of
weeks
without
you
know
being
agitated,
but
I
I
do
think.
There's
a
value
at
some
point
to
saying
you
know
we're
put
in
the
position
of
deciding
we're
we're
deciding.
This
is
what
we're
deciding
and
and
that's
it
because
we
have
other
business
to
transact
a
lot
of
other
business
to
transact
and
I.
Just
think
we
need
to
move
forward.
AO
AJ
AE
Could
not
a
straw
poll
say
it's
not
effective,
we're
not
removing
anybody,
but
it
is
Our
intention
to
do
so
or
it
is
Our
intention
to
ask
for
resignation
or
it
is
Our
intention
to
not
act
at
all.
I'm,
not
I,
don't
understand
why
we
cannot
give
that
direction.
Even
if
it's
not
an
act
of
decisive
removal.
AO
AB
Thank
you,
I
have
a
question
because
I
feel
like
in
this
part
of
the
reason
why
I
was
like
I
wanted
to
hear
from
or
special
counsel,
because
you
only
give
us
two
three
options,
but
I
still
feel
based
on
what
Rachel
said,
there
is
a
fourth
option:
well,
I
suppose
that
would
be
doing
nothing,
but
can
we
send
it
back
to
the
pop
to
make
that
decision,
whether
that
she
should
resign
or
not,
as
opposed
to
us
doing
that,
based
on
what
I
hear
tonight
from
community
members?
That's
what
yes
go.
AO
B
D
Yeah
thanks
Aaron
I
just
want
to
go.
I
know
we're
trying
to
Grapple
with
the
process
here
so
I
try
to
stick
it
stick
to
process
here
and
I
want
to
go
back
to
your
original
proposal
of
three
different
choices.
I
I
think
I
I.
Think
Matt
was
right.
I
think
that
that's
not
really
three
choice,
I
mean
it
is
three
choices,
but
then
one
of
those
choices
is
out
of
our
hands
and
then
it
would
still
have
to
come
back
to
us.
If
the
answer
was
no
there's
no
response.
D
So
I
do
like
the
errands
I,
don't
know
the
suggestion,
but
her
observation
that
one
thing
we
could
do
we
could
even
do
it
tonight
is
take
a
straw
poll
ask
for
a
resignation
and
then
in
parallel
schedule.
This,
for
you
know
for
the
disposition
and
a
future
meeting,
maybe
as
soon
as
May,
4
and
and
then
we
would
presumably
hear
back
or
not,
as
the
case
may
be,
on
what
we
request
tonight
and
then
we're
really
down
to
two
questions.
Obviously,
if
there's
a
resignation,
then
it
becomes
mood.
D
But
if
there's
no
resignation
or
no
response,
then
it
really
comes
down
to
two
questions,
because
I
think
three
questions
ask
sometime
in
the
future
potentially
prolongs
this
for
quite
a
long
time
and
so
I
I
think
I'd
like
to
to
to
move
this
along.
If
we
could
so
that's
I
guess
where
I
would
be
I
to
two
questions
at
maybe
the
next
meeting
and
and
maybe
a
request
in
the
interim.
AM
To
complicate
things,
a
little
bit
more
I
can
think
of
another
option,
which
is
this
complaint
is
largely
around
the
appointment
process
and
so
to
me,
and
through
this
there's
also
come
up
the
issue
of
the
ordinance
itself,
and
so
there
is
another
option
which
would
be
to
sort
of
revoke.
All
of
these
appointments
update
the
ordinance
and
reappoint
again
with
ordinance
language
that
we
feel
like
we
can
more
solid.
You
know
that
takes
away
some
of
the
issues
that
we're
facing
right
now.
B
B
So
so
we
were
not
not
pinned
down
to
exactly
those
because,
like
you
say
it
could
be
about
asking
again.
I
I
will
just
say:
I
I,
like
Genie's
idea
about
asking
talking
to
the
special
counsel
like
I
I,
think
that
was
a
really
good
idea
and
so
I'm
going
to
continue
to
advocate
for
putting
this.
You
know
a
menu
of
options
on
consent
agenda.
B
A
AC
Struggle
tonight,
because
I'm
not
worried
about
that's,
not
how
I
will
be
voting,
because
I
I
believe
she's
she's
been
I'm,
pretty
clear
on
that
so
I'm
not
worried
about
Matt's
scenario,
where
we
have
to
kick
it
back
to
her
and
ask
her
to
resign,
because
that
just
seems
futile
to
me
but
I
I,
don't
know
what
the
value
is
in
in
straw.
Polling
stuff
tonight,
like
I,
have
pretty
serious
concerns
about
and
I
guess,
just
back
it
up.
AC
Maybe
a
little
bit
I
I
was
someone
Bob
and
Aaron
may
remember
me.
There,
like
I,
was
advocating
pretty
strongly
for
formation
of
the
police
oversight.
Panel
I
believed
in
the
work
I
think
it's
critical
and
I
I,
don't
think
I
want
us
to
pause
that
work,
so
I
would
be
real
concerned
about
that,
and
I
also
have
pretty
grave
concerns
about.
If
we
leave
someone
on
the
panel
who
has
this
you
know,
public
tag
of
of
somebody
has
suggested
that
she
had
a
conflict
of
interest.
AC
Is
that
will
that
impact
the
the
panels
work
so
like
I
kind
of
wanted?
None
of
the
above
I
I,
so
anyhow
I'm
not
ready
to
to
get
into
that
tonight,
because
I
feel,
like
I'm,
still
doing
research
and
trying
to
understand
what
the
ramifications
are,
but
so
I
guess
I'm,
saying
I'm
against
a
straw
poll
tonight,
I'm
I'm
happy
to
have
the
investigator
come,
although
I
will
caution,
you
know
as
an
attorney
and
someone
who
who's
at
Boulder,
City,
Council,
often
I'm,
not
sure
like.
AC
If
we
bring
someone
in
who's
already
being
pretty
castigated,
I
would
say
in
the
court
of
public
opinion.
Yeah
I
worry
about
the.
What
what
who
we're
gonna
get
next
so
just
to
be
mindful
of
like
you
know,
email
might
be
a
little
bit
better
because
that's
a
this
is
this
is
a
harsh
Arena
to
step
into.
If
you
haven't
signed
up
for
that,
thanks.
AO
B
AB
No
thank
you
for
that.
I
appreciate
it.
I
understand
your
response,
But,
ultimately
again,
because
this
is
a
contingency
issue
for
the
community
and
I
think
doing
the
two
by
twos
may
actually
give
community
members
other
Notions,
and
there
might
be
more
comments
about
how
the
process
is
unfair.
So
unless
he
cannot
meet
publicly
with
us,
you
see
what
I
mean
and
that's
the
only
option
But.
Ultimately,
the
idea
is
that
it
would
be
an
open.
AB
My
questions
might
be
questions
that
community
members
have
as
well
as
part
of
this
process
right.
Why
weren't,
for
instance,
all
the
panel
members
interviewed
you
might
have
that
answer,
but
ultimately
the
special
counsel
might
have
that
answer,
and
it
might
be
something
that
is
very
simple
as
to
why
right,
but
I,
don't
know
that
response
and
ultimately,
when
a
community
members
actually
asked
me
that
question
before
the
meeting,
it
did
kind
of
make
me
think
right,
so
I
think
just
having
and
it
would
be
best
as
well.
AB
B
B
A
AP
B
All
right,
that's
still
still
not
five.
Okay,
I
hear
you
so
that
I
I
had
a
a
proposal
on
the
table
to
start,
and
so
you
know
about
getting
something
on
consent,
with
a
menu
of
options
for
us
menu
of
actions.
For
us
to
consider,
I
would
say
the
May
4th
meeting.
So
I
was
going
to
straw
poll.
How
many
people
would
like
to
proceed
with
that
approach?
AL
AL
You're
asking
for
so
what
what
you're
saying
Aaron
is
that
basically
on
the
May
4th
consent
agenda,
there
will
be
an
item
that
has
the
options
that
were
presented
by
the
investigator
and
possibly
I
heard.
Somebody
say
there
will
be
an
other
option
there
as
well,
and
then,
when
we
vote
on
that
item,
we
would
basically
be
voting
for
which
of
the
options
we're
choosing
correct,
and
that
would
happen
on
May
4th
and
we
would
have
potentially
the
special
investigator
there
at
that
meeting
as
well
in
time
for
some
discussion
and
questions
there.
H
B
AN
B
B
AE
P
AO
H
My
only
concern
is
if
there
are
issues
that
our
attorney
client
and
confidentiality
that
we
ask
live
I'm
worried
about
that
sort
of
I
can't
answer
things.
So
my
deference
because
of
those
sensitivities
is
to
have
them
written
so
that
they
can
be
vetted
and
whether
or
not
they're
available
to
the
public
or
part
of
attorney
client
privilege.
AE
A
B
B
B
C
AQ
Okay,
so
good
evening,
Council
I
am
the
chief
policy
advisor
for
the
city,
manager's
office,
as
Maria
said,
and
I
want
to
mention
to
start
off
with
that.
I
am
joined
by
a
diverse
group
of
senior
staff
members
and
they
are
going
to
be
available
to
help
answer
any
questions
that
you
have
I
also
just
want
to
express
my
deep
gratitude
for
the
cross-departmental
effort.
That's
been
necessary
to
try
to
understand
this
bill,
I
mean
it's
been
planning,
housing,
Transportation
utilities,
city
attorney's
office
and,
of
course,
the
city
manager's
office.
AQ
AQ
So
I'm
going
to
stick
to
just
the
recommendations
that
the
intergovernmental
Affairs
committee
has
made,
but
I
think
you
all
need
some
context.
So
one
of
the
questions
just
a
reminder.
What's
this
bill
about
well
I
made
this
word
cloud.
The
first
word
cloud
I've
ever
put
together
and
involved
in
Excel,
spreadsheet
and
tabulating
the
number
of
times
each
one
of
these
words
was
appeared
in
the
original
bill.
AQ
Senate
Bill,
23
213
was
introduced
in
the
Senate
on
March
22nd
Council
of
intergovernmental
Affairs
committee,
reviewed
the
bill
and
adopted
a
recommendation
of
support
while
seeking
amendments
that
was
on
April
5th
April
18th.
It
passed
the
Senate
local
government
housing
committee
with
amendments
that
was
a
late
night
on
Tuesday,
and
so
today
your
charge
is
to
have
a
discussion
about
the
committee's
recommendations.
AQ
Now
I
did
say
here
that
it's
scheduled
to
be
heard
in
Appropriations,
but
I've
heard
that
it's
going
to
be
delayed
until
Monday,
so
you
can
strike
that
last
part
of
it.
But
the
very
last
item
is
the
recognition
that
things
are
going
to
be
moving
quickly.
The
general
assembly
has
to
adjourn
by
May,
8th
and
so
one
way
or
another.
There
will
be
a
resolution
to
the
bill
by
then.
AQ
This
is
just
a
depiction
of
the
nine
recommendations
that
were
made
I'm
not
going
to
read
through
them
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
walk
through
them,
one
by
one
but
again
and
for
purposes
of
the
public.
The
committee
said
that
they
would
they
recommended
supporting
the
bill
and
they
recommended
seeking
these
nine
amendments
to
the
bill
and
they
had
a
rationale
for
each
one
of
them.
I
won't
go
into
those
unless
you
ask
me
to
go
into
them
as
I
talk
about
these
recommendations.
B
AQ
Okay,
great
so,
by
way
of
background,
the
bill
recognized
that
some
development
may
be
limited
because
of
water
infrastructure
challenges,
water
supply,
water
infrastructure,
so
it
originally
was
introduced
to
allow
a
city
to
apply
for
an
exemption
or
an
extension
and
we'll
we'll
leave
it
at
that
and
and
the
department
of
local
Affairs
could
reject
that
application.
In
recognition
of
that,
the
committee
said
that
they
had
concerns
that
there
needed
to
be
more
assistance
and
perhaps
more
resources
for
cities
to
make
such
a
difficult
application.
AQ
The
bill
was
admended,
however,
in
a
substantial
way
that
has
addressed
the
concerns
of
our
water
rights
attorney
and
water
utilities.
Folks
immediately
requires
a
notification
of
deficiencies
or
anticipated
deficiencies,
so
with
that
it
gets
a
check
mark
which
basically
means
that
is
staff's
interpretation,
that
the
committee's
concerns
and
requests
was
were
met.
You
all,
of
course,
can
revisit
that,
but
that
that's
what
I
wanted
to
just
indicate
we
will
be
putting
check
marks
where
we
think
the
request
was
met.
AQ
The
context
for
the
next
request
for
amendments
has
to
do
with
the
accessory
dwelling
units.
The
bill
as
introduced
would
allow
adus
within
to
be
built
as
a
use
by
right
and
existing
residential
areas
and
initially
required
adus
to
be
allowed,
the
greater
of
800
square
feet
or
50
percent
of
the
size
of
primary
residents.
Primary
residences
and
well
I
won't
go
into
the
concerns
there,
but
I'll
just
mention
that
it
also
prohibits,
prohibits
additional
off-street
parking
requirements
and
prohibits
owner
occupancy
requirements.
AQ
So
the
integriminal
Affairs
committee
was
concerned
that,
right
now
the
city
has
the
ability
to
allow
for
a
larger
Adu
in
exchange
for
a
commitment
of
affordability
and
did
not
want
that
to
be
taken
away.
So
they
asked
for
either
the
ability
to
allow
for
larger
sizes
contingent,
upon
an
affordability
commitment
or
for
parking
additional
parking
to
be
allowed
in
exchange
for
or
actually
I
should
say,
the
lack
of
need
of
requiring
a
parking.
AQ
So
this
request
was
met
in
our
interpretation,
because
now
the
the
bill
has
been
drafted
revised
to
specify
that
a
lease
in
the
area
between
500
square
feet
and
800
square
feet.
Cities
have
to
approve
adus,
but
they
can
certainly
go
beyond
that
and
they
can
continue.
They
could
make
it
contingent
upon
whatever
requirements
they
want,
including
necessitating
affordable
affordability
requirements.
AQ
AQ
That
last
part
is
pretty
important,
because
that
has
since
been
changed,
so,
whereas
middle
housing
would
have
been
required,
Citywide
in
all
single
family
residential
zones,
now
it's
been
amended
so
that
it
has
to
be
the
greater
of
the
total
area
of
land
in
which
single
unit
detached
drawings
are
allowed
as
a
use
by
right
within
the
city.
That
is
a
key
Corridor
and
that's
a
concept
that
I'll
talk
about
a
little
bit.
AQ
Another
amendment
that
was
made
was
had
to
do
with
making
sure
that,
yes,
the
city
will
be
required
to
allow
for
additional
units,
but
that
this,
the
committee
was
concerned
that
they
wanted
to
be
able
to
maintain
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
so
that,
even
though
a
structure
a
residence
may
have
more
people
in
it
or
more
units
from
the
exterior
from
a
bulk
and
height
and
floor
area
perspective,
it
would
be
the
same.
So
if
you
know
the
best
example,
perhaps
is
the
compatible
development
regulations
that
I
know
are
very
important
to
our
community.
AQ
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
was
nothing
that
would
preempt
them
and
require
us
to
allow
for
developments
that
are
go
beyond
what
we'd
otherwise
would
allow
for
a
single
family
homes,
and
the
bill
was
amended
to
allow
just
that.
So
all
the
all
the
requirements
that
have
to
do
would
form
in
bulk
in
the
bill.
Essentially
we're
saying
as
long
as
you
don't
make
them
any
more
stringent
than
you
make
them
for
single
family
units.
Then
then
that's
fine!
You
just
can't
make
it
more
stringent.
AQ
AQ
The
committee
recognized
that
there
may
be
situations
where
we
reach
a
certain
threshold
in
additional
units
where
additional
parking
should
be
required,
so
they
they
ask
that
the
bill
be
amended
to
allow
for
additional
parking
in
some
situations,
and
the
bill
was
amended
to
strike
the
prohibition
on
no
new
parking
to
instead
say
that
for
every
additional
unit
a
city
can
require
up
to
half
a
parking
space.
So
basically,
if
there's
two
new
units,
a
full
parking
space
could
be
required.
AQ
AQ
So
the
committee
took
this
information
and
they
said
that
what
they
would
request
is
a
change
that
would
allow
the
city
to
determine
where
along
the
corridor,
where,
along
the
key
corridors,
that
additional
density
had
to
be
added
and
the
bill
was
in
fact
amended
to
do
just
that.
So
now
what
it
requires
is
that
a
city,
a
lot
rezone
the
lands
and
the
parcels
within
the
corridor.
These
key
corridors
is
such
a
way
that,
on
average,
the
zoning
allows
for
25
percent.
AQ
Of
that,
if
you
this
is
difficult
for
me
to
actually
communicate,
but
on
average
that
area
has
to
equal
25
percent
dwelling
units
per
acre.
So
we
can
talk
more
about
that
as
needed,
but
essentially
that
allows
for
our
city
to
decide.
Well,
you
know
sure
this
key
Corridor
goes
in
this
area,
but
in
fact
we
know
that's
far
from
commercial
areas,
so
we
wouldn't
want
to
put
the
increased
density
there.
AQ
The
seventh
request
was
to
the
seventh
and
eighth
requests
were
basically
asking
for
some
clarifications
on
what
was
meant
by
fixed
rail
by
brt
by
local,
high
frequency
Transit.
We
had
some
questions
about
what
each
one
was
the
mean
and
the
bill
was
amended
to
clarify
what
brt
is
what
commuter
bus
brt
is
what
Urban
brt
is,
and
urban
brt
is
the
one
that
would
apply
to
us.
AQ
AQ
It
did
clarify
as
well
that
you
know
so
you
know
what
is
a
high
frequency
bus
route,
it's
one
that,
during
certain
times
of
the
day,
stops
at
least
within
15
minutes
or
more
frequently,
so
that
was
clarified
and
because
of
that
it
gets
a
check
mark.
So
here's
the
last
one
that
does
not
get
a
check
mark
and
a
significant
one,
of
course.
AQ
So
what
the
bill
would
do
is
prohibit
cities
from
using
familial
relationships
as
a
standard
for
determining
occupancy
limits,
and
the
net
result
of
that
is
that
we
could
still
rely
on
other
things,
such
as
the
number
of
rooms
or
number
of
the
floor
area
or
other
health
and
safety
standards.
You
know
it's
basically,
basically
there's
if
there's
other
ways
to
measure
what
endangers
health
and
safety.
That
could
be
another
way
that
the
cities
could
limit
the
number
of
people
in
homes.
AQ
So
this
was
not
a
request
that
was
met.
There
was
no
amendment
that
spoke
towards
this
at
all,
so
that
gets
an
X
and
with
that
fortunately,
I
am
done,
and
so
staff
has
no
no
recommendations
for
you.
We've
really
wanted
to
just
tee
this
up
for
you.
We
are
happy
just
to
before
you
start
having
your
conversation
about
where
to
go
with
this
answer,
any
clarifying
questions
that
you
may
have,
but
otherwise
we're
hoping
that
this
is
a
conversation
that
all
of
you
can
have.
B
AM
AM
My
clarifying
question
is
around
Number
issue
number
six,
which
we
have
so
along
those
Transit
corridors,
Within
a
quarter
mile.
We
have
the
minimum
of
25
dwelling
units
per
acre
and
then
that
is
along
25
or
that
is
for
25
of
the
parcels,
or
is
that
you
can
readjust
that,
so
it
would
be
a
hundred
dwelling
units
for
25
percent.
AK
Sure
I'm
happy
to
Christmas
check
in
the
city,
manager's
office
and
part
of
this
is
between
the
between
the
committee's
conversation
and
tonight,
and
it
was
Tuesday
night.
The
bill
was
pretty
significantly
amended
as
it
relates
to
key
corridors
and
middle
housing,
and
essentially
those
used
to
be
two
separate
legislative
sections.
They've
now
been
combined
together
and
how
you
calculate
how
much
middle
housing
would
be
required
and
how
you
calculate
how
much
multi-family
housing
would
be
allowed
or
required
in
key
corridors
is
now
in
the
same
section.
So
how
you
calculate
it?
AK
What
percentage
has
all
kind
of
changed
in
in
the
way
that
the
bill
Works,
but
essentially
for
within
key
corridors
for
multi-family
housing?
That
would
have
to
be
a
minimum
of
25
dwelling
units
per
acre?
You
have
two
choices
for
how
you
essentially
determine
how
much
of
your
city
needs
to
be
zoned
to
allow
that
sort
of
development
and
then
based
on
whatever
that
answer
is
of
how
much
land
area
would
need
to
be
zoned.
AQ
I
try
to
fall
out
there
because,
because
again,
we're
talking
about
two
different
concepts.
One
of
them
is
the
increased
density,
that's
required
in
key
corridors
and
then
there's
a
separate
concept
as
Chris
was
speaking
about
about
middle
housing
and
middle
housing
being
defined
up
to
allowing
up
to
four
cruxes
the
density
part,
the
it
must
average
25
percent
in
total,
along
all
the
parcels
along
the
community.
AQ
That's
based
on
a
parcel
basis,
so
in
other
words,
if
you
have
10
Parcels,
2.5
of
them
would
have
to
be
either
either
you
break
up
among
all
of
them
or
you
have
ADD,
have
additional
density
in
other
parts
of
them
just
so
that
on
the
average,
you
would
look
at
all
those
parcels
and
say
on
average.
The
density
of
those
of
all
those
Parcels
is
25
units
dwelling
units
per
acre
across.
AQ
AM
AC
I
just
got
to
to
spinning
my
chair.
I
forgot
it's
even
up
here.
That's
the
problem
with
covet
isolating
so
two
questions.
One
is
about
the
plexus
like
the
four
Plex
duplex
Triplex
quad
Plex
side
slide,
and
you
said
that
they
they
changed
it
to
or
I,
think
quad,
quad,
plexes
and
30
of
our
otherwise
single
family
home
zoned
Lots
did
I
get
that
right
is
one
of
the
options.
AK
Yeah
Rachel,
this
is
Chris.
The
the
middle
housing
is
now
up
to
four
units
rather
than
up
to
six
and
then
to
determine
how
much
of
your
city
would
have
to
have
middle
housing
again,
it
starts
with
looking
at
your
key
corridors,
and
then
there
are
two
ways
to
calculate
how
much
land
area
of
the
city
would
need
to
allow
middle
housing,
and
so
we'd
need
to
kind
of
look.
Is
it?
AK
AK
AC
That
thank
you
make
sense,
yeah,
that's
what
I
thought!
I
I
think
that's
I!
Think!
Yes,
it
makes
sense
and
let's
say
that
I
don't
love.
It
and
I'd
prefer
to
see
a
hundred
percent
of
lots
eligible
for
duplex,
not
Triplex,
but
duplex,
say
and
I.
Haven't
you
know
about
half
a
council
hasn't
had
a
chance
to
to
weigh
in
yet
can
and
is
this
a
space
where
I
could
say:
I'd
I'd
rather
us
now
advocate
for
duplex
at
100
over
I'll.
Take
that
30
with
quad
plexus.
AQ
O
AQ
Happening
is
the
bill
is
being
rolled
back.
That's
not
that
that's
intentional.
That
was
that
was
part
of
the
strategy
all
along
by
the
sponsor,
it's
a
recognition
of
like
here's,
the
big
plan,
and
then
you
know,
what's
going
to
work
for
everybody.
So
in
response
to
your
your
question,
council
member
friend
I
am
certain
that
the
rollback
from
100
to
30
percent
of
the
total
land,
while
it
might
create
more
challenges
or
why?
AQ
Well
while
it
may
not
be
something
that
this
the
majority
of
discounts
would
want,
it's
probably
what
was
necessary
to
secure
a
vote
or
more
so
I,
I
guess
what
I
would
encourage
you
not
to
spend
too
much
time.
Thinking
about
how
you
know,
perhaps
you
might
have
wanted
the
bill
to
be
as
strong
as
it
was
originally
well.
AC
AQ
Right
right,
and
certainly
you
and
Council,
were
going
to
come,
come
up
with
any
recognition.
You'd
like
I.
Think
the
one
caution,
I
might
say
is:
if
we're
going
Beyond,
it's
one
thing
for
us
to
say
roll
back
things,
but
it's
perhaps
a
little
bit
more
challenging,
especially
for
conditioning
or
support
upon
a
request
that
we're
making.
If
we're
introducing,
perhaps
a
new
concept
or
a
new
approach,
so
I
think
that
may
be.
The
challenge
doesn't
mean
we
can't
do
it,
but
I
do
think.
AC
AC
AQ
We
are
invited
to
that
I
think
I
know
that
we
are
the
only
ones
that,
as
a
city
are
expected
to
or
on
our
way
to
supporting
it
with
whether
without
amendments
and
we're
the
only
ones
that
adopted
a
policy
statement
that
would
put
us
in
that
direction,
but
individually,
there's
a
lot
of
cities
that
are
have
Representatives
at
the
table.
I
will
also
say
that
we
we've
been
told
that
we've
been
the
most
productive
one
there.
AQ
AC
AM
The
support
with
amendments
is
because
I,
you
know
in
General,
Counsel,
had
sort
of
signaled
support
for
this
and
trying
to
determine
which
one
of
these
things
is
completely
a
deal.
Breaker
to
our
support,
I
think
would
have
been
probably
beyond
the
scope
of
just
the
intergovernmental
Affairs
committee
and
would
have
to
be
something
that
we
would
look
at
as
a
whole
Council,
because
there's
not
it's
a
harder
calculation
to
make.
AQ
AJ
AQ
If
that
equals,
the
order
of
this
is
all
the
area
in
the
key
Corridor
or
30
of
your
total
land
within
the
city
that
is
zoned
for
single
family
residents
or
that
allows
at
least
single
family
residences.
Whichever
is
greater,
so
that's
a
very
clunky
way
to
design
it,
but
another
way
of
looking
at
it.
AQ
Is
you
know
if
your
key
Corridor,
equal
30
of
the
land
in
your
city,
then
it
would
basically
say
put
it
all
there,
but
a
lot
of
cities
don't
have
enough
key
Corridor
key
corridors
so
that
they
would
have
to
go
beyond
the
the
area.
So
I
can't
really
defend
the
logic
about
how
they
chose
that
and
I've
recognize
that
it's
difficult
to
wrap
your
mind
around.
AN
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
That's
number
number
two,
whichever
number
is
greater
one
or
two
is
the
number
you
go
with
to
determine
how
much
of
your
city
needs
to
be
zoned
for
that.
For
us,
the
amount
of
land
area
contained
within
the
buffers
of
key
corridors
is
the
greater
number,
because
we
have
so
many
key
corridors
that
have
bus
service
that
hits
at
least
15
minute
service.
At
one
point
in
time,.
AL
AL
Glad
you
clarified
that
Tara
I
just
want
to
mention
at
the
Dr
Cog
meeting
last
night.
They
were
working
on
a
story
map
for
this
bill
to
try
to
map
out
exactly
how
different
areas
would
be
affected,
and
it's
not
fully
finished
yet
Doug
Rex
promised
us
he'd,
send
us
a
note
as
soon
as
it
was,
but
what
they're?
What
they're
trying
to
do.
Tara
is
exactly
what
you
asked
for
to
kind
of
map
onto
these
municipalities
and
areas.
What
are
we
talking
about
when
we're
talking
about
key
corridors
right?
AL
H
Thanks
for
that
and
just
to
colloquy
and
since
you're
talking
about
map,
we
had
an
orig
staff
produced
original
map.
That
was
really
helpful.
So
maybe
that
is
this
pre-work
heading
towards
delivering
something
like
that
for
us
to
then
visualize
that
I,
just
if
we're
talking
Maps
what
you
did
before
was
great,
so
I'd
love
to
see
an
updated
one
with
this,
if
that's
not
all
doable
but
except,
but
it's
just
along
those
lines
but
to
Tara's
point.
H
If
we're
using
key
corridors
and
that's
the
greater
number,
does
that
then
intrinsically
exclude
some
of
our
single
family
neighborhoods
from
being
forced
or
or
having
a
requirement
to
need
to
put
in
duplexes,
triplexes
and
quad
plexus,
because
the
the
key
corridors
is
the
greater
does.
It
creates
some
exclusions
in
our
community
that
then
aren't
bound
to
the
this
new
law.
Is
that
is
that
a
way
of
interpreting
that
versus
it
being
wholesale
over
all
single
family
zoning?
H
H
AL
AL
Brad-
and
my
question
is
just
around
you
know
as
as
we're
thinking
about
this
bill
and
and
trying
to
understand
what
these
sorts
of
changes
would
look
like
in
our
community.
In
my
mind,
what
I
Envision
is
the
East
Boulder
sub
community
plan,
some
of
the
areas
along
North
Broadway,
that
are,
you,
know,
being
built
out
a
little
bit
more
kind
of
these
areas
along
Transit
corridors
and
and
I
guess.
My
question
is:
what
would
what
would
this
bill?
AR
AP
I
think
it'd
be
beneficial
for
all
of
us
to
weigh
in
on
this
a
little
bit,
but
my
my
answer
to
that
would
be
that
the
geographies
would
change.
So
we
we
know
already
that
we've
got
refined
planning
processes
in
many
cases
that
speak
to
densification
in
places
such
as
the
one
she
mentioned,
East
Boulder
and
such
as
we
did
the
overlay
relative
to
key
corridors,
assuming
that
remains
the
greater
of
and
the
bill
moves
forward.
As
currently
proposed.
AP
It
may
prompt
other
types
of
planning
processes
than
as
we
make
a
decision
about
where
those
other
preferred
areas
for
the
30
percent
or
more,
because
that
would
be
council's
prerogative,
of
course,
and
go
into
a
deeper
planning
process
and
in
fact
we
have
as
a
department
preliminarily
contemplated
what
we
think
is
some
of
the
direction.
The
council
is
going
towards
looking
at
additional
sub-community
planning
and
potentially
building
capacity
for
that
and
again
invite
anybody
else.
To
add
to
that.
AR
Natalie
Stiffler
interim
director
of
Transportation
I,
think
I
agree
with
everything
that
Brad
said
the
only
thing
that
I
think
we've
given
feedback
on
kind
of
informally
as
staff
around
the
key
corridors
and
the
level
of
service.
That
really
should
be
present
for
some
of
the
things
we're
talking
about
like
these
folders
of
community
plan
when
you
envision
kind
of
the
future
along
those
corridors,
there's
a
lot
of
expected
Transit
service
and
the
Threshold
at
which
they're
currently
proposing
for
Transit
service
I.
AR
AL
AL
Do
we
need
to
be
advocating
for
transportation
funding
as
part
of
the
semin
if
we're
talking
about
kind
of
building
up
around
these
Transit
corridors
and
the
key
corridors
and
things
right,
I
assume
that,
ideally,
that's
going
to
lead
to
a
need
for
more
bike
paths,
more
multi-use
paths,
more
Transit
stuff,
like
that
I
mean.
Do
you
yeah.
AR
So
I
I
think
I
could
say
you
know
in
in
thinking
about
other
states
that
have
policy
like
this.
It's
there's,
usually
it's
like
a
funded
mandate
to
an
extent
right,
there's,
especially
Transit
funding
available
at
a
state
level
to
support
this
type
of
development
and
then
the
transportation
that's
available
to
help
people
move
along
these
corridors
and
I
think
that's
the
difference
potentially
with
this,
but
not
to
say
that
that
couldn't
come.
AL
AH
AH
I
think
if
they're
going
to
be
pushing
for
further
density
along
those
areas,
reduced
parking,
those
aren't
only
going
to
work
with
increased
Transportation.
So
I
don't
know
if
this
helps
push
the
funding
mandate
that
we
just
talked
about,
but
also
services
for
the
individuals
who
are
living.
There
are
also
going
to
have
to
increase,
and
so
you
create
the
walkable
communities
and
that
sort
of
thing.
So
it's
while
they're
focused
on
the
housing
component.
It's
going
to
impact
other
areas
as
well.
AL
Yeah
I
appreciate
your
your
thoughts,
okay,
Carl
dear
questions.
Now
you
can
stand
up
if
you
want
to
so
one
of
the
open
comments.
Person
was
saying
that
you
know
the
number
of
amendments
reflects
the
messiness
of
that.
You
know
this
wasn't
really
ready
and
that
sort
of
thing
when
I
look
at
this
I
mean
this
is
this
is
pretty
big
legislation
right?
It's
and
I
guess
my
question
is:
do
the
I
mean?
Is
this
more
amendments
than
you
would
expect
to
see
in
a
in
a
process
like
this
with
a
bill?
AQ
No
I
I
would
not
say
that
18
amendments
to
a
bill
of
this
size
is
is
unusual
at
all,
very
often
it's
building
the
plane
while
you're
flying
it.
You
know
that
being
said,
there's
been
quite
a
bit
of,
as
as
was
mentioned
in
one
of
the
memos
that
was
sent
to
you.
This
has
been
the
subject
of
a
process
and
consideration
for
a
couple
of
years
now,
and
it
relies
on
a
lot
of
policies
have
been
adopted
in
other
states.
AQ
AL
Thank
you
and
I.
Just
have
one
more
question
thanks,
everyone
I
know
it's
late.
Your
word
cloud
I
didn't
see
climate
there,
which
was
really
surprising
to
me
and
I
was
just
wondering
I
mean.
Is
this
not?
Are
the
climate
implications
kind
of
not
being
talked
about
because
in
my
mind,
that
is
one
of
the
biggest
things
about
this
bill,
because
we
know
that
density
leads
to
lower
water
use,
better
energy
use
right
yeah.
So
so
it
just
it's
surprising
to
me
that
I
didn't
see
that
in
the
word
cloud
and.
AL
B
B
Okay,
can
we
move
to
discussion?
Do
we
have
any
further
questions
all
right,
seeing
none?
Let's,
let's
move
to
discussion,
so
here's
what
I'm
going
to
suggest
is
I
guess.
I
might
first
check
if
people
wanted
to
offer
any
additional
potential
amendments
other
than
the
one
that
we
have
left
and
then
and
then
we
can
see
what
council's
will
is
to
proceed
with
the
overall
recommendation,
so
does.
Does
anybody
want
to
suggest
additional
amendments
other
than
the
ones
that
we,
the
inter
governmental,
Affairs,
already
committed,
considered
I
got
Rachel
and
Nicole.
AC
AC
I'm
hearing
Carl
say
you
know
we
can't.
We
can't
go
in
the
wrong
direction
on
this,
so
I
don't
know.
If
there's
anybody
has
thoughts
on
how
we
could
maybe
add
in
that
in
a
way
that
isn't
moving
backwards
and
then
second
I
would
like
us
to
consider
doing
a
support
with
if
amended,
I,
don't
know
the
right
terminology,
I
think
it's
if
amended
instead
of
I,
don't
know
what
the
words
are
that
we're
using
right
now
for
think
about
our
amendments.
Okay,.
AC
I
I
threw
out
like
I'd
rather
see
duplexes
in
100
of
of
the
spots
as
opposed
to
quad
plexus
and
30
percent,
and
I
mean
I,
think
we
already
I
think
separately,
we're
already
getting
to
25
units
an
acre
if
I
followed
correctly
on
the
transit
corridors.
So
it's
not
gonna
like
take
anything
away
from
transit.
It's
just
going
to
add
something
in
everywhere
else.
Unless
I'm
misunderstanding.
AM
This
could
definitely
use
wordsmithing,
but
because,
when
I
do
the
math
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
I
believe
two
units
for
a
hundred
percent
would
be
more
units
than
four
units
on
thirty
percent
of
the
property.
And
so
maybe
it's
a
minimum
of
you
know
four
units
over
30,
but
with
the
option
to
distribute,
as
you
see
fit,.
AC
B
So
if
I
could
make
a
comment
here,
the
if
we're
later
going
to
consider
support,
if
amended,
I
think
to
the
extent
that
we
moved
back
to
an
earlier
point
in
the
bill
like
going
from
30
to
100.
I.
Think
that's
extremely
unlikely
at
this
point.
But
if
we
had
a
suggestion
of
provide
options,
you
know
for
for
cities
to
choose
either
you
know
quad
plexes
or
a
more
limited
area
or
duplexes
over
a
larger
area.
That
I
think
would
have
a
shot.
So
I
could
support
something
like
that.
B
AN
B
AC
Well
and
can
I
before,
given
that
it's
kind
of
mine
and
I
don't
know
if
Lauren
even
likes
it,
but
just
to
ask
Carl,
is
that
feasible?
Is
that
I
mean
if
it's?
If
it's
got
no
no
legs
or
no
no
chance
of
making
any
progress,
then
I
won't
push
for
it.
But
I
would
like
to
know
Carl's
opinion
before
I
vote.
Scrapple
right.
AQ
It's
an
interesting
idea.
You
know
it
allows
flexibility
and
there
could
be
some
communities
that
would
prefer
that
flexibility
of
having
100
duplexes
versus
30
quad
fluxes,
the
only
reason
I
hesitate,
as
the
mayor
said,
is
it's
one
thing
to
say:
take
something
off
the
table
or
reduce
it,
and
it's
a
different
thing
qualitatively
when
we
say
change
your
approach
and
that's
only
important,
because
if
they
can't
or
they
won't
and
our
support
is,
is
contingent
upon
that
we
basically
are
saying
we're
not
supporting
it,
but
I
mean
I.
AC
AQ
I
think
it's
a
great
idea,
because
you
know
we're
talking
to
an
audience.
That's
been
very
receptive
to
our
ideas.
I
mean
it
hasn't
been.
You
know
we
threaten
you
to.
You
know
vulnerable
oppose
unless
you
do
this
or
that
they
have.
They
have
taken
a
lot
of
our
ideas,
even
ones
that
haven't
been
formally
adopted
and
and
included
them
because
they
think
are.
They
are
good
ideas
and
they
recognize
that
we're
a
city,
that's
generally
speaking
on
their
side,
so
I
don't
think
their
needs
to
necessarily
be
a
message
of
our
support
is
contingent.
AQ
B
So,
given
that
I
think
the
proposal
is
to
offer
an
option
for
communities
to
have
smaller
percentage
of
land
with
more
units
or
a
larger
percentage
of
land,
with
fewer
units
required
to
capture
that
Rachel
Lauren,
and
this
would
be
a
consider.
The
change
so
can
I
do
a
straw
poll
and
who
would
be
interested
in
this
one?
AN
B
AL
Well,
I
just
had
a
question
around
that,
so
we
were
basically
looking
for
not
so
initially
it
had
been
proposed
to
not
have
family
be
the
indicator
of
occupancy
and
we
said
no,
we
don't
want
to
do
it
that
way,
but
that's
not
actually
an
amendment.
So
do
I
need
to
say
anything
to
bring
that
up.
That
I
have
a
question
about
that
or
well.
AL
Then
I
would
like
to
suggest
that
that
that
we
go
with
the
original,
what
was
originally
in
the
bill
about
not
using
familial
relationship
as
a
standard
for
occupancy
in
in
the
idea
that
we
can
rely
on
other
things,
but
not
have
it
based
on
familial
relationship
and
I
am
happy
to
go
into
my
reasoning
for
why?
If
now
is
the
point
to
do
that
or
I
can
wait.
B
AL
Okay,
yes,
quick
perspective,
so
in
the
lgbtq
community
we
Define
family
as
being
part
of
that
Community.
Are
they
family?
Is
the
question
that
often
comes
up
when,
when
you're
wanting
to
know
where,
where
somebody
stands,
so,
you
know
I
mean
given,
given
our
values
of
equity,
I'm,
just
I'm
wondering
why
we
wouldn't
support
this
removal
of
our
objection
to
the
or
our
request
for
an
amendment,
especially
when
we're
already
looking
at
the
definition
of
family
as
part
of
our
occupancy
things
and
and
whether
it
aligns
with
with
our
current
values.
AL
H
Yeah,
just
as
a
justification
for
why
we
took
the
position
we
are
already
embarking
on
our
own
occupancy
reforms
and
since
we've
sort
of
been
clear
with
the
community
and
staff
that
we're
looking
at
setting
our
number
at
four
or
five,
it
was
a
matter
of
being
consistent
with
our
support
at
the
state
bill.
So
it's
it
would
be
I
think
detrimental
to
our
efforts
at
the
city
level,
independent
of
the
state
law
state
thing
passing.
H
B
AN
Okay,
sorry
I'll
forget
forever.
Thank
you
so
I
personally,
like
duplexes,
more
than
quad
plexus,
however,
for
the
community
I
feel
like
it
will
be
a
more
difficult
thing
to
say:
let's
change,
family,
let's
change
single
family
zoning
to
include
duplexes,
that's
a
big
stretch
for
a
lot
of
people,
I
feel
like
they're,
more
used
to
density
on
the
corridors,
and
so
what
I
like
is
irrelevant
personally,
is
my
opinion
about,
do
I.
Think
duplex.
Some
of
the
houses
in
my
neighborhood
are
very
large.
AN
Can
they
be
split
into
two
and
nobody
would
notice
absolutely
but
I
think
the
bigger
question
for
the
community
is
and
has
been.
Are
you
touching
our
single
family
zoning
so
I
feel
like?
This
is
a
way
to
acknowledge
that
you
know
we
represent
the
community
and
a
lot
of
people
like
single
family
zoning.
The
way
it
is,
and
so
this
would
be
a
way
to
get
more
housing
which
we're
desperate
for
without
offending
a
whole
lot
of
people.
So
that
is
how
I
feel
about
that
got.
AN
Not
a
world
where
I
can
support
a
bill
that
doesn't
have
occupancy
limits
and
we,
as
a
community,
have
had
a
vote
on
it.
We
top
bedrooms
are
for
people
which
was
even
more
stringent
than
no
occupancy
did
It
win
I
feel
like
we.
We
should
ask
the
governor,
please,
can
you
please
put
an
occupancy?
We
have
a
university
town
where
neighborhoods
are
very
affected
if
they
wouldn't
be
occupancy
in
a
world
of
unintended
consequences.
You're
welcome
Matt.
AN
Yes,
there
would
be
a
lot
of
unintended
consequences
in
those
neighborhoods
as
the
hill
and
Martin
acres
and
Goss
Grove
and
Aurora
neighborhood
I
can't
visualize
it
going
well
so
I
unless
there's
occupancy
limits.
I
can't
I
can't
support
this
bill
as
it
is
without
that
so
Governor
polis,
please
put
in
some
opportunity,
is.
AL
It
about
occupancy
I
mean
if
that,
because
maybe
a
misunderstanding,
what
it
was
it
was.
It
was
and
I
know
that
they're
tied
together
right,
I
think
what
I'm
specifically
asking
for
is:
can
we
not
Define
based
on
family
based
on
biological
family?
Can
we
have
it?
Can
we
I'm
not
saying
no
occupancy
limits
ever
whatever?
This
is
specifically
about
that
definition
of
family,
which
to
me
was
a
really
important
one
and
so
I'm
wondering
is
there
anything
we
can
advocate
for
that
lets
us
advocate
for
removing
familial
relationship
anyway,.
B
That's
that
I
really
appreciate
the
point.
Nicole.
The
thing
I
would
just
say
is
that
case
law,
fair
housing
law
has
determined
that
if
you
have
a,
they
do
Define
it
relatively
narrow,
a
biological
family
that
you
cannot
restrict
them
from
living
together
in
any
way,
so
that,
if
familial
status
is
removed
as
a
basis
for
occupancy
limits,
then
you
cannot
have
an
occupancy
limit
other
than
the
most
Baseline
ones
provided
by.
B
That's
that's
the
challenge.
There's
not
really
another
way
to
do
it,
given
our
legal
system,
so
Nicole
has
a
proposal
on
the
table
to
amend
our
previous
suggestion
to
remove
the
last
requested
Amendment
on
occupancy
limits.
Can
we
just
do
a
straw
poll
for
how
many
people
are
in
favor
of
that
amending
Amendment?
B
B
AM
I
just
had
one
other
one,
sorry,
sorry,
I
thought
Natalie
and
Brad
brought
up
a
great
thing
around
transportation
and
sort
of
the
amount
of
Transportation
on
these
Corridor
lines
and
suggesting
maybe
something
around
funding
for
increased
transportation.
To
ensure
that,
with
this,
these
new
car
light
areas
that
we
have
appropriate
levels
of
transportation
is
that
an
amendment
is
that
worthy
of
an
amendment
or
something
I.
B
AC
B
AE
We
have
been
very
happy
with
our
seat
at
the
table
and
I'm
going
to
suggest
you
that
it's
a
very
expensive
chair
that
we
bought
the
price
of
that
seat
at
the
table
is
to
abandon
our
home
rule
Authority,
and
you
know
one
of
the
speakers
tonight
I
think
was
Evan.
Rabbit
said
you
know
what
we
are
very
protective
of
our
home
rule
Authority
until
we're
not
and
I
find
this
abandonment
to
be
something
that
is
inappropriate.
I
think
it's
way
too
high
a
price
simply
to
schmooze
with
the
governor
and
his
staff.
AE
M
AE
Us,
okay,
I
I,
don't
necessarily
want
quad
plexes
everywhere,
but
if
that's
the
will
of
the
council
and
we
rezone
it
that
way,
that's
on
our
decision,
not
their
decision.
Where
does
that
end?
If
we
make
them
effectively
our
zoning
Authority,
we
have
several
things
in
this
town
that
actually
hinder
the
construction
of
housing.
One
is
the
height
limit.
AE
AJ
AE
Go
or
you
can
build
housing
above
the
blue
line,
it's
technologically
possible
and
we
think
you
should
build
more
housing
there
and
if
the
answer
to
those
is
no,
they
can't
do
that.
Somebody
needs
to
explain
to
me
why,
because
I
don't
think
that's
consistent
with
the
very
nature
of
a
bill
that
is
saying
to
the
to
the
governor.
You
can
have
our
home
rule
Authority
just
be
nice
to
us.
Okay
and
I.
AE
I
love
the
governor
by
the
way,
I
would
vote
for
him
anytime,
but
this
is
an
overreach
and
it
is
not
an
accident
that
the
rest
of
the
state
and
every
home
rule
jurisdiction
says
this
is
a
step
too
far.
I
was
at
the
mile
high
flood
district
meeting
today
and
I
was
astonished.
They
they
passed
the
resolution
in
opposition.
This
is
a
mile
high
flood
District,
not
a
a
a
home
rule,
a
city
and.
AE
AE
D
D
D
B
H
We
we
have
clearly
a
housing
crisis
that
is
not
just
local,
it's
regional
state
and
National
Global,
really
and
part
of
what's
exacerbated.
That
crisis
is
a
lack
of
holistic
approach
to
housing.
It's
really
that
simple.
We
can
sit
here
and
do
what
we
want,
but
we're
not
we're
not
really
making
a
dent,
and
one
can
argue
as
much
of
the
great
work
we're
doing
here
in
our
city,
we're
still
falling
behind
the
pressures
of
the
housing
crisis
that
are
that
are
on
us.
H
It's
no
discredit
to
any
of
the
great
work
that
Kurt
and
everybody
else
and
the
staff
are
doing.
We
are
doing
immense
work,
but
we
are
doing
so
while
we
are
ice
skating
uphill,
so
it
is
absolutely
necessary
that
you
know
to
Mark's
point
that
opposition
we
see
is
exactly
the
proof
that
you
need
a
large
holistic
strategy
to
tackle
the
housing
crisis,
because
if
we
leave
everybody
unto
themselves
it
ain't
going
to
get
done.
This
is
the
same
with
climate
we
could
leave.
H
We
could
let
California
lead
on
climate,
but
we
need
a
holistic,
National
Global
initiative
to
tackle
climate.
So
these
crises
require
these
minimum
thresholds
for
us
to
meet
in
order
to
meet
the
moment
and
set
up
future
generations
for
Success.
So
I
I
like
where
we're
headed,
I'd
love
to
keep
us
going
credit
to
Carl
and
the
whole
team
and
staff
for
really
having
a
seat
at
the
table
and
getting
it
to
this
place
where
we're
shaping
it
into
a
positive
direction
and
I
think
there's
more
amendments
to
come.
AL
So
Boulder
has
always
been,
and
on
the
Forefront
on
environmental
issues,
and
that's
why
I
see
us
out
in
front
on
this
particular
bill
when
no
other
community
is
I,
think
we
recognize
that
we're
in
a
climate
crisis
and
we
have
a
limited
amount
of
time
to
create
a
sustainable
and
resilient
community
that
can
handle
more
people,
and
that
is
lowering
emissions.
In
the
meantime,
the
ipcc
has
indicated
increasing
housing
density
is
a
key
tool
to
mitigate
further
disaster.
Already
other
areas
of
country
and
around
the
world
are
facing
human
rights
catastrophes.
AL
Due
to
the
climate
crisis,
we
saw
the
next
generation
of
leaders
at
the
UAB
dinner
tonight
and
I
see
this
bill
not
as
the
single
tool
to
solve
all
of
our
housing
and
everything
problems,
but
really
as
a
way
to
get
future
Generations
a
fighting
chance
to
avoid
the
human
rights
crisis
that
we're
experiencing.
In
the
midst
of
this
climate
crisis,.
B
Nicole
I'll
just
call
myself
it'd
be
quick,
agree
Nicole.
That
was
very
well
said
and
Matt
as
well,
that
we
are
in
the
midst
of
both
the
housing
crisis
and
a
climate
crisis,
and
this
bill
makes
progress
on
both
of
those
fronts
and
both
of
them
are
Regional
and
Statewide
issues
and,
of
course,
with
the
climate
as
a
national,
National
and
worldwide
one
as
well.
B
O
B
Full
local
control
on
Rachel
often
speaks
to
this
eloquently
that
if
the
state
passed
an
assault,
weapons
ban
which
they
just
didn't,
which
I'm
very
frustrated
about-
but
that's
another
another
topic,
but
if
they
did
manage
to
pass
that,
we
would
not
want
local
control
passed
back
to
the
cities
on
that.
We
would
want
that
state
level,
control
on
the
on
the
gun,
violence,
prevention,
so
I
think
this
is
a
real
positive
step
in
the
right
direction
and
I'm
proud
that
we
are
moving
towards
a
position
of
support,
Lauren
and
then
Tara.
AM
Yeah
I
agree
strongly
with
what
Matt,
Nicole
and
Aaron
you
just
said,
and
I
just
wanted
to
touch
really
quickly
on
this
idea
that
that
we're
abandoning
home
rule
Authority
you
as
you
mentioned,
would
have
always
been
selective
and
when
we
support
home
rule
and
when
we
don't
and
conflating
this
with
our
ability
to
keep
our
open
space
height.
Limit
and
blue
line
does
a
disservice
to
our
community
and
lowers
sort
of
the
overall
level
of
discourse
that
we're
having
on
these
important
issues,
because
it's
not
true.
AE
AJ
AJ
B
AN
B
AN
So,
coming
around
in
between
everybody
right
in
the
middle
there,
I
would
say
that
we,
our
housing
crisis,
is
just
not
just
local
I,
don't
believe
that
we
can
just
have
local
solutions
that
will
work.
We
have
to
include
to
me
the
rest
of
the
state,
so
that
is
why,
in
general,
I
did
like
this
bill,
especially
with
the
Amendments.
However,
like
I
said
earlier,
without
that
occupancy
amendment
in
there,
I
can't
support
it.
So
what
is
that
called?
Like
simple.
B
Right
so
thanks
everybody
for
your
comments.
So
what
we
have
in
front
of
us
currently
is
the
position
the
IGA
committee
has
taken
and
recommended
as
they
support,
while
seeking
amendments
and
I
think
for
the
two
new
ones
that
came
up
tonight.
People
supported
moving
forward
that
so
I
want
to
check
if
there
is
support
for
moving
forward
with
all
three
of
our
amendments
with
the
support,
while
seeking
amendments,
as
proposed
by
the
educate
committee.
So
maybe.
B
AC
AC
Are
we
taking
a
a
supportive
of
no
ceiling
on
occupancy?
We
support
that
without
amendment
I.
Think
that's
what
we're
saying
if,
if
we
don't
say,
if
amended
so
I
just
think
we
should
be
real
crisp
on
that
we
haven't
advocated
for
that
within
the
community.
So
you
know
I
haven't
that
just
seems
like
a
a
an
interesting
bridge
for
us
to
cross.
AC
We
are
down
to
one
kind
of
meaningful
Amendment,
so
you
know
to
the
point
of
like
it
would
be
unwieldy
to
say
which
we,
you
know,
which
would
be
deal
Killers
for
us.
I
think
we're
just
down
to
the
one
so
I'm,
just
inviting
us
to
have
a
conversation
on
or
just
be
critical
or
or
just
out
loud
to
the
community
like.
Are
we
we're
really
supporting
without
Amendment
occupancy,
stealing
being
taken
away
and
I?
Think
that
is
I
struggle?
AC
B
AC
Yeah
but
I
mean
we
have
we,
we
got
all
of
our
other
changes,
so
that's
the
only
other
one
that
would
be.
You
know
at
the
time
that
I
I
got
to
the
table.
I
probably
would
have
said,
if
amended
to
all
of
it
and
and
just
see
what
the
leverage
could
bring
and
I
assume
we
could
revisit.
If,
if
it's
I,
don't
know
somehow
catastrophic
for
us
to
to
switch
our
position,
but
it
it
just.
It
just
seems
strange
to
me
to
to
not
be
a
little
bit
more
firm
with
that
request.
AC
AC
AL
AQ
A
AQ
AQ
Beyond
I
was
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
help
clarify
what
I
think
Council
was
heading
towards,
but
functionally
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
going
to
say
it's
going
to
make
a
huge
difference.
Here's
here's
one
scenario
when
this
goes
to
the
house,
one
of
you
could
go
testify
and
say
on
behalf
of
the
city.
We
support
the
bill
or
you
you
could
say
only
if
the
following
so
clearly
before
house
committee,
that
could
make
a
difference.
AQ
H
H
AG
H
Have
other
opportunities
in
which
amendments
are
going
to
be
debated
and
delivered?
Is
that
is
that
correct,
Carl
and
how
many,
until
you
know,
May
8th
when
the
session
ends?
How
many
more
of
those
opportunities
do
we
have
to
amend
this,
or
will
there
be
amendments
that
are
being
accepted
and
debated
on
this
bill?.
AQ
This
is
going
to
be
thoroughly
being
worked
on.
You
know
every
hour
between
now
and
May,
8th
in
terms
of
opportunities
for
us
to
shape
it.
I
would
say
this
is
a
in
terms
of
like
Council
having
time
to
discuss
it.
May
4th
I,
think
things
will
have
been
already
settled
by
then
so
in
terms
of
council
providing
Direction
on
a
position.
I
would
say
this:
is
it
okay.
H
AL
AL
Was
just
gonna
say:
I
mean
Carl.
We
got
like
nine
out
of
ten
of
the
things
we
were
asking
for
right.
Like
I
mean
that
seems
like
a
pretty
good
deal
and
you
know
I'm
I'm
curious.
If
you
think
there
is
a
place
for
us
to
continue
with
the
position
that
we
are
kind
of
moving
forward
with,
where
we're
still
advocating
for
changing
it.
But
we're
not
saying
that
we
won't
support
this
giant
bill
because
of
that.
So
just
just
wondering.
AQ
D
Well,
I
have
a
question
actually
because
I'm
a
little
bit
confused
about
I,
understand
the
difference
between
what
Rachel's
asking
and
what
others
are
asking,
but
I
want
to
understand
what
the
what
the
what
the
numbers
are.
In
other
words
are.
We
are
some
of
us
saying
that
they
could
support
the
bill
if
the
occupancy
limit
was
four
or
five
or
are
they
saying
they
would
would
support
the
bill
only
if
there
was
no
reference
to
occupancy
limit
allowing
cities
to
make
those
decisions
on
their
own.
D
And
so
that
would,
if
that's
what,
if
that's
what's
in
the
Bill
of
passes,
that
would
Trump
what
Boulder
has
right
now,
because
Boulder
has
as
a
three
slash
four
limit,
and
so
are
we
saying
out
loud
right
now
at
this
Council
that
we
support
the
state
changing
Boulders
current
occupancy
living,
even
though
we
told
our
community
that
we
actually
wouldn't
have
that
discussion
until
August
or
September?
Is
that
what
we're
saying
it's.
B
AM
AN
C
B
AL
AQ
B
So
so
I
still
do
the
straw
poll
of
how
many
people
would
like
to
take
the
approach
of
support.
Only
if
amended,
I
got
I
got
two
I
got
two.
Who
would
prefer
that
approach?
So
so
we
definitely.
We
definitely
don't
have
a
majority
for
that
approach,
but
Rachel
and
I'm
going
to
turn
to
you
here.
You
kind
of
you're
holding
some
cards
so.
AC
AC
If,
if
the
majority
of
council
actually
wants
to
have
some
stealing
on
occupancy-
and
we
are
telling
the
governor
we
kind
of
want
it
but
like
it's
not
a
big
deal
and
that
I
I
can
I
can
see
a
scenario
where
that's
the
least
controversial
aspect
of
the
bill
and
the
only
thing
that
passes
because
it
it
is
getting
whittled
down
a
bit
and
I,
don't
think
it
has
a
ton
of
support
and
I.
Think
that
would
be
a
a
really
I
would
have
I.
AC
Would
struggle
to
you
know,
speak
to
the
community
as
to
why
I
said
that
was
a
an
okay
outcome
for
Boulder,
when
very
very
few
constituents
have
asked
for
that.
I
I
mean
very
very
few
I,
don't
remember
being
on
a
campaign
Trail
or
watching
the
2021
election
and
hearing
people
say
anything
other
than
word
for
occupancy
reform
at
you
know
at
no
point
where
and
I
think
one
person
said
tonight,
we'll
Doug
I
don't
want
any
occupancy.
AC
AC
H
Carl
up
to
this
point,
you,
you
and
your
team
have
kind
of
been
working
on
multiple
fronts,
on
issues
lobbying
to
various
people
and
showing
interest
in
one
thing
and
talking
to
the
next
person,
so
I
mean
you've
been
just
working
all
angles
on
all
these
different
issues.
We've
settled
effectively
everything
that
we've
been
going
after
and
occupancy
is
a
stickler.
Do
you
find
that
there
could
be
that
you're
about
900
right
now,
so
so
I
might
be
asking
a
lot.
H
So
I'm
not
going
to
set
you
up
here,
but
now
that
really
this
is
the
last
remaining
piece.
Do
you
feel
that
there's
a
focus
that
you
and
your
team
can
have
not
so
you
weren't
focused
on
this
but
you're
working
on
multiple
fronts,
where
you
can
actually
make
maybe
more
Headway,
because
this
is
the
only
amendment
left
to
work
on.
H
Do
you
feel
that
there's
there's,
maybe
greater
momentum
or
propendency
to
to
reach
out
and
move
these
levers
in
ways
that,
while
you're
working
on
the
other
fronts
may
be
limited,
some
of
that
work
on
specifically
occupancy
because
the
other
things
may
have
carried
more
water
at
the
time
now
that
they're
resolved
so
I'm
just
sort
of
wondering
if
this
is
the
only
charge,
do
you
feel
like
you,
can
kind
of
get
a
good
head
of
steam
to
tackle,
or
at
least
really
make
effort
on
the
occupancy
front?
In
our
remaining
weeks,.
AL
And
I
was
just
going
to
address
Rachel's
concern
about
you
know
if
if
the
occupancy
piece
of
the
bill
is
the
last
man
standing
I
mean
if
we
can
move
past
this,
this
kind
of
impasse,
just
by
saying,
if
that
is
the
case,
if
it
is
the
last
man
standing
the
only
thing
left
in
the
bill,
then
we
don't
support
it.
I
mean
I
feel
like.
If
that's
the
concern,
that's
that's
holding
you
back
Rachel
is
that
you
know
is
that
is
that
something
that
we
could
just
say
to
move
that
forward.
B
B
AL
And
I
also
just
want
to
clarify
Rachel.
You
mentioned
that
somebody
one
person
said
no
occupancy
limits,
even
for
health
and
safety
and
stuff
like
that.
If
you
were
referring
to
me
with
that,
to
avoid
all
the
angry
emails
that
I
would
get
I
just
want
to
say
what
I
was
talking
about
tonight
was
that
I
support
not
defining
occupancy
based
on
biological,
family
and
I.
B
Yeah,
neither
but
anyway
so
we
have
the
proposal
on
the
table
before
with
the
support,
while
seeking
amendments
with
the
three
amendments
that
we
mentioned
before:
I'm
not
going
to
re-list
them
so
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
do
a
straw
poll
again
and
see
Rachel.
If
we,
if
we
can,
if
you
can
live
with
this
approach,
so
people
willing
to
move
forward
with
that
all
right.
Let's
get
five
thanks
for
your
flexibility,
Rachel
I'm.
AC
Going
to
be
a
big
I,
Told
You
So,
if
occupancy,
is
one
of
the
few
things
that
that
it's
across
the
line
on
this
with
unfettered
and
that's
the
one
thing
we
gave
up
local
control
on
I
think
that's
that's
going
to
be
it.
That's
gonna
Community
will
be
pretty
disappointed
in
the
Reps.
If
that
happens,.