►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Meeting 1-26-23
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
A
A
B
B
2023
special
meeting
of
the
Boulder
City
Council
and
I'm
going
to
get
it
started
with
one
announcement
which
is
to
the
community.
If
you're
looking
for
an
opportunity
to
get
involved,
the
2023
boards
and
commissions
recruitment
period
is
open,
but
we'll
close
in
just
a
few
days
on
January
30th
2023..
B
And
with
that
announcement
Elisha
can
we
call
the
role
please.
C
C
F
F
F
So
under
that
provision,
we
we
received
a
complaint
from
Mr
neslag.
That
complaint
was
received
on
January
19th
2023
and
that
does
meet
all
of
the
requirements
of
the
code,
which
is
that
facts
were
stated,
alleging
a
violation
of
the
code
of
conduct
and
the
complaint
was
sworn
so.
Having
met
all
of
all
of
the
requirements
under
the
code,
it
now
triggers
a
process
of
investigation,
and
the
code
provides
that
that
that
the
city
council
refer
the
matter
to
the
City
attorney.
F
F
To
be
clear.
All
this
does
is
launch
the
investigation
and
it
is
not
discretionary
under
the
code.
The
code
also,
though,
provides
that
the
City
attorney
May
request
that
the
city
council
appoints
special
counsel
to
investigate
and
prosecute
any
case
that
may
cause
the
City
attorney
to
have
a
conflict
of
interest
or
may
cause
an
appearance
of
impropriety
under
the
provisions
of
the
the
code
of
conduct
or
if
it
could
violate
any
rule
of
professional
responsibility.
F
So
here
at
council's
Direction,
I
have
advised
the
selection
panel
with
respect
to
the
criteria
and
their
process,
given
that
I
believe
that
it
would
be
a
conflict
of
interest,
potentially
a
violation
of
the
rules
of
professional
responsibility.
For
me
to
investigate
this
complaint.
Therefore,
I
reached
out
to
Clay
Douglas
clay
has
over
40
years
of
Municipal.
Experience
has
conducted
investigations
similar
to
these
I
did
distribute
with
the
materials
his
resume
and
I
I
would
request
that
Council
appoint
clay
Douglas
as
special
counsel
for
the
purpose
of
investigating
this
complaint
and
Prosecuting.
B
F
Mayor
there
is,
this
is
not
discretionary,
it
is
the
the
code
provides
that
Council
shell
request,
the
City
attorney
to
investigate
right
and
then,
if
the
criteria
are
met
for
special
counsel,
Council
can
choose
to
appoint
special
counsel
for
the
matter,
but
the
fact
of
an
investigation
happening
is
is
not
discretionary.
The
code
provides,
an
investigation
must
happen.
B
Thanks
for
clarifying
that
with
that
said,
I
would
invite
emotion.
G
B
B
D
B
H
Guess
yeah
I
I,
just
I
was
intending
to
abstain.
Okay
vote,
it's
I'm
really.
H
It
concerns
me
that
we
had
another
member
of
this
election
or
another
panelist
who
was
recommended
by
the
application
process.
Withdraw
this
last
week
and
I
am
concerned,
because
the
people
who
are
applying
for
this
panel
have
lived
experience
with
disproportionate
policing
or
social
justice
engagement.
That's
a
requirement
and
I
am
just
really
concerned
about
the
sort
of
intimidation
factor
of
having
a
complaint
like
this.
H
Come
in
and
I,
don't
really
see
any
protections
that
we
have
in
place
that
can
kind
of
mimic
like,
for
example,
the
anti-slap
law
that
we
have
at
the
state
level
that
can
offer
people
or
groups
who
are
targets
of
complaints.
The
opportunity
to
have
the
complaint
dismissed
if
there's
evidence
that
its
goal
is
to
silence
or
intimidate
critics.
H
So,
under
those
circumstances,
I
don't
really
feel
comfortable
moving
forward
without
something
that
would
offer
some
protections
for
the
folks
who
are
applying
for
this
panel,
as
well
as
serving
on
the
panel
and
serving
on
the
selection
committee,
who
are
already
putting
themselves
at
risk
of
intimidation
and
traumatization
for
the
oversight
work.
We're
asking
them
to
do.
B
Hey
thanks
for
clarifying
Nicole.
So
so
we
have
seven
yeses,
one
known
one
abstention
and
under
city
code
and
abstention
counts
as
a
yes,
it's
effectively
an
eight
to
one
vote
in
favor
of
the
appointment,
so
Mr
Douglas
again,
thank
you
for
your
willingness
to
serve.
If,
if
you
wanted
to
say
a
sentence
or
two
you're
welcome
to
or
but
don't
feel
that
it's
necessary.
B
Okay,
very
good!
Well,
we
we
trust
to
your
impartiality
and
willingness
to
investigate
this
claim
and
we
look
forward
to
hearing
back
from
you.
Likewise,
very
good,
okay,
so
that's
one
a
so
Alicia
can
we
do
one
B,
please.
C
Yes,
sir
one
B
is
the
consideration
of
a
motion
to
a
prolu.
Excuse
me
a
consideration
of
a
motion
to
approve
selection
committee
recommendations
for
members
of
the
police
oversight
panel,
as
outlined
entitled
to
chapter
11,
police
oversight,
BRC
1981
pertaining
to
the
composition,
duties
and
powers
of
the
city
organization
related
to
civilian
oversight
of
the
police
and
setting
forth
related
details.
B
Thank
you
Alicia,
so
you
last
week
you
know
this
item
came
in
front
of
us
and
we
had
just
received
a
complaint
just
a
bare
couple
of
hours
before,
and
so
it
was
a
little
unclear
how
to
proceed
and
whether
the
police
oversight
panel
would
have
a
quorum
if
we
waited
until
the
investigation
was
complete.
B
Since
so
we
had
a
motion
to
wait
a
week
while
we
determined
those
those
facts
and
since
then
I
think,
we've
gotten
information,
both
legal
and
about
panelists
ability
to
serve
so
I'm,
going
to
turn,
maybe
first
to
you
Teresa,
to
talk
about
your
legal
findings
and
then
turn
to
Nuria
or
Amy
Kane
for
to
hear
about
the
the
panelists.
F
Thank
you
mayor.
So,
given
a
little
more
time,
I
was
able
to
track
down
a
memo
that
came
at
the
request
of
former
independent,
monitor,
Joey,
lampari
and
I.
Believe
the
panel
co-chairs
asking
about
what
constitutes
a
quorum
as
we
discussed.
F
The
ordinance
could
set
a
different
quota.
It
does
not
in
the
for
the
police
oversight
panel.
F
Thus,
a
different
portion
of
the
code
applies,
which
provides
that
a
quorum
is
half
plus
one,
and
that
is
half
of
all
available
seats.
So
if
they,
even
if
the
seats
are
vacant,
the
Quorum
number
still
stands
so
here
with
an
11
member
panel
of
Quorum
would
they
would
need
six
people
to
meet
quorum.
B
It's
very
helpful
thanks
and
then
Nuria
should
I
turn
to
you
or
Amy
on
that.
This
next
question.
J
Where
We
Are.
We
can
turn
to
Amy
in
terms
of
who
has
withdrawn
and
where
we
are
right
now
in
the
process.
Sorry.
K
Thank
you,
mayor,
Brockett
and
Council.
My
name
is
Amy
Kane
I'm,
the
equity
officer
for
the
city
of
Boulder
and
I've,
been
helping
with
the
police
oversight
panel
and
the
selection
process
and,
as
I
hope
you
all
saw
in
the
memo
that
I
sent
out
yesterday,
we
had
another
potential
candidate
withdraw
from
the
process.
K
I
think
this
delay
in
lag
is
is
starting
to
lose
some
momentum
for
our
folks,
as
Nicole
mentioned,
and
I
just
want
to
lift
up
that.
We
do
have
selection
committee
members
here
present
as
well.
If
there
are
specific
questions
for
them.
So
thank
you.
Looking
forward
to
tonight's
vote,
Amy.
B
K
So
sure
we
were
down
to
I
believe
it
was
five
panel
members,
two
of
whom
have
withdrawn.
We
need
six
panel
members
to
continue
the
work,
so
we
will
not
meet
Quorum
if,
if
this
doesn't
go
through
tonight
and
with
that
I,
if
I
may
I'd
like
to
add
that
it's
not
just
about
the
meeting
itself,
there's
a
body
of
work
that
includes
training
for
new
panelists
and
it's
it's
quite
a
heavy
lift
and
being
able
to
get
that
scheduled
and
on
people's
calendar
is
pretty
pretty
critical.
B
So
what
we've
heard
is
that
we
not
enough
panel
members
will
be
continuing
to
constitute
Quorum
and
we're
also
losing
panel
members
potential
panel
members
in
the
meantime,
so
I
guess
I
would
put
out
start
with
a
threshold
question
Council
of
saying:
does
anyone
want
to
propose
an
additional
delay,
given
all
that
we've
learned
or
and
if
you
do
not
we'll,
if
no
one
wants
to
have
an
additional
delay,
then
we'll
move
on
to
a
vote
on
the
panelists
themselves
or
in
front
of
us.
So
if
anyone
like
to
advocate
for
an
additional
delay.
B
I
am
not
seeing
any
takers
at
all,
so
that
means
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
proceed
with
a
vote
on
the
panelists
tonight
and
just
as
we
get
into
that
just
a
couple
of
background
words
if
I
may
just
to
get
us
started
as
mayor
here
that
you
know
this
has
been
a
pretty
long
road
to
create
the
police
oversight
panel
right.
B
It
started
after
the
incident
with
zadax
Atkinson
back
a
few
years
ago,
and
you
know
we
formed
a
task
force
to
create
an
oversight
panel
and
and
they
did
really
hard
work
and
came
up
with
an
ordinance
and
we've
since
appointed
panelists
and
they've
been
working
super
hard
on
this
oversight
panel
process.
B
But
clearly
you
know,
we've
we've
had
some
some
kinkses
getting
started
and
and
I
think
we
have
an
intention
as
a
a
council
in
an
organization
to
continue
to
work,
to
refine
how
this
all
works,
and
so
we'll
just
acknowledge
that
that
work
is
coming
and
it's
going
to
come
quick.
So
everyone
should
be
be
prepared
for
that
that
we
do
have
an
intention
of
of
revising
the
ordinance
to
fix
some
of
the
issues
that
we've
done
recently.
But
what
is
in
front
of
us
tonight
is
is
not
about
whether
we
will
have
police
oversight.
B
We
we
will
and
I
think
there's
very
broad
support
in
the
community
in
the
city
staff
and
the
police
department
themselves,
as
well
for
Effective
oversight,
and
we
also
have
a
new
police
monitor
coming
on
board
in
hopefully
just
a
few
weeks
that
we'll
be
working
with
the
panelists
who
are
appointed
to
find
the
next
steps
in
this
important
Journey
for
our
community,
our
city.
B
So
just
with
all
of
that
in
mind,
I
just
want
to
turn
now
to
the
question
at
hand,
which
is
we
have
a
slate
of
candidates
that
have
been
brought
forward
to
us
by
the
selection
panel.
We
do
have
selection
panel
members
present.
If
anyone
has
any
questions
but
I
think
for
now
we
can
just
move
forward
to.
You
know
discussion
of
that.
B
If
anyone
has
words
to
say
or
wants
to
make
a
motion,
I
invite
your
participation
now
so
feel
free
to
raise
your
hand
and
we'll
we'll
talk
it
through
very
good
I
got
Nicole
and
then
Mark.
H
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
move
to
approve
the
recommendations
of
the
police
oversight.
Panel
and
I
was
also
wondering
we
didn't
quite
have
a
chance
for
questions
last
time
and
so
I
don't
know
if
there's
an
opportunity
for
asking
some
questions
this
time,
but
I
can
hold
off
on
that.
B
Sure
well,
I.
Well,
we
have
a
motion
on
the
table,
so
maybe
I'll
invite
a
second
and
then
we'll
go
to
questions
at
that
point.
I
wasn't
sure
if
we
had
any
outstanding
questions,
but
thanks
Nicole
for
pointing
that
out
that
I
didn't
offer
that
opportunity.
So
I
would
ask
if
there's
a
second
and
then
we'll
move
to
questions.
B
H
Yeah
I
just
had
a
couple
of
questions
that
maybe
for
one
of
the
selection
committee
members
or
for
Amy
and
maybe
I'll-
let
I'll
let
let
you
all
chime
in,
but
this
is
just
a
clear
to
kind
of
clarify
some
of
the
concerns
that
I've
heard
coming
from
some
in
the
community,
and
it's
really
just
about
the
role
of
the
police
oversight
panel.
H
And
so
my
question
is
just
whether
a
member
of
the
place
oversight
panel
or
even
the
panel
itself
has
the
authority
to
eliminate
the
police
department
or
in
any
way
affect
the
funding
of
the
police
department.
K
So
I
don't
know
if
any
of
the
panel
members
want
to
answer
that
question
I'm
happy
to
do
so
and
Taylor
Teresa
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
chime
in
as
well
regarding
the
ordinance.
But
that
does
not
outline
in
the
ordinance
that
that
is
the
capability
of
the
panel.
Okay.
H
K
H
Okay,
great.
Thank
you
thanks
thanks
for
clarifying
that
and
then
I
just
had
some
question
about
the
criteria
used
to
score
applicants.
H
It's
my
understanding.
They
were
evaluated
on
whether
or
not
they
have
ties
to
Boulder.
K
Yeah
so
I
don't
know
if
one
of
the
selection
committee
members
want
to
take
that
question.
I,
don't
know
Victor
I
see
that
you,
your
camera
on
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
do
that
or
Sean
Ray
is.
E
K
L
Hello,
everybody,
hello,
Council,
council,
member
Nicole,
so
the
criteria
that
we
used
for
this
year's
panel
selection
was
very
similar
to
the
criteria
that
we
used
during
the
first
selection
of
panelists
and
that
work
was
done
by
former
task
force.
Members,
including
myself,
who
decided
to
stay
on
during
the
implementation
phase.
While
we
were
seeking
and
hiring
the
former
police
monitor,
Joey,
lapari
and
seeking
to
fill
the
spots
of
our
nine
panelists
of
that
particular
time.
Plus
the
alternates
and
those
criteria
were
were
based
upon
I'm.
L
Sorry,
we're
based
upon
things
that
we
looked
at
throughout
our
work
as
a
task
force
and
using
recommendations
from
Nicole
the
National
Organization
for
similar
oversight
bodies
like
ourselves,
you
did
receive
you
all,
did
receive
a
memo
that
outlines
those
criteria,
and
so
we
looked
at
must-have
criteria
and
those
were
things
such
as
having
a
knowledge
of
history
of
policing
in
the
United
States.
L
Having
awareness
of
the
overt
and
covert
racism
in
the
context
of
policing
or
over
policing-
and
this
is
concerning
Boulder
and
Nationwide
it-
we
also
sought
that
every
panelists
future
panelist
would
have
an
understanding
or
awareness
of
current
events.
That
would
also
inform
any
sorts
of
conversation
around
policing
and
police
oversight.
L
Another
thing
that
we
looked
at
very
closely
was
that
the
candidate
would
represent
perhaps
multiple
communities
via
intersectionality
and
when
we
talk
about
intersectionality,
we're
talking
about
possessing
being
part
of
the
black
latinx
indigenous
Asian,
Pacific
Islander
person
of
color
populations,
hopefully
a
person
who
had
experienced
or
is
currently
experiencing
homelessness.
We
looked
at
the
lgbtq
plus
Community
as
well
a
person
with
differing
abilities,
a
candidate
who
may
have
low
socioeconomic
status,
obviously
important,
given
Boulder's
demographics
and
somebody
who
perhaps
had
experience
with
formerly
being
incarcerated.
L
In
addition
to
that,
we
did
look
at
the
criteria
of
bias,
as
stated
in
the
ordinance,
both
any
sort
of
evidence
of
overt
covert
bias,
and
to
that
point
and
I
think
this
was.
This
was
a
point
that
was
made
at
the
city
council
meeting
last
week.
Bias
is
very
challenging
to
Define
in
terms
of
police
oversight.
There
is
an
idea
that,
if
you
are
looking
to
oversee
the
police,
that
you
are
against
the
police,
that
is
not
necessarily
the
case
as
Amy
just
described.
L
There
are
people
both
on
the
police
staff
and
in
the
community
that
would
like
to
have
better
policing
for
the
community
members
of
Boulder
and
better
does
not
necessarily
mean
anti,
but
we
did
look
at
that
criteria
area
as
well.
I
hope
that
answered
your
question
probably
somewhat
too
thoroughly,
but
those
were
a
lot
of
the
criteria
that
we
looked
at
for
the
selection.
H
No
thank
you
I
appreciate
that
it's
been
a
bit
of
a
drawn
out
process,
so
thank
you
for
summarizing
for
us
and
any
community
members.
Listening.
That's
the
end
of
my
questions.
Erin.
B
D
Thank
you
so
much
I'm
anyway,
I
am
having
a
bit
of
bandwidth,
which
issue
so
I
need
to
change
of
Technology.
But
anyway,
I
do
have
a
question
about
the
oversight
panel.
I
wanted
to
know
what
percentage
are
people
of
color.
L
L
Yeah
I
I
can
take
that
of
course,
Junior
may
I
ask:
are
you
talking
about
the
panelists
that
are
being
selected
or
perhaps
the
demographics
of
current
panelists?
Yes,.
L
Panelist
that
one
I
cannot
remember
off
the
top
of
my
head,
Amy
you're,
going
to
have
to
help
me
here.
K
D
You
thank
you
for
that.
So
I
just
want
to
be
clear
and
understand.
So,
while
this
investigation
is
going
well,
they
still
be
doing
their
work.
K
Juni
I
apologize
I
was
totally
wrong
on
that.
There's
six
panel
members,
but
we're
going
to
be
losing
a
couple
of
those.
So
five
of
those
identify
as
people
of
color
and
two
identify
as
white
okay.
F
I'm
happy
to
address
that
so
to
be
to
be
precise,
the
panel
is
not
being
investigated.
The
complaint
is
against
the
selection
committee
and
so
that
selection,
it
would
be
around
the
selection
and
selection
committee.
The
investigation
would
be
two
of
the
people
on
the
selection
committee
are
panel
members,
however,
and
to
further
answer
your
question.
It
is
my
understanding
that,
as
long
as
there
they
have
Quorum,
the
panel
will
continue
its
work.
Okay,.
B
Very
good
sorry
for
missing
you
before
there
Jeannine
so
now
open
it
back
up
for
discussion.
We
have
a
motion
on
the
second.
Typically,
we
would
turn
to
the
motion
maker
and
the
seconder
for
the
initial
comments
and
it'll
go
to
General,
so
Nicole
and
and
then
Rachel.
If
you
would
like
to
thanks.
H
Mayor
so
I
I
just
want
to
say
I
mean
the
police
oversight
panel
doesn't
have
power
over
a
police
department
or
its
employees.
Beyond
making
suggestions
for
managing
complaints,
I
think
that's
important
and
oftentimes.
Most
of
the
time.
The
suggestions
are
things
that
the
police
chief
agrees
with
I
noted
last
week
that
it's
not
biased
to
include
people
on
the
police
oversight
panel
who
understand
the
fact
that
all
of
our
systems,
including
policing
not
just
policing,
are
biased
against
black
and
brown
people
queer
and
trans
people,
poor
people
and
people
with
disabilities.
H
I
just
want
to
highlight
for
as
a
tenant
of
inclusive
leadership
and
Equitable
governance
is
to
welcome
criticism
of
systems
that
have
disproportionate
impacts
on
marginalized
members
of
our
community,
not
to
try
to
stifle
it.
The
selection
committee
affirmed
and
reaffirmed
that
they
followed
the
guidelines
and
the
ordinance
that
governs
their
selection
process.
The
application
process
confirmed
the
panelists
have
the
knowledge
they
need
to
carry
out
the
duties
of
this
panel,
so
I
will
be
voting.
Yes,.
N
Will
and
I
had
like
some
talking
points
prepared
for
tonight,
so
just
go
through
those
I.
Take
it
at
this
point
too.
All
right
so
I
have
done
a
lot
of
reflecting
I.
Think
all
of
us
have
over
the
the
past
month
that
this
has
been
a
percolating
issue
and
we've
gotten
a
lot
of
emails
and
testimony
about
sort
of
Pro,
police
and
anti-police
camps
in
our
community.
N
We've
gotten
accusations
that
if
we
overturn
the
selection
committee
picks,
we
are
racist
or
heartless
and
I'm
using
words
from
from
emails,
or
that
we've
heard
if
we
do
not
overturn.
We
support
lawlessness
and
I
want
to
just
on
the
record,
reject
the
notion
of
anti
or
pro-police
categorizations.
For
myself
and
probably
for
most
community
members,
Duality
is
okay.
Tonight's
vote
I
do
not
believe
is
a
proxy
for
sort
of
good
versus
evil.
I
am
not
Pro
police
nor
anti-police.
I
am
pro-good
policing
and
I'm
anti-bad,
policing,
I
testified
for
oversight.
N
Panel
creation
and
I
support.
Our
Police
Department
I
have
personally
cried
two
times
in
the
last
24
hours.
One
was
when
I
read
the
news
story
out
of
Memphis
about
Tyree
Nichols
and
his
brutal
death,
and
the
second
was
today:
I
might
tear
up
a
little
bit
just
saying
these
words,
but
one
like
a
Rhinestone
Cowboy
came
on
the
radio.
They
played
that
song
at
officer.
Talley's
funeral
during
a
family
slide
show
and
I
cry
every
time.
I
hear
it
now.
N
I
also
did
a
ride
along
with
two
police
officers
two
nights
ago
and
I
overlapped
with
a
lot
a
lot
more
police
officers
and
all
of
them
demonstrated
compassion
and
kindness
and
I.
Think
as
a
society,
all
societies
need
kind
and
smart
police
and
I.
Think
from
what
I've
seen
our
police
chief
is
really
knocking
it
out
of
the
park
with
recruitment.
I
would
never
want
Boulder
to
become
a
city
where
outstanding
officers
do
not
want
to
work
and
police
oversight
is
critical.
N
No
one
wants
profiling
or
excessive
force
used
in
Boulder,
and
that
includes
police
officers.
Our
panel
does
hugely
important
work.
It's
time
consuming
it's
emotionally
draining
and
all
of
us
to
my
to
my
knowledge,
support
this
work.
So
we
can
both
recognize
the
need
for
oversight
and
appreciate
our
police
officers,
and
we
have
to
be
able
to
do
both
of
those
things
and
have
Grace
when
we
do
it,
even
where
it's
more
challenging,
like
with
these
appointments.
N
I
think
that
the
the
community
issue,
that
is
the
Crux
issue,
seems
to
be
bias
and
at
this
point,
I
really
wish
that
that
word
was
not
in
this
ordinance
and
I
will
move
to
strike
it
when
we
revise
the
ordinance
when
we,
by
way
of
contrast,
a
point
other
Advisory
board
members,
we
often
actually
look
for
bias.
N
To
be
honest,
we
want
people
who
are,
depending
on
our
vantage
point,
maybe
Pro
cycling,
infrastructure
or
pro-density
or
slow
growth
or
have
particular
you
know,
Muni
leanings
or
whatever,
and
so
bias
is
not
necessarily
a
bad
word
and
I.
Actually,
in
law,
school
did
my
equivalent
of
a
thesis
on
Thurgood
Marshalls
jurisprudence
and
how
it
demonstrated
that,
of
course,
he
was
biased
because
all
of
us,
any
I've,
worked
as
a
judge
or
in
judicial
capacities.
N
Judges
do
bring
biases
personal
biases
to
the
bench
and
life
experiences,
and
that
is
why
all
of
us
know
that
Supreme
Court
nominations
are
such
a
big
deal.
We
pay
such
close
attention.
We
all
have
biases
and
the
fact
that
we
all
have
biases
can
be
okay
as
long
as
that
bias
does
not
interfere
with
us
performing
impartially,
so
we
can
have
personal
meanings
and
preferences
and
biases,
and
we
can
still
apply
the
law
to
the
facts
at
hand
and
I've
done
it.
N
A
lot
in
my
own
life,
in
their
case
review
capacity,
I
believe
that
our
panelists
perform
similar
to
judges.
I.
Imagine,
frankly,
that
all
panelists
that
we
have
seated
in
the
past
in
the
present
and
in
the
future
have
biased.
So
the
question
to
me
is
whether
they
can
be
fair
and
impartial.
I
trust
that
those
nominated
will
not
inject
biases
into
this
work,
where
they
need
to
be
impartial
and
I
will
caution
any
who
are
tempted
to
please
don't
this
public
battle
that
we've
had
over.
N
These
appointments,
I
believe
adds
to
the
toll
that
policing
and
oversight
panel
work
takes
on
everyone
involved
when
we
were
finalizing
this
ordinance
in
2020,
I
begged
city
council,
not
to
insert
ourselves
into
the
panel
selection
process.
I
fear
the
exact
thing
that's
happening
now
that
someone
would
be
recommended,
some
community
members
would
object
and
then
it
would
come
to
council
and
anytime.
This
Council
touches
anything.
It
becomes
political
like
even
just
the
community
and
we
politicize
things.
N
So
we
find
ourselves
not
surprisingly
at
sort
of
a
level
10
out
of
10
concern
and
and
some
finalists
and
panel
recommended
people
have
been
really
publicly
humiliated
for
weeks,
and
that
is
not
how
it
should
be.
So
I
want
to
to
stress
that
future
appointments
should
never
come
back
to
this
Council.
In
my
opinion,
we
don't
see
the
applications,
we
don't
even
know
who
all
applied.
We
don't
do
the
interviews
we're
somewhat
under-informed
and
we
should
really
prioritize
our
limited
time
on
legislative
and
policy
work.
N
We
need
to
do
several
pop
ordinance
fixes
and
one
of
them
needs
to
be
us
not
reviewing
these
recommendations
in
the
future.
I
think
we
also
need
to
ensure
balanced
spectrum
of
voices
are
appointed
and
I
know
that
panel
members
currently
and
former
members
have
asked
for
changes.
So
let's
get
at
that
very
quickly,
I
just
again
advocated
strongly
for
us
not
to
do
what
we
did
tonight.
N
It's
a
ridiculous
role
for
us.
It's
a
poor
use
of
time.
It
has
been
humiliating
I,
think
for
some
applicants
and
other
members
of
the
community.
So,
let's,
let's
get
back
to
it,
ASAP
and
change.
It
I
thought
about
abstaining
from
this
vote
to
emphasize
how
important
that
point
is
to
me,
but
I've,
never
ducked
out
of
a
hard
vote.
I
don't
want
to
sort
of
Center
myself
with
abstaining.
N
I
think
that
the
focus
needs
to
be
on
the
panel
and
I
need
to
on
on
my
responsibility
as
someone
who's
elected
to
vote
so
I'm,
a
yes
I
support
the
panel
being
seated
I
trust
that
they
will
proceed
with
impartiality
and
because
I
think
this
has
been
so
politicized.
N
I
just
want
to
say
again
that
with
The
Duality
that
I'm
talking
about
I
appreciate
both
the
oversight
panel
and
the
Boulder
Police
Department
I,
think
both
of
these
groups
are
doing
exceptional
work
and
it's
exceptionally
hard
work
and
they're
they're
doing
it
well,
so
I
want
to
thank
the
police
department.
I
want
to
say
thank
you
to
the
panelists
who
are
rounding
off.
Thank
you
to
the
panelists
who
are
coming
on.
N
Let's,
please
keep
doing
great
things
and
I'm
a
yes.
Thank
you.
G
I
happen
to
agree
with
a
good
deal
of
what
Rachel
has
said.
I
thought
it
was
well
thought
out
and
well
articulated,
although
I
have
come
to
a
different
conclusion
tonight,
we're
considering
whether
to
ratify
these
candidates
presented
by
the
selection
committee
for
service
on
the
police
oversight
panel
I,
believe
we
have
been
presented
with
flawed
candidates,
selected
by
a
flawed
process
and
I'm
going
to
oppose
ratification.
G
G
It
requires
almost
willful
blindness
to
maintain
that
that
some
of
these
nominees
actually
fulfill
the
requirements
of
the
statute.
In
addition,
we
task
a
selection
committee
to
review
all
of
the
candidates
and
provide
us
with
an
analysis
as
to
how
they
met
the
statutory
criteria,
including,
of
course,
absence
of
bias.
G
G
There's
a
difference
between
approaching
potential
police
misconduct
with
a
critical
and
skeptical
eye,
which
we
all
would
acknowledge
to
be
important
and
necessary
and
approaching
it
with
a
predetermined
set
of
views.
Neither
apologists
for
the
police
department
nor
those
reflexively
antagonistic
to
it
should
be
members
of
this
panel.
Today
we
abandon
this
ideal.
G
G
You
know
it's
almost
as
if
the
selection
committee
sought
to
maximize
the
anti-police
orientation
of
the
oversight
panel
and
if
that
is
the
case,
that
objective
May
well
be
achieved,
but
be
careful
what
you
wish
for
in
taking
this
action
tonight,
we
will
also
diminish
the
panel
of
credibility
and
moral
stature
as
an
Arbiter
of
police
Behavior.
What
weight
will
the
community
give
to
its
recommendations
other
than
to
shrug
and
say
well?
What
did
you
expect?
G
Their
future
determinations
will
be
seen
largely
as
the
biased
product
of
a
biased
panel,
a
vehicle
for
anti-police
sentiment.
They
will
render
their
judgments
and
many
will
not
care
and
some
the
process
was
flawed.
It
produced
inappropriate
candidates,
it
ignored
the
statutory
requirements
for
service
on
this
body.
The
analysis
requested
by
Council
was
ignored
and
dismissed.
G
The
candidates
put
forward
by
the
selection
committee
reflected
a
more
politicized
process
rather
than
an
impartial
process
intended
to
provide
actual
unbiased
oversight
of
the
police
department.
It
will
serve
to
marginalize
the
oversight
panel
and
ensure
that
its
judgments
will
be
to
some
great
degree
discounted.
G
M
Thanks
Aaron
first
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
Rachel
for
those
Exquisite
comments.
It
actually
makes
my
job
a
little
easier,
because
I
got
to
trim
a
whole
lot.
I
would
have
said
because
you
said
it
way
better.
So
allows
me
to
be
brief
and
a
lot
of
my
colleagues
to
say
what
they
want.
As
was
stated,
you
know
this
has
been
hard
over
the
last
month
plus
and
a
lot
of
Reflection
from
all
of
us
on
this
issue.
M
M
M
I
I
think
largely.
Some
of
the
issues
that
we
face
around
the
concerns
about
certain
candidates
are
a
very
symptom
of
those
structural
issues
with
the
ordinance
and
how
the
panels
perhaps
structure
as
a
whole
and
so
I
think
and
I
would
love
for
us
to
expeditiously
work
to
fix
those
things.
I'm
hopeful
narrated
upon
hiring
our
new
police
monitor
that
one
of
the
things
we
can
ask
them
to
do
is
quickly
evaluate
the
work
being
done.
M
I
think
we
can
fly
the
plane
and
fix
it
at
the
same
time
and
for
those
Reasons
I'm
going
to
be
in
support
of
these
candidates
and
I,
look
forward
to
expeditiously
fixing
and
and
trying
to
get
us
to
a
better
place
where
these
future
conversations
are
done
without
too
much
drama.
And
we
can
have
a
successful
oversight
that
both
the
police
department,
the
community
and
everybody
has
full
faith
and
trust
in
going
forward.
Thanks.
B
Thanks
man,
Tara
Bob,
Jenny
Lauren
and
then
myself.
I
So,
even
though
it's
been
a
really
difficult
month
or
probably
two
months,
I
feel
like
this
has
been
an
important
discussion
for
our
community
I
personally,
do
not
like
conflict
or
attention,
but
as
a
member
of
the
police
over
panel
oversight
panel
said
in
one
of
the
interviews,
I
watched
and
I'm
paraphrasing,
sometimes
tension
is
good.
In
this
case
it
forces
us
to
realize
that
there's
a
problem
and
that
we
need
to
have
these
necessary
conversations,
so
we
can
go
for
it
as
a
community.
I
I
am
a
strong
believer
in
Us,
in
an
unbiased
oversight
of
police
departments,
a
strong,
unbiased
oversight
of
police
departments,
I
believe
in
the
need
for
and
the
function
of,
a
police
oversight
panel
to
quote
another
member
of
the
panel.
So
everyone
could
experience
safety
when
it
comes
to
contact
with
the
police.
I
do
not
feel
the
police
should
select
the
people
that
will
be
on
an
independent
police
oversight
panel,
nor,
according
to
the
ordinance,
is
the
independent
monitor
allowed
to
do
that
either.
So
I
really
hope.
We
all
agree
on
that.
I
So
how
should
the
panelists
be
chosen?
Well,
there
are
specific
language
in
the
ordinance
we
already
heard
about
that
tonight.
At
least
half
the
members
should
be
African-American,
latinx,
Asian
and
or
indigenous.
In
addition,
there
should
be
someone
with
a
disability,
someone
with
experienced
home
that
has
experienced
homelessness,
a
person
identifying
as
LBGTQ
and
a
person
who
has
experienced
incarceration
I
want
to
take
a
second
to
read
a
small
part
of
the
section
of
the
ordinance
that
discusses
the
legislative
intent
of
the
panel.
I
It
is
to
ensure
that
historically
excluded
communities
have
a
voice
in
police
oversight.
That
is
the
intent.
So
if
we
want
historically
excluded
community
members
on
this
panel,
after
all,
that
is
the
point
of
this
panel,
we
will
get
some
strong
feelings
from
some
people
who
had
negative
experiences
with
the
police
or
whose
loved
ones
have.
I
I
You
know
there
are
some
very
smart
lawyers
on
both
sides
of
the
argument.
All
who
say
that
their
explanation
of
bias
is
the
correct
one
and
guess
what
they
don't
agree
with
each
other.
In
fact,
I
would
say
that
if
you
said
to
me
what
phrase
is
trending
in
Boulder
right
now,
I'm
pretty
sure
it
is
real
or
perceived
bias,
so
I
believe
we
need
more
clarity
as
to
what
that
phrase
means
and
I
believe
we
actually
need
it
before
we
proceed
any
further.
I
I
have
many
fixes.
I
would
like
to
see,
but
I
will
mention
just
a
few
for
the
sake
of
brevity,
if
you
can
call
a
four-minute
speech,
gravity
sorry,
Aaron
more
first
is
someone
who
has
seen
almost
all
the
interviews.
I
believe
that
there
is
a
fair
amount
of
frustration
and
disappointment
amongst
past
and
current
panel
members.
Why
do
I
know
that?
I
Because
they
say
so
in
the
in
the
interviews
folks,
these
people
have
put
in
a
lot
of
work,
sacrificed
their
free
time
and
have
had
to
experience
a
lot
of
pressure
lately,
which
is
evident
if
you
watch
those
interviews
and
you
carefully.
Listen
and
I
want
to
fix
that
for
them
quickly,
and
we
also
see
the
stress
from
two
people
who
already
withdrew
their
applications
in
a
very
compelling
comment.
I
One
of
the
people
who
was
on
the
police
oversight
panel
said
and
I
quote:
I
enjoy
the
review
process
up
until
the
point
we
turn
it
over.
The
vehicle
is
good.
We
are
thorough,
we
get
the
perspective
the
community
in
a
way
that
has
never
happened
before
the
things
that
are
giving
us
the
most
struggle
have
more
to
do
with
legalities
and
we
are
people
I,
don't
know
that
we
should
be
worried
about
that
kind
of
stuff.
This
is
the
job.
Lawyers
do
end
quote,
so
my
number
two
would
be.
I
We
must
make
sure
the
panel
has
the
precise
training
it
needs
in
terms
of
legal
advice,
City
governance
and
rules,
Sunshine
laws
and
administrative
support.
They
are
people,
they
are
volunteers
and
they
need
this
to
succeed.
My
next
one
is
going
to
be
highly
controversial.
Maybe
or
maybe
not
the
ordinance
says
that,
while
the
interviews
will
be
for
public
viewing,
the
deliberations
will
be
confidential.
I
Well,
should
they
be
confidential.
As
a
city
council,
member,
try
to
make
a
well
thought
out
and
fair
decision
should
I
be
able
to
see
those
deliberations.
I
would
love
that
to
be
discussed
to
me.
It
would
add
transparency
to
this
process.
Open
meetings
are
a
good
thing.
This
was
reiterated
to
me
this
very
week
yesterday.
In
fact,
for
me,
it's
not
about
trusting
or
not
trusting
the
panel
selection
committee.
We
have
a
system
of
government
in
this
country
that
uses
checks
and
balances,
and
that
is
because
the
three
branches
of
government
need
oversight.
I
In
other
words,
we
all
need
oversight
and
finally,
I'm
going
to
quote
myself-
things
are
really
messed
up
right
now,
and
that
is
why
I'm
voting
no
to
this
current
slate
of
nominees
I
realize
that
my
fellow
city
council
members
are
not
implied
to
further
delay
this
vote
until
the
system
gets
fixed
and
I
respect
their
individual
individual
decisions.
They
are
smart,
each
one
thinks
deeply
and
they
care
a
lot.
Each
one
of
them
cares
a
lot.
I
So
I
strongly
believe
that
we
need
to
fix
things
first
and
I'm
going
to
vote
no
on
the
Slate,
even
though
it
means
we
have.
We
won't
have
a
quorum
by
February,
8th
in
cases
we
push
back.
I
am
sorry
to
those
who
are
disappointed
with
any
of
my
comments
tonight
on
either
side
by
the
way-
and
this
is
the
16th
iteration
of
my
speech-
I
did
my
very
best.
However.
I
I
want
to
end
optimistically
I
believe
in
this
community
that
we
will
all
come
together
that
we
will
give
each
other
Grace
and
I
truly
believe
that
collaboration
will
bring
us
a
model
for
civilian
oversight
that
works
for
everyone
again,
I'm
just
voting,
no,
because
I
feel
like
we
need
to
take
the
time
to
fix
this
ahead
of
time.
Thank
you.
E
E
When
this
city
council
set
up
the
police
oversight
panel
in
in
2020,
we
had
high
hopes
that
it
would
serve
in
partnership
with
our
police
department
and
it
would
look
for
ways
to
improve
policing
in
our
community.
Some
of
those
expectations
have
been
met,
I'm
grateful
for
those
who
have
served
on
the
police
oversight
panel.
It's
tough
work
and
the
community
I
think
is
indebted
to
these
people.
E
Unfortunately,
not
everything
has
gone
as
expected
during
the
first
police
oversight
panel,
which
was
seated
two
years
ago
by
unanimous
vote
of
council,
there
has
been,
over
the
last
two
years,
confusion
over
the
roles
and
responsibilities
of
the
panel.
What
city
staff,
personal
information
can
be
made
public
and
the
limits
of
the
panel's
authority
at
the
request
of
the
panel
Council
last
year,
expanded
the
penal
size
to
spread
out
the
workload.
E
At
City
council's
meeting
on
December
15,
a
selection
committee
brought
to
council
a
slate
of
recommended
nominees
for
city
council
to
appoint
to
the
police
oversight.
Panic,
however,
both
before
and
during
that
council
meeting
community
members
stepped
forward
and
provided
to
council
evidence
that
they
said
demonstrated
bias,
Prejudice
or
conflict
of
interest.
Among
some
of
the
nominees
for
the
oversight
panel.
E
If
the
selection
committee
did
in
fact
do
this,
they
did
not
explain
how,
in
light
of
that
information,
the
nominees
who
the
committee
recommends
demonstrate
an
absence
of
any
real
or
perceived
bias,
Prejudice
or
conflict
of
interest,
as
the
law
requires,
and
there
is
now
pending
a
code
of
conduct
complaint
by
a
member
of
the
community.
Concerning
this
very
thing,
an
investigation
is
now
underway.
E
For
these
reasons,
I
am
voting
against
the
appointment
to
the
police
oversight
panel
of
the
Slate
of
nominees
recommended
by
the
selection
committee.
To
me,
the
process
appears
to
have
failed.
The
selection
committee
either
did
not
comply
with
city
law
or
they
failed
to
explain
how
they
did
so
in
failing
to
explain
how
they
fulfilled
the
duties
required
by
the
law.
The
selection
committee
risks
marginalizing
the
very
important
work
of
the
police
oversight
panel
going
forward.
B
Thank
you,
Bob
Juni,
then
Lauren.
Then
myself.
D
Thank
you
so
much
mayor,
Brockett
I,
am
a
little
bit
troubled
by
this
conversation
from
beginning
to
end
and
I,
hear
things
from
both
Bob
and
Mark,
and
the
decision
of
this
body
I
understand
that
we
technically
voted
to
have
these
people
investigated
and
I
understand.
I
asked
earlier:
it's
only
two
members
of
the
panel
nonetheless
to
me
that
whole
process
is
a
bit
demoralizing.
Imagine
if
you
were
working
for
an
employer
and
you
are
being
investigated
for
the
most
part.
D
So
I
just
don't
know
how
we
are
going
to
have
this
process
going
on
that
we're
looking
at
the
selection
committee,
and
then
these
members
will
still
be
able
to
do
a
good
job
with
you
know,
just
following
the
process
openly,
because
I
really
do
believe
this
whole
process
will
have
a
chilling
effect
on
the
members
it
will
make
it
less
likely
for
them
to
I
understand
some
of
the
comments
that
were
made
earlier,
that
you
know
there
is
a
process,
but
nonetheless
we
are
all
people.
D
We
have
perspectives
as
we're
following
the
process
as
well,
because
we
do
bring
our
full
selves
into
every
process.
So,
in
a
way
to
me,
this
investigation
and
I
understand
Teresa.
That's
part
of
the
process
and
I
know
that
I
voted
no
and
part
of
the
reason
why
I
did
is
because
I
do
think
our
system
is
flawed.
I
think
we
have
to
work
on
if
we,
if
it's
either
this
body
is
independent
or
it's
not
and
I
think
over
the
last
few
months.
D
If
some
of
us
say
hey,
these
people
should
be
investigated
or
the
process
should
be
investigated.
Let's
just
set
aside
the
people,
then,
essentially
we
do
believe
there
is
a
problem,
and
here
we
are.
Some
of
us
are
saying:
let's
vote,
let's
vote
Yes,
so
you
believe
there
is
a
problem
but
you're
ultimately
voting.
Yes.
So
to
me,
that's
a
bit
of
a
conflicting
message
for
me
and
honestly,
when
I
think
about
what's
been
going
on
with
this.
This
whole
police
oversight
conversation.
Ultimately
it
is
a
community
who
suffer.
D
We
will
continue
to
do
our
job
here
on
Council,
but
these
community
members
who
will
come
before
the
panel
they
will.
They
will
look
at
all
processes
as
something
that
is
not.
That
is
Shifty
that
things
are
not
necessarily
as
they
are
and
thus
important
as
a
body.
If
we
want
community
members
to
have
trust
in
us,
we
have
to
have
clear
processes,
and
sometimes
we
have
to
make
the
hard
decision
and
hard
choices
right
and
I've
heard
from
people
here.
You
know,
as,
as
you
know,
one
of
our
members
mentioned
what
he
said.
D
I
concur
at
least
I
felt
that
wow
what
he
said
touched
me
that
we're
not
here
to
apologize
for
the
police
decision,
we're
not
here
to
or
to
to
demonize
or
vilify
their
their
decisions.
D
We
are
here
to
answer
right
to
look
at
it
and
say:
was
it
a
fair
process
and
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
in
my
understanding
of
the
process,
if
they're
an
independent
body
and
yes,
ultimately,
we
have
to
vote
on
their
choice,
but
we
have
to
give
them
that
opportunity
and
again,
it's
just
very
surprising
to
me
hearing
some
of
the
conversation
going
on
and
how
some
of
us
can
go
from.
You
know.
Let's
abolish
the
police
to
today.
You
know
we.
This
is.
D
This
is
just
great,
so
I
think
we
have
to
be
consistent
in
the
job
that
we
do.
It's
not
about
whether
we
love
the
police
or
not
it's
about
fairness
and
that's
what
I
stand
on
and
that's
what
I
base
my
votes
on
when
I
voted
in
December,
or
at
least
when
I
talked
about
the
fact
that
I
didn't
want
to
have
this
conversation
tonight,
because
I
do
believe.
I
just
don't
see
what
happened,
the
the
appointments
rise
to
the
level
of
any
type
of
investigation,
because
people
do
have
the
right
to
free
speech.
D
So
to
me
it's
a
matter
of
fairness.
It's
not
a
matter
of
whether
I
love,
the
police
or
dislike
the
police
and
I've
been
very
consistent
on
my
stance
on
the
police.
As
far
as
I
was
never
an
abolitionist,
I've
always
been
believed
in
reforming.
So
ultimately
that
my
decision
tonight,
or
at
least
this
process,
has
been
very
confusing
on
how
we
express
or
or
agreement
or
disagreement
about
how
this
process
should
move
forward.
Thank
you.
O
Thanks
Aaron
I'm
gonna
focus
on
the
main
point
of
contention
that
I've
heard,
which
is
mainly
about
whether
any
of
the
candidates
are
showing
real
or
perceived
bias,
prejudiced
or
conflict
of
interest,
as
required
by
code
as
Sean
Ray
mentioned.
Bias
is
a
difficult
thing
to
judge.
O
Unfair
and
unreasonable
are
very
important
words
in
these
definitions.
As
I
see
it,
my
job
isn't
to
decide
if
these
candidates
are
for
or
against
more
or
less
funding
for
the
police
department.
My
job
is
to
determine
if
the,
if
they
are
expressing
an
unfair
or
unreasonable
feeling,
given
the
actions
of
both
the
Boulder
police
officers,
for
instance
those
that
preceded
the
formation
of
the
oversight
panel
and
instances
we've
seen
on
the
national
stage.
O
B
Thanks
Lauren,
well
I'll
call
on
myself
and
just
say:
I'm
really
grateful
to
my
colleagues.
I've
I've
heard
some
very
thoughtful
words
tonight
and
it's
clear
that
all
of
us
have
spent
a
lot
of
time
agonizing
and
thinking
over
these
questions
in
in
great
detail
and
great
depth.
I
know
I
certainly
have
had
some
sleepless
nights
tossing
and
turning
thinking
over
the
best
way
to
proceed.
There's
been
a
lot
of
strong
opinions
and
conflict
in
the
community
about
it
and
I'll
I'll
mention
Rachel
you.
You
spoke
pretty
much
my
thoughts
on
this
matter.
B
I
thought
those
were
very
well
articulated,
I'm
sort
of
tempted
to
say
ditto
on
what
Rachel
said,
but
I'm
gonna
offer
just
a
few
words
of
my
own
as
well.
I
and
I
want
I
want
to
thank
the
police
oversight
panelists
for
all
the
hard
work
that
they
have
done.
You
know
I've
been
through
this
process
every
step
of
the
way
in
the
last
few
years
and
have
appreciated
deeply
the
hard
work
that
community
members
and
selection
committee
members
and
the
panelists
have
done
throughout
that
I
spoke
briefly
with
Daniel
Leonard.
B
He
wrote
us
an
email
about
all
the
hard
work
and
how
tired
they
are
and
how
much
help
they
need
with
with
new
panelists,
to
continue
doing
the
work
that
we
set
them
up
to
do
and
and
I
also
very
much
want
to
thank
our
Police
Department
for
the
amazing
work
that
they
do
day
in
and
day
out,
as
well
as
our
phenomenal
Chief
Harold,
whose
work
I
have
enormous
respect
for
and
and
I
had
a
personal
relationship
with
this.
Just
recently
as
I
think.
B
How
great
award
the
department
can
do
just
just
recently
and
I
just
want
to
reiterate
what
some
folks
have
said
here,
which
is
that
the
what
we're
dealing
with
tonight
is
not
about
whether
we
should
or
should
not
have
police
oversight
panel
or
whether
we
do
or
do
not
support
our
Police
Department.
It's
it's
about
nominating
this
particular
slate
of
candidates
to
to
the
oversight
panel
to
allow
them
to
continue
under
their
work,
and
you
know
the
the
oversight.
Pail
is
advisory.
You
know
Nicole
asked
questions
to
to
that
point.
B
It
is,
it
is
not,
it
does
not
have
ultimate
Authority,
and
so
it's
it
does
important
work
and
it
makes
important
recommendations,
but
it
is
advisory
and
that
advisory
panel
needs
a
variety
of
opinions
on
it
and
it
I
think
it.
B
I
would
expect
every
panel
member
to
be
impartial
and
to
be
clear
about
evaluating
the
facts
about
of
each
case
and
I
do
think
these
people
in
front
of
us
tonight
have
the
ability
to
do
that.
I
will
watch
for
that
and
expect
that
from
them.
But
one
thing
is
a
number
of
people
have
referenced.
One
thing
that
is
clear
is
is
that
we
do
need
some
revisions
to
the
the
process.
B
The
selection
process
and
also
to
the
operation
of
the
panel
itself
and
I
know
that
work
is
to
come
as
Bob
said.
I
think
we'll
prioritize
that
in
our
retreat
in
a
few
weeks
here
that
we
do
need
to
allow
time
for
revisions
to
how
the
the
panel
operates
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
having
the
new
panel
members
and
the
existing
panel
members
work
with
the
new
independent,
monitor,
I'm,
confident
in
Nuria
and
Amy's
ability
to
select
a
highly
qualified
new
monitor.
B
Who
can
then
work
together
and
you
know,
produce
a
set
of
recommendations
for
us
to
consider
about
how
to
make
this
critical
function
in
our
in
our
community
and
our
society.
Work
better
and
and
in
the
meantime,
though,
the
the
panel
needs
to
function
as
important
work
to
do
so.
If
we
don't
appoint
panelists
tonight,
the
the
panel
will
be
not
able
to
function
for
who
knows
exactly
how
many
weeks
or
months
and
the
day-to-day
and
week-to-week
work
that
they
do
is
critical
and
so
I
will
be
voting.
B
B
So
with
that
all
nine
of
us
have
had
our
piece,
you
could
reassuring
if
you
really
had
to
for
another
comment,
but
I'd
love
to
go
to
a
vote.
If
that
is
all
right
with
my
colleagues,
seeing
no
objections
Elisha,
can
we
do
a
roll
call
vote
on
this
one?
Yes,.
B
J
O
G
B
Okay,
thank
you
Alicia,
and
just
thanks
again
everyone
for
your
thoughtful
deliberations
tonight
and
to
all
the
community
members
who've
paid
close
attention
to
this
and
and
we'll
just
pledge
to
continue
to
work
together
to
make
all
this
function
as
best
as
it
absolutely
possibly
can
for
our
community
going
forward
and
with
that,
that's
actually
the
end
of
our
special
meeting.
B
But
we
still
have
a
study
session
to
come
so
I'm
going
to
adjourn
this
special
meeting
and
then
hand
it
back
over
Alicia
for
you
to
get
us
started
on
the
study
session.
So
gavel
is
closed
on
the
special
meeting
and
hand
it
over.
G
On
the
Lighter
Side
good
evening,
and
welcome
to
tonight's
study
session
of
the
Boulder
City
Council
I'm
mayor
Pro,
tem,
Mark
Wallach,
and
thank
you
for
joining
us.
We
have
on
tonight's
agenda
two
items.
Our
first
item
will
be
a
discussion
of
the
proposed
boards
and
commissions
liaison
duties
and
procedures,
and
our
second
item
is
accessory
dwelling
unit
regulations
update
before
we
go
into
our
work
items
I'd
like
to
outline
how
the
meeting
will
be
conducted.
G
G
This
should
be
good
I'm,
now
going
to
turn
to
our
city
manager,
Nuria
Rivera
vandermeid,
to
introduce
our
first
item.
If
she
can.
P
Thanks
very
much
Nuria
hello,
everyone
good
evening.
My
name
is
Pam
Davis
I
use
she
her
pronouns
and
I
am
assistant
city
manager
for
the
city
of
Boulder.
So
tonight,
I'm
just
here
to
do
a
kind
of
a
brief
tee
up
for
you
all
to
deliberate
regarding
a
proposal
to
establish
a
council
liaison
program
to
each
of
our
boards
and
commissions.
P
Look
like
what
are
some
other
cities
doing
and
how
could
we
structure
such
a
program
to
enhance
engagement
between
you
all
and
your
boards
and
commissions,
and
so
we
have
since
done
that
staff
researched
several
different
city
models
for
Council
and
board
liaison
programs
and
I'd
like
to
just
quickly
acknowledge
the
stack
team
involved
with
that,
our
clerk
Alicia
Johnson,
our
elections,
administrator
John
Morse.
P
We
had
support
from
our
engagement
team
and
Brenda
rittenour,
as
well
as
our
assistance
of
city,
council,
Taylor,
Ryman,
and
then
the
city
attorney's
office
as
well
collaborated
on
some
of
these
details.
That
group
then
brought
recommendations
back
to
our
Council
subcommittee
of
council
members,
Weiner
and
folkerts,
and
we
offered
them
sort
of
a
wide
menu
of
what
various
Council
liaison
dudes
could
look
like.
P
They
provided
feedback.
That
was
then
whittled
down
into
the
recommendations
that
you
saw
in
the
amended
attachment
a
of
your
packet.
It's
about
six
suggestions
for
essentially
a
job
description
or
a
list
of
duties
for
a
potential
Council
liaison
role
that
you
all
could
take
on
as
well
as
some
initial
thoughts
around
a
process
for
selecting
which
council
member
might
be
appointed,
as
liaison
to
which
four
is
in
commissions,
and
so
with
that
we
do
have
two
slides
available
to
you
all
that
go
into
detail
about
what
those
descriptions
are.
P
So
we
would
be
happy
to
pull
those
up
at
this
time
just
to
do
a
quick
walk
through
and
then
so
Emily.
If
you're,
there
perfect
and
then
I'm
happy
to
turn
it
back
over
to
you,
mayor,
Pro,
Tem,
for
managing
the
council's
discussion.
P
So
essentially
following
deliberation
with
the
boards
and
commissions
subcommittee.
The
list
was
narrowed
down
to
a
this
following
notion
of
sort
of
six
essential
duties
for
being
a
board
and
commission
liaison.
So
one
would
be
to
attend
the
annual
Retreat
of
your
respective
board
and
commission
to
understand
their
work
plans
for
the
year
and
intentions.
P
Two
would
be
over
the
course
of
the
year
to
attend
one
or
two
of
said:
Borden,
commission
meetings,
so
that
you
can
observe
their
business
and
we'd
recommend
that
that
be
done
with
some
advanced
notice
to
the
leaders
of
that
border.
Commission,
then
third
would
be
you'd,
be
sort
of
a
designated
primary
Communication
channel
for
that,
given
board
and
commission.
P
So
as
as
leadership
of
that
board
and
commission
wanted
to
communicate
to
council
and
vice
versa,
as
Council
wanted
to
communicate
with
that
board
in
commission,
you
would
take
on
that
responsibility
in
the
recruitment
process.
P
You
would
participate
in
the
interviews
for
that
given
border
commission
that,
as
border
commission
questions
came
up
about
city
council
priorities,
you
would
hope
to
be
a
conduit
for
information
regarding
the
council
as
a
whole
and
then
finally
to
assist
with
sort
of
challenges
that
may
come
up
about
the
the
functioning
of
the
board
and
commission
and
bring
those
to
City
staff
and
the
full
Council
for
resolution
so
happy
to
have
you
discuss
which
of
those
duties
you
you
agree
with.
P
If
you
choose
to
pursue
this
direction
of
establishing
a
liaison
program
and
then
the
second
slide
is
really
after
that,
first
question
might
be
answered
of
whether
you'd
like
to
pursue
a
similar
scope.
As
as
to
what
has
been
outlined.
We
just
have
some
initial
thoughts
for
you
about
the
authority
of
counsel,
to
appoint
a
single
liaison
to
each
board
in
commission
that
the
term
of
the
the
office
of
your
liaison
ship
so
to
speak,
would
coincide
with
the
existing
cycle
of
committee.
Appointments
that
you
currently
do.
P
So
we
would
have
a
similar,
Cadence
and
add
this
to
the
list
of
assignments
that
council
members
would
take
on
and
then
finally,
the
process
for
actually
selecting
those
assignments.
We
recognize.
P
If
you
move
forward
with
such
a
program,
there
would
need
to
be
a
deliberation
if
there
was
multiple
council
members
interested
in
a
particular
border
commission
to
liaise
with
that.
Perhaps
the
each
council
member
could
sort
of
rank
their
preferences
of
boards
and
commissions,
and
then
staff
could
consolidate
those
into
a
recommended
slate.
That
could
then
be
further
discussed
and
negotiated
upon
during
your
biannual
Retreat
or
similar
midterm
check-in
as
needed.
O
O
That
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
we
feel
really
strongly
that
all
six
of
these
things
need
to
be.
You
know
it's
not
all
or
nothing.
It's
just
a
place
to
start
the
conversation
from.
I
I
trust
this
Council,
and
so
you
don't
have
to
feel
obligated
to
us
to
vote
a
certain
way
or
feel
bad
that
you
are
voting
whatever
way
you
do,
as
my
daughter
would
say
you
do
you
each
one
of
you
so
and
I
support
that
I
do
want
to
say
that
my
original
was
from
a
point
of
if
I
remember,
just
thinking
that
we,
it
would
be
nice
for
us
to
have
some
type
of
even
little
relationship
with
our
boards
and
commissions,
because
we
don't
have
unless
we
personally
call
people,
we
don't
really
have
that
right
now
and
I
thought
that
that
would
be
nice.
G
M
Oh
I
see
Tara's
hand
up,
so
does
she
have
a
question
or
okay
yeah
mostly
I
have
comments,
but
there
is
just
one
question
which
is:
is:
are
we
aiming
to
have
a
liaison
for
every
single
boarding
commission
or
or
do
we
have
some
sort
of
cut
off
on
which
ones
will
have
that
so
I'm
just
sort
of
curious
I,
don't
think
I
saw
that
in
the
memo,
or
it
was
just
assumed
that
it
would
be
all
so
I
just
want
to
get
clarity
on
that.
O
We
talked
about
it
both
ways:
I
I
think
it.
You
know,
I
think
that
there
are
count,
are
definitely
Awards
and
commissions
that
have
work.
That
more
directly
relates
to
what
council's
doing
on
an
ongoing
basis,
and
that,
where
I
think
that
this
has
a
lot
more
benefit,
I
think
that
all
of
the
boards
and
commissions
could
benefit
from
this.
But
there,
you
know,
is
definitely
a
reasonable
question
of
time
and
commitment
from
all
of
us.
I
For
instance,
though,
if
you're,
for
instance
on
the
Water
Board,
that
sounds
like
torture,
so
there's
better
name
for
that,
then
you
might
want,
though,
to
know
Council
people.
So
just
because
it's
a
smaller
board,
isn't
it
just
still
the
the
concept
is
still
there,
although
it
just
might
be
call
me
if
you
need
me,
you
know,
or
if
you
have
any
troubles
or
if
you
need
a
friend
or
whatever
we
decide.
N
Thanks
Mark,
okay,
my
two
questions
so
on
the
potential
liaison
duties
number
two
says
serve
as
the
primary
Communication
channel
support.
I
just
didn't
know
like
what
does
that
mean?
What
is
what
is
being
the
primary
Communication
channel,
really
going
to
mean.
P
Council
member
friend
I'm
happy
to
address
the
question.
I
was
just
wait,
pausing
to
see
if
a
subcommittee
member
would
I
think
based
on
the
conversation
we
had.
The
the
notion
in
the
research
that
we
did
is
just
really
a
designated
point
of
contact
so
from
the
Borden
commission
perspective
if
they
have
an
interest
or
need
in
getting
in
touch
with
the
council
body
over
a
particular
issue,
getting
clarification
on
the
the
priorities
of
council
wanting
to
check
in
on
a
particular
issue.
P
They
would
know
this
is
the
person
that
is
my
liaison
right,
and
so
that
could
be
that
point
of
contact.
In
the
reverse
case,
there
could
Envision
situations
where
the
whole
of
council
wanted
to
have
a
connection
to
a
particular
board,
and
rather
than
have
to
engage
in
a
full-fledged
process,
you
could
go
and
say:
hey
liaison.
Why
don't
you
start
by
talking
to
a
particular
board
chair
or
attend
a
meeting
and
represent
us
and
bring
back
to
whatever
that
perspective
might
be
so
I
think
that's
the
sense.
P
It's
really
just
about
creating
a
clear
pathway
for
information
to
go
back
and
forth.
N
P
F
If
you
don't
mind,
I'd
love
to
jump
in
here
so
so
I
would
I
would
suggest
a
council
that
that,
if
you
adopt
this,
that
it
would
instead
be
rather
than
go
to
staff
that
you
would
go
to
Nuria
as
that's
the
appropriate
pathway
under
our
Charter.
F
F
If
there
are,
you
know
if
there
are
procedural
issues
or
members
with
problematic
behaviors,
only
the
city
council
is
is
in
a
position
to
to
to
take
care
of
that
and
do
something
about
it.
I
certainly
can't
speak
to
your
expertise
to
do
so,
but
but
it
is
within
your
Authority.
Okay.
H
Thank
you,
yeah
I
just
had
a
question
about
the
duties
section
and
probably
for
subcommittee
foreign.
Was
there
discussion
of
what
the
duties
would
not
be
so
just
kind
of
a
way
to
further
constrain?
Some
of
us
like
we're,
seeing
what
it
would
be
just
wondering
if
there,
if
you
all
discussed
and
what
you
came
up
with
about
what
it
is
not.
I
Well,
I
know
what
I
would
I
would
not
like
it
to
be,
but
I
don't
know
if
we
discussed
Lauren
did
we
discuss
what
we
would
not
like
it
to
be,
I
mean
we
don't
want
to
it's
there
I
believe
in
separations
of
powers.
I
just
mentioned
that
in
my
speech,
so
we're
certainly
not
going
to
want
to
push
ourselves
on
these
boards
and
commissions
who
are
supposed
to
be
separate
bodies
and
making
their
own
decisions.
That
wasn't.
I
O
Yeah
and
I
think
that
kind
of
comes
out
in
the
bullet
point
number
one
of
the
attending
one
to
two
boards
or
commission
meetings.
By
Invitation
of
the
board
or
commission
like
the
the
intention,
is
that
the
city
council
member,
is
not
going
to
all
of
the
meetings
in
an
official
capacity,
I
mean
if
they're
public
meetings,
so
anyone
can
watch
them.
O
But
you
know
in
terms
of
participation
with
the
meeting
that
they're
there
was
an
idea
there
that
there
would
be
some
kind
of
restriction
on
that,
so
that
the
boards
and
commissions
can
function
as
they
typically
do.
G
Any
other
questions:
let
me
open
up
the
floor
to
comments
comments.
N
Will
run
through
mine
that
I
I
do
not
think
will
be
particularly
well
received
by
anyone,
but
here
goes
I'm
I'm
against
us.
Creating
this
liaison
position.
First
of
all,
I,
don't
see
a
particular
need
for
it
and
I
think
it
will
get
politicized
very
quickly.
My
guess
is
that
most
of
us
will
want
the
same
like
four
to
six
boards.
I
assume
that
the
people
in
the
minority
three
to
four
people
will
just
get
bounced
to
a
board
that
they
don't
want
every
single
time.
N
There's
I,
just
don't
see
a
way
that
this
doesn't
get
politicized
and
we
used
to
see
that,
like
even
just
with
asking
questions
to
boards
and
commissions
during
interviews
like
if
you're
a
more
senior
and
in
the
majority,
you
asked
a
question
and
others
did
not
so
I.
Just
I
think
that
this
will
have
negligible
if
any
Community
benefit.
It
will
be
more
of
a
time.
N
So
that's
first,
second,
as
to
the
potential
duties
for
number
one
attend
one
to
two
border
commissions
meetings
a
year,
I
would
say:
that's
Max
and
I
was
trained,
that
we
cannot
open
our
mouths
at
board,
meetings
or
commission
meetings,
and
unless
we
are
speaking
on
behalf
of
our
colleagues
and
with
Council
input
and
permission
and
from
what
I
have
seen,
we
have
gotten
very
far
away
from
that.
So
I
would
firm
up
our
rule
about
no
speaking
in
any
board
or
commission
meetings,
and
we
are
a
political
group
of
people
like
I.
N
Think
half
of
us
right
now
are
going
to
be
running
for
Council
or
mayor
this
year
and
and
I.
Don't
think
anyone
should
be
seen
by
by
staff
by
the
boards
or
by
community
members
watching
the
boards
as
kind
of
the
expert
I
think
we
all
have
a
lot
of
interest
in
a
lot
of
boards,
and
this
is
is
just
going
to
be
heavily
politicized
again.
N
I
I
think
that
also
when
we
speak
to
boards-
and
we
are
a
council
member-
there's
a
potential
for
us
being
seen
as
sort
of
speaking
for
the
majority.
So
I
would
strongly
if
we
are
going
to
create
this
liaison
I
mean
either
way,
I
think
we
should
tighten
up
that
work
rule.
N
If
we
have
this
liaison,
it
should
be
a
Max
of
two
and
and
no
one
should
be
speaking
in
any
boards
other
than
that,
because
that
has
been
the
the
rule
and
I
think
it's
got
really
strong
political
reasons
for
for
not
allowing
us
to
do
that
and
and
I
think.
N
It
also
has
the
potential
to
sort
of
Curry
favor
with
board
members,
and
especially,
if
you're,
on
this
higher
level
profile,
higher
profile
boards
and
again
like
with
so
many
people
running
for
office,
I
think
that
can
just
get
turned
into
endorsements
and
and
I,
don't
think
that's
fair,
especially
for
people
in
the
minority
of
which
not
too
long
ago,
I
was,
and
so
I
think
you
know
we
should
be
mindful
of
being
fair
on
point
number,
four
to
help
resolve
questions.
N
You
know:
I
have
encountered
situations
where
City
Council
Members.
Maybe
we
think
we
we
know
more
than
we
do
and
I'm
not
sure
that
any
of
us
should
be
instructing
an
entire
board
from
our
own
lens.
There
are
nine
of
us
with
nine
different
Vantage
points
so
for
for
us
to
answer
like
the
the
role
and
what
our
priorities
are
and
just
what
we
see
is
important
for
that
border.
N
Commission
I
think
that
that
again
is
if
we're
doing
it
on
the
record
and
and
seeing
us
speaking
for
counsel,
that's
brought
on
point
number
five
to
represent
the
interests
of
designated
boards
and
commissions
in
the
council
Retreat
and
priority
setting
process
again.
Just
this.
This
will
be
probably
slanted
by
our
political
lenses,
so
I
wouldn't
go
there
either
again,
wouldn't
be
doing
any
of
this
at
all.
But
I
would
just
tread
lightly
and
I
won't
be
here
much
longer.
N
So
it's
not
going
to
impact
me
so
I
just
think
this
is
a
this
is
again
just
extremely
fraught
and
finally
number
six
to
assist
again,
as
requested
with
identifying
any
challenging
any
challenges
to
the
functioning
as
I
said,
I,
don't
believe
that
we
are
all
equally
trained
or
equipped
to
identify
or
deal
with
challenges.
N
So
I
think
that
you
know
that's
the
luck
of
the
draw
that
the
board
gets
like
if
they
get
me
versus
you
know,
whoever
else
like
I,
I'm
I,
don't
have
expertise
in
that
I
think
I
I
do
a
worse
job
than
some
and
better
than
others.
So
why
would
we
set
up
that
that
kind
of
inequality
I
think
that
it
could?
N
We
have
a
boards
in
commission
subcommittee
that
right
now
all
of
the
stuff
funnels
to
and
they
should
be
trained
and
and
becoming
experts
in
doing
that,
so
I
would
have
it
continue
to
go
to
them
for
the
challenges
and-
and
then
you
know
in
terms
of
like
identifying
what
what
is
functioning
or
dysfunctional
I
might
have
through
a
political
lens
called
one
board
fairly
dysfunctional
over
the
last
couple
years,
and
you
know
maybe
Mark
Wallach
would
not
have
and
he
I
might
have
been
kind
of
cheerleading
another
board
that
I
thought
was
like
knocking
it
out
of
park
because
I
like
what
they're
doing
politically
and
Mark
might
have
been
like
they're
they're
way
off.
N
You
know
Off
the
Mark
here
so
I
I
just
see
topped
about
him.
This
whole
thing
is
is
fraught.
We
have
a
system,
that's
working,
I,
don't
often
agree
with.
You
know.
This
is
a
solution.
Is
that
what
you
say,
Mark
or
Bob
solution?
Looking
for
a
problem
or
problem
looking
for
solution,
I
can't
remember
which
way
it
goes,
but
that
is
how
I
feel
about
this
and
I.
Don't
know
why
we're
going
down
this
road
and
I
think
it's
it's.
If
not
for
this
Council.
N
G
M
Thanks
Mark
yeah,
the
compensation
at
dinners
before
Council
meetings
is
excessive.
Thank
you
for
that
and
just
say
Rachel's
on
fire
tonight.
I
just
want
to
call
shine
a
light
on
that.
So
thank
you.
M
So
first
I
I'm
I'm
kind
of
generally
uncomfortable
with
how
we've
kind
of
gotten
here
in
the
Years
prior
to
being
on
Council
I,
was
quite
vocal
and
supportive
about
this
kind
of
evolution
with
regards
to
having
some
oversight
and
or
at
any
oversight,
but
just
connect,
greater
connection
with
our
boards
and
commissions,
but
but
as
it
sort
of
played
out,
you
know,
I
I
think
this.
M
We
sort
of
ended
up
with
sort
of
an
unsanctioned
pilot
of
this
without
Council
input
and
it
kind
of
just
reared
its
own
head
in
its
own
way
and
then
now
it's
ending
up
in
sort
of
a
formal
proposal
as
a
result
of
that.
So
just
how
we
got
here.
Just
really
has
me
uncomfortable,
but
but
in
light
of
that
I
think
one
of
the
pieces
is
for
one
I
think
we
start
if
we.
M
M
M
One
each
I
would
not
do
top
five
Rachel's
spot
on
I
could
probably
be
in
high
confidence,
knowing
which
of
the
top
four
or
five
all
of
us
are
going
to
put
on
their
list
and
then
we're
sort
of
just
peacocking
around
for
the
ones
that
we
want
and
someone
gets
left
out.
If
you're
gonna
do
it
and
you
probably
should
be
randomized
and
it
shouldn't
be
every
two
years.
It
should
be
every
one.
M
I
I
think
one
meeting
is
probably
Max
again:
I'd
start
small,
have
one
meeting
and
we
to
or
I'll
reiterate,
Rachel's
point
I
think
it
needs
to
be
a
standing
thing,
not
a
part
of
this
program,
but
we
should
not
be
presenting
to
boards.
This
is
a
staff's
role.
We
need
to
keep
some
separation
there
and
in
terms
of
what
the
guidance
is
I
think
it's
really
mostly
about
process.
M
I
think
we
should
be
focused
mostly
on
process
and
helping
them
out
or
if
they're,
sort
of
inter-board
conflicts
and
Personnel
conflicts
and
helping
resolve
some
of
that
I
think
we
should
really
steer
clear
of
any
policy
conversations
with
our
boards
and
commissions,
and
I
mean
that
that
really
sums
it
up,
but
I
think
I,
sh,
I'm,
yeah,
I'm
sort
of
challenged
with
how
we
got
here
with
that.
So
I
would
be
fine.
M
If
we
didn't
do
this,
but
if
we
did
I
would
want
the
strictest
of
guard
rails
of
what
we
can
and
certainly
what
we
can't
do
and
start
off
on
a
pretty
small
scale
and
if
things
are
going,
okay,
expanded
at
a
later
date.
E
Matt
you're
right
Rachel
is
on
fire
tonight.
Wow
I
agree
with
everything
that
Rachel
and
Matt
said
I.
This
is
not
something
that
I
probably
would
be
inclined
to
do
either
and
I
say
that,
from
the
perspective
of
somebody
who
served
on
the
Parks
and
Recreation
Advisory
Board
from
2009
to
2013,
including
last
two
years
as
chairman
I
remember,
we
talked
all
the
time
on
the
Parks
Board
gosh.
E
This
is
the
time
in
the
cycle
where
people
start
to
come
to
council
members
and
say
gosh.
You
know,
community
members
do
and
I'm
thinking
about
running
for
Council.
How
much
work
is
it
and
you
have
two
choices?
You
can
either
tell
them.
The
truth
or
you
can
lie
to
them,
and
this
just
adds
a
lot
more
work.
I
looked
at
that
list
of
six
things,
I
thought.
E
Oh,
my
God,
that's
a
lot
of
work
and
that's
just
one
more
thing:
we're
gonna
have
to
tell
perspective
candidates
that
they're
gonna
have
to
add
to
the
workload
and-
and
unfortunately
you
know
with
our
compensation
system
this-
we
are
excluding
people
from
serving
on
this
Council
because
they
have
jobs
because
they're
raising
children
because
of
other
things
going
on
in
their
lives
and
I
think
making
our
workload
greater
is
just
going
to
drive
more
of
those
people
away
and-
and
this
becomes
an
unrepresented
unrepresentative
Council
and
that's
a
consequence
of
of
what
we've
done
here
and
so
I
think
this
would
just
be
exacerbating
that
problem.
E
The
most
I
would
do
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
the
list
of
six
things
on
the
list,
but
the
most
I
would
do
I'm
I'm
with
with
Rachel
and
Matt
I'm.
Not
sure
I
would
do
any
of
this,
but
the
most
I
would
do
if
there's
a
problem
that
we
think
we
need
to
solve
is
as
I
would
just
have
a
point
of
contact.
A
designated
council
member
who's
appointed
contact.
It's
passive,
it's
a
one-way
communication.
E
If
somebody
on
that
board
wants
to
contact
us
and
say,
hey,
we've
got
a
problem,
we
got
an
issue,
we
got
a
question
or
whatever
they
can
pick
up
the
phone
or
send
an
email,
and
they
can
ask
that
designated
person
a
question.
Of
course
they
can
do
that
now
they
can
ask
any
one
of
us
a
question
if
they
want
to.
We
don't
get
the
whole
lot
of
questions,
but
if
it
made
people
feel
better
to
have
a
plan
of
contact.
That's
fine
I
agree
completely
with
Matt.
E
How
we
make
it
completely
randomized
and
I
would
make
it
a
year
long
term.
That
way.
There's
no
competition.
We
just
pass
a
hat
up
and
down
the
dice
and
Bob
pulls
out
an
environmental
in
bjap.
That's
what
I
got
for
a
year!
That's
what
I'm
going
to
have
next
year,
I
pull
out
two
more
names
and
that's
what
I
have
for
that
year,
so
I
would
make
it
random.
I
would
make
it
one
year
like
Matt,
suggested
and
I
would
make
it
merely
a
point
of
contact.
We
would
not
attend
our
meetings.
E
G
H
I
still
do
think
that
this
is
a
good
idea,
just
in
response
to
what
others
were
mentioning
about
the
feedback
from
boards
and
commissions
that
it
actually
means
something
for
them
to
have
a
council
person
showing
up
and
showing
you
know
some
some
engagement,
some
willingness
to
pay
attention
to
the
work
that
they're
doing,
even
as
just
a
presence,
even
not
saying
something,
I
think
it
does
still
make
people
value
for
their
time
in
the
same
way
that
when
we
go
to
community
events
and
things,
people
get
really
excited
when
we
show
up
because
there
there
is
a
sort
of
it
it
just.
H
It
shows
that
we're
paying
attention
to
the
things
that
are
happening
in
the
city,
but
I
would
I
would
offer
some
suggestions.
One
is
just
around
the
idea
of
the
I.
Think
Teresa
was
right
on
point
that
you
know
any
any
challenges
or
anything
should
go
to
the
city
manager.
That
should
not
be
anybody
trying
to
you
know
inject
themselves
with
staff
or
anything
like
that.
H
The
let's
see
I'm
having
some
description
of
what
it
is
not
I
think
can
really
help
with
some
guard
rails
on
this,
to
make
sure
that
it
doesn't
kind
of
become
a
political
sort
of
thing
explicitly
is
dating.
You
know
it's
not
guiding
board
work,
it's
not
recommending
direction
for
the
board
work,
it's
not
influencing
the
decisions
of
the
board
and
it's
not
representing
the
council
opinion
right,
because,
as
one
person,
we
can't
ever
do
that.
H
But
I
think
you
know
noting
that
we
are
there
to
provide
information
and
clarification
on
on
any.
You
know,
issues
that,
like
our
work
plan
items,
for
example,
facilitate
sharing
information
across
entities,
these
I
do
think
are
are
potentially
valuable
things
to
have.
H
Let's
see
the
other,
oh
and
the
other
thing
was
I,
actually
think
in
the
selection
process.
It
makes
sense
to
have
roles
overlap
a
bit
so,
for
example,
and
I
I
will
just
name
that
I'm
I'm
having
a
hard
time
tonight
feeling
like
some
of
these
criticisms
are
not
directed
at
me.
That's
still
just
kind
of
putting
putting
that
out
there
to
name
it
and
but
the
this
idea
of
having
some
overlap
with
other
committee
works.
H
If
people
have
questions
about
some
of
those
things
from
the
perspective
of
a
Dr
director,
then
I
would
be
able
to
answer
those
questions
so
so
that
it
does
make
sense
to
me,
I
think,
there's
some
Synergy
or
symmetry
between
some
of
these
roles,
that
that
could
make
sense
and
just
kind
of
help
bridge
some
of
these
multiple
connections
a
little
bit.
H
So
that
would
be
what
I
would
offer
of
just
trying
to
create
some
some
of
those
symmetry
so,
for
example,
between
human
relations
commission
and
the
racial
Equity
committee,
again
kind
of
just
having
some
of
those
overlapping
perspectives.
I
could
see
being
helpful
and
you
know
about
the
this
workload
issue.
It's
one
to
two
meetings
a
year
that
we
would
be
asking
each
other
to
attend.
H
A
board
or
commission
I
think
the
solution
to
the
workload
issue
and
how
that
may
bias
who
can
serve
in
this
role
is
not
to
avoid
the
things
that
can
make
some
of
our
work
better,
but
rather
to
pay
us
the
living
wage
for
the
work
that
we're
doing
on
behalf
of
the
city.
So
to
me,
that
is
the
solution
and
if
we're
concerned
about
workload
having
some
of
these
synergies
between
committees
and
and
the
liaison
position
could
help.
Thank
you.
I
Said
I
can't
even
use
that
word
that
work
we
still,
but
it's
true
when
I
was
on
Parks.
We
all
said
gosh.
We
wish
that
the
city
council
paid
attention
to
us
and
read
what
we
wrote
to
them,
and
and
now
that
I'm
sitting
on
the
other
side,
I'm,
definitely
not
leaning,
I'm,
not
saying
I'm
against
it,
but
I'm,
definitely
leading
towards
now.
I
can
actually
see
your
old
points
who
think
it's
not
a
good
idea.
I
D
D
Well,
not
to
speak
poorly
of
maybe
myself
too,
as
someone
who's
been
on
different,
for
instance,
we're
on
Dr
Cox
together,
but
there
are
other
things
that
we
are
all
on
on
subcommittees
and
some
of
them
do
report
right
every
so
often,
but
some
of
them
don't
report
at
all.
We
just
expect
us
to
do
a
good
job.
So,
ultimately,
what
is
the
hope
of
having
these
two
members
on
these
committees
and
boards?
D
Just
not
sure,
if
joining
meetings,
if
that's
going
to
negatively
impact
certain
decisions
or
even
positively
right,
some
of
the
boards,
they
give
us
recommendations.
If
we
show
up
two
of
us
show
up
and
we
sit
there
as
they're,
making
their
decisions
even
tonight
considering
how
things
went
well,
they
feel
wow
I
better
make
the
decisions
that
the
count
these
two
council
members
want
or
they'll
report
to
the
council,
so
I'm
I'm,
just
not
sure.
If
that's
the
right
way
to
go
and
I
have
to
say,
Rachel's
points
are
well
taken.
D
You
know
we
I
mean
we
do
take
on
this
job.
I
know
it
wasn't
paying
and
I've
taken
on
another
job
that
doesn't
pay
but
I'm
willing
to
make
that
sacrifice.
But,
ultimately
again,
a
comment
that
was
made
earlier
is
that
we
also
have
to
think
of
the
bandwidth
of
other
members
and
also
well
it
foreclosed
the
opportunity
for
other
people
in
the
community
who
eventually
wants
to
do
this
job.
So
thank
you.
B
Yeah
people
have
made
some
great
points
here
tonight:
I
guess
I'm
I'm
open
to
having
this
function.
I
would
just
make
sure
that
the
scope
was
really
limited,
so
I
I
would
so
I
would
not
include
the
Retreats
as
something
that
we
attended
and
I
think.
Maybe
what
I
might
recommend
would
be
to
go
to
one
meeting
to
introduce
yourself
like,
but
not
really
necessarily
stay
for
the
whole
thing
but,
like
maybe
show
up
at
the
beginning,
I
have
an
introduction,
say
hi
to
everybody,
say:
hey
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
B
Here's
how
you
get
in
touch
with
me
and
and
maybe
maybe
limit
it
to
that
as
a
as
a
liaison
position,
rather
than
an
advisor
to
the
board.
I
think
I
I
wouldn't
want
to
see.
B
You
know
the
the
person
representing
each
board
having
an
overly
loud
voice
in
their
decision-making
processes,
but
but
I
do
see
a
potential
value
to
to
having
a
go-to
point
person
for
for
a
board
to
be
able
to
go
reach
out
and
talk
to
a
council
member
if
they
had
any
questions
or
things
they
wanted
to
talk
over.
So
I
might
think
about
that
kind
of
scope,
rather
than
the
other.
So
no
it's
but
I'm
open
to
what
the
majority
Council
wants
to
do.
H
Just
I'm
sorry
I
forgot
to
ask
this:
when
I
was
giving
comments,
is
there
any
way
of
finding
out
from
boarding
commission
members,
whether
you
know
Define
define
this
position
kind
of
specify
it
and
then
just
see?
Is
this
something
that
they
would
see
as
being
valuable
or
welcomed,
or
not
just
wondering
if
that's
an
option.
O
Yeah
I
think
if
we
were
to
go
forward
with
that,
that's
definitely
something
that
would
be
worth
looking
into,
but
I
think
that
sort
of
the
question
on
it
to
me
sort
of
after
listening
to
a
lot
of
this.
It
sounds
like.
O
What's
the
main
question
is:
is
there
enough
interest
on
Council
to
go
forward
with
revising
this
to
come
up
with
a
very
small
scope,
liaison
position
or
not
because
I
I
don't
know
that?
That's
clear
to
me
at
this
point,
I
would
say
that
just
in
defense
of
the
list
a
little
bit,
we
did
get
this
from
looking
at
other
communities.
O
So
it's
not
that
we
made
all
of
this
up.
There
are
communities
around
us
who
are
doing
these
types
of
things
as
a
way
to
Foster
interaction
with
their
boards
and
commissions
and
their
Council.
D
Go
ahead
thanks!
Well,
maybe
based
on
what
I
hear
from
Lauren
tonight,
maybe
you're
after
you
respond.
She
this
may
be
clearer
in
what
direction
we
should
go.
Maybe
a
stroppel
might
be
helpful
for
this
particular
discussion.
Thank
you.
G
All
right,
I'm,
going
to
chime
in
I'm,
not
sure
I
I,
fully
see
the
the
purpose
of
this.
Although
I
greatly
appreciate
the
work,
that's
gone
into
it
and
the
more
we
strip
it
down
in
some
respects,
the
less
purpose
it
has.
G
One
of
my
concerns
is
that
no
matter
what
our
point
of
contact
is
we're
going
to
be
putting
our
thumb
on
the
scales
a
little
bit
just
advising
the
commenting
whatever
it
is.
We're
asked
to
do.
G
G
If
we
can
make
the
life
of
boards
and
commissions
better
and
more
effective,
we
should
do
that,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
giving
them
an
the
point
of
view
of
any
or
all
council
members
is
the
way
to
go
and
other
than
that
I
would
simply
refer.
Everybody
refer
everybody
back
to
Rachel's
comments,
and
my
comment
is
what
she
said
so
I
think
that's
that
and
that
completes
the
the
comments
we're
permitted
to
take
a
straw
poll.
Are
we
not
Teresa?
Okay,
then?
G
Perhaps
we
should
do
that
now,
the
first
question
being
who
would
like
to
see
this?
This
process
continue
and
I,
don't
want
to
create
work
for
the
purpose
of
work
and,
and
so,
if
we're
not
very
serious
about
the
this
process
and
and
this
structure,
we
ought
to
be
fairly
candid
about
it.
So
who
would
who
would
like
to
see
this
process
continue
and
basically
send
the
subcommittee
back
to
shape
the
proposal
a
little
more.
G
I
see
one
two
who
would
probably
take
a
pass
and
you
know
Let
it
go
for
another
day.
G
M
Maybe
we
might
be
headed
in
a
similar
Direction
I
I
just
want
to
thank
Lauren
and
Tara
for
putting
in
the
work
I
mean
there
was
interest
by
Council
and
you
guys
Dove
all
in
on
it,
and
I
really
appreciate
you
guys,
diving
in
doing
the
peer
review
and
coming
back
with
this
and
and
yeah
that's
the
nature
of
the
Beast,
sometimes
that
all
those
things
get
love
on,
but
but
really
appreciate
you
guys
really
diving
in
and
you've
done
a
lot
of
work
on
Boards
of
commissions,
certainly
in
my
tenure
with
the
two
of
you
on
that
committee.
M
So
yet
another
round
of
applause
for
just
the
hard
work
that
you
guys
do
and
the
thoroughness
you
put
in
for
boards
and
commission
work.
So
it
is
definitely
noticed
so
greatly
appreciated
and
certainly
setting
us
up
for
success
for
their
next
round
of
boards
and
commission
interviews.
So
so
I
just
want
to.
Thank
you
both.
G
N
And
would
extend
that
to
Pam
Davis
and
other
staff
who
have
worked
on
this
I.
We
are
sorry
that
we
asked
for
something
and
then
and
then
didn't
re-night
it.
So
that's
got
to
be
very
frustrating
I
I
apologize
and
thank
you
for
the
work
you
did
and
then
I
also
wanted
to
ask
Mark.
Maybe
if
we
could
take
a
straw
poll
on
looking
at
the
work
rules
that
say
how
many
board
meetings
we
can
go
to
at
all,
or
you
know
like
observe
in
real
life
and
and
speak
it.
G
G
Boards
before
we
do
that,
I'm
sorry,
my
apologies
mayor
Brockett,
you
had
a
comment.
B
Yeah
well,
I
was
just
going
to
do
the
same.
Thank
you
to
to
Taryn
Lauren
and
Pam,
and
staff
and
Echo
the
apologies
for
making
having
people
do
work,
that's
not
being
followed
up
on
so
appreciate.
All
your
effort
there,
but
then
I'll
just
say
Rachel
to
your
point.
Is
that
maybe
is
that
not
just
a
report
back
to
us,
maybe
from
Teresa
or
the
attorneys,
to
say
like
what
are
the
current
rules
and
we
can
I
think
that'd
just
be
helpful
information
to
have.
G
Get
a
Judy
go
Judy.
Did
you
have
a
comment.
G
All
right
seeing
no
further
comments.
We
will
move
on
to
item
number
two
on
today's
agenda,
which
will
be
accessory
dwelling
unit,
regulations,
update
and
I
will
pass
that
over
to
anyone
who
actually
has
a
voice.
Q
You're
up
good
evening,
council
members,
we
are
excited
to
bring
this
item
discussion
literally
for
decades
and
Boulder
as
Lisa
is
going
to
highlight,
but
got
attention
most
recently
in
a
legislative
sense
in
2019,
but
has
also
been
talked
and
researched
more
recently
following
your
direction
at
after
the
council
Retreat
of
just
over
a
year
ago.
So
with
that
I
will
thank
you
and
pass
it
on
to
Lisa
for
presentation.
R
Just
a
heads
up
if
I
turn
off
my
camera,
it's
because
I'm
blowing
my
nose
but
I'm,
still
listening
and
still
here,
but
I
do
have
a
voice,
so
I
should
be
able
to
get
through
this
presentation
and
looking
forward
to
talking
with
you
all
more
about
accessory
dwelling
units.
We
were
last
here
back
in
November
when
we
talked
about
the
work
plan,
program,
priorities
and
all
of
the
different
priority
projects
related
to
planning
and
development
services.
So
we're
excited
to
have
an
update
to
provide
to
you
tonight.
R
Just
I
know
you
all
know,
since
it's
on
your
list
of
work
plan
priorities,
but
an
Adu
just
for
the
basics,
for
anyone
that
might
be
listening
because
we'll
use
This
Acronym
a
lot.
An
accessory
dwelling
unit
or
Adu
is
a
small
residence
sharing
a
lot
with
a
larger
main
house.
In
Boulder
we
have
both
an
attached,
Adu
style
and
a
detached
Adu
style.
R
You
can
see
the
graphics
on
the
right,
so
an
attached
at
you
can
be
like
an
attic
or
basement
apartment
and
a
detached
Adu
is
in
a
different
structure,
usually
like
a
converted
garage
or
an
apartment.
Above
a
garage,
but
it
is
an
independent
and
self-contained
living
space
with
kitchen
and
bathroom,
and
things
like
that-
we're
here
to
talk
to
you
tonight
because
of
the
Adu
update
project
that
you
prioritize
back
in
November,
we
talked
and
finalized
the
scope
for
the
project
and
determined
that
these
four
items
would
be
the
focus
area.
R
So
that's
what
we'll
be
talking
about
tonight
and
we're
hoping
for
input
and
direction
from
Council
on
these
items
before
we
start
to
actually
draft
the
ordinance.
So
the
four
items
in
the
scope
for
the
Adu
update
project
include
eliminating
the
Adu
saturation
limit,
modifying
the
size
limits
and
the
method
of
measurement
for
size,
clarifying
and
simplifying
the
regulations
and
improving
the
overall
approval
process.
R
So
I
have
some
background,
slides
and
then
I
have
the
presentation
kind
of
divided
into
the
questions
that
were
in
your
memo.
So
I'll
start
with
the
background
a
little
bit
about
the
engagement
plan
for
this
project
for
this
year.
So
we
are,
as
we
discussed
in
November,
we're
planning
to
rely
quite
a
bit
on
the
public
engagement
that
was
undertaken
with
the
last
update
to
the
Adu
regulations.
R
Back
in
2018,
there
was
a
significant
amount
of
public
engagement
done
at
that
size
or
at
that
time,
and
a
lot
of
it
was
relevant
to
some
of
the
focus
areas
that
we're
looking
at
again.
So
things
like
saturation
limit
and
size
limits
were
all
focuses
back
then.
So
we're
able
to
use
that
to
inform
this
future
work
as
well,
which
is
really
great
and
attached
your
memo
packet.
R
There
was
a
summary
of
the
engagement
that
was
done
between
2016
and
2018,
and
I'll
also
go
briefly
over
that
in
the
next
couple
of
slides
as
well.
We
met
with
the
community
connectors
and
residents
a
couple
weeks
ago,
which
is
the
group
that
kind
of
represents
underrepresented
groups
in
Boulder
and
provides
a
diversity
of
and
a
variety
of
perspectives,
and
we
talked
with
them
about
adus.
I
will
also
give
an
overview
of
that.
We
met
with
planning
board
last
week.
R
So
just
a
brief
overview,
like
I,
said,
there's
more
detail
in
your
packet,
but
looking
back
at
the
engagement
that
was
done
back
in
2016
back
between
2016
and
2018,
the
last
major
update
of
the
ad
regulations.
These
are
just
some
kind
of
quantitative
summary
of
all
the
engagement
that
was
done
at
that
time
and
then
just
some
Key
Community
concerns
that
came
up,
which
are
some
of
the
things
we're
still
Hearing
in
public
comments
as
well.
Neighborhood
nuisances
over
occupancy
owner
occupancy,
illegal
rentals,
saturation
limits
and
affordability
are
all
common
concerns
at
that.
R
In
the
previous
engagement
round.
We
also
had
a
questionnaire
in
2018
that
actually
asked
some
questions
really
similar
to
these
Focus
areas
that
we're
going
to
be
working
on
with
this
project.
So
we
asked
about
the
saturation
limit
at
the
time.
The
proposal
included
a
change
to
increase
the
saturation
limit
from
10
to
20
percent,
and
so
there
were
mixed
opinions
about
that
in
the
questionnaires
about
2200
respondents
to
that
questionnaire
in
2018
and
about
a
third
of
those
were
opposed
to
raising
it
from
10
to
20
percent.
R
But
there
are
also
many
residents
who
were
supportive
of
the
increase
in
saturation
and
even
a
significant
number
of
those
said
indicated
that
they
would
support
going
even
further
and
eliminating,
which
is
the
step
that
we're
not
looking
at
with
this
project.
The
questionnaire
also
asked
about
size
limits,
so
I
will
get
into
more
detail
later.
R
Excuse
me,
but
the
original
proposal,
at
the
time
in
2018,
was
to
increase
the
size
limit
for
detached
from
450
square
feet,
to
800
square
feet
and
to
increase
for
attached
from
a
third
of
the
principal
house
or
a
thousand
square
feet
to
a
half
or
a
thousand
square
feet,
and
although
the
questionnaire
indicated
that
a
majority
of
respondents
were
supportive
of
that
increase,
the
one
for
attached
did
not
get
adopted.
Ultimately,
so
that
is
still
a
third
or
a
thousand,
and
they
limit
for
detached
actually
was
increased
just
to
550.
R
R
It
actually
asked
three
different
questions:
gauging
support
for
adus
and
established
neighborhoods,
and
all
three
of
those
questions
received
a
majority
of
support
for
allowing
more
adus
in
established
neighborhoods
with
about
62
percent
support.
In
that
survey
mentioned,
we
met
with
the
community
connectors
in
Residence
just
a
few
weeks
ago,
and
we
really
focused
that
conversation
on
the
benefits
and
burdens
of
adus,
which
is
one
of
the
steps
of
the
racial
Equity
plan.
R
That
Boulder
has-
and
this
is
a
really
high
level
overview-
there's
more
detail
in
one
of
the
attachments
to
your
packet.
But
some
of
the
feedback
that
we
got
back
got
from
the
community
connectors
was
that
they
were
generally
supportive
of
eliminating
the
saturation
limit
and
increasing
the
size
limit,
but
they
did
want
to
make
sure
that
in
doing
that,
we're
making
sure
that
adus
are
truly
providing
housing
for
the
people
that
need
it
in
Boulder
and
that
they're
remaining
affordable.
R
They
had
some
really
great
programmatic
ideas.
We
talked
about
Section
8
housing
vouchers,
the
potential
for
having
some
funding
assistance
for
Adu
construction,
so
that
first
time
home
buyers,
people
of
color,
the
economically
disadvantaged
folks,
would
be
able
to
benefit
from
having
an
Adu
as
well
and
then
also
some
ideas
about
potentially
reducing
permit
fees
or
application
fees
based
on
income
levels,
so
that
there's
more
of
an
equal
playing
field
of
who
gets
to
benefit
from
adus.
R
R
Next,
we
went
to
planning
board
last
week
and
discussed
the
potential
changes
and
the
planning
board
was
generally
supportive
of
the
overall
changes
to
simplify
and
clarify
the
Adu
regulations.
They
were
supportive
of
removing
the
saturation
limit,
but
they
did.
We
did
have
a
long
con
conversation
and
they
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
were
other
ways
to
control
the
externalities
of
adus
without
a
saturation
limit,
in
particular
in
the
neighborhoods
near
the
university.
So
the
externalities
that
they
were
talking
about
were
things
like
parking
and
noise
and
trash.
R
We
had
a
discussion
about
some
of
their
concerns
that
adus
might
raise
property
values,
and
then
they
also
expressed
concerns
that
a
smaller
number
or
smaller
percentage
of
Adu
owners
are
using
their
Adu
for
long-term
rental.
That
is
one
of
the
findings
that
we
saw
from
our
survey
of
Adu
owners.
So
I'll
talk
about
that
on
another
slide
as
well,
and
then
they
raised
some
concerns
with
one
of
the
clarification
and
process
Improvement
recommendations
about
potentially
eliminating
public
notice
for
Adu
applications.
R
R
Next
we
were
at
planning
board
or
we
were
at
housing,
Advisory
Board
lots
of
boards
in
the
last
couple
weeks
last
night
and
the
housing
Advisory
Board
was
supportive
of
the
clarifying
and
streamlining
the
process
to
eliminate
barriers
to
adus
supportive
of
eliminating
the
saturation
limit
like
planning
board.
They
discussed
the
concerns
near
the
university,
but
they
talked
a
bit
about
how
it
might
not
be
an
Adu
issue,
but
more
of
a
nuisance,
Enforcement
issue.
R
R
They
were
supportive
of
increased
size,
especially
as
a
way
to
provide
a
new
housing
option
for
different
types
of
of
households,
so
like
families,
if
the
size
is
increased
a
bit
and
then,
but
also
ensuring
that
it
doesn't
get
too
large
to
counteract
the
inherent
affordability
of
these
smaller
units
and
regarding
owner
occupancy,
they
supported
clarifying
the
requirements
but
thought
that
it
was
okay
to
allow
LLCs
as
long
as
they
can
prove
that
their
owner
occupied
foreign.
R
So
I
talked
a
bit
about
the
evaluation
that
was
done
back
in
November,
so
I'm
not
going
to
go
back
over
that.
Just
maybe
a
few
highlights
are
sprinkled
throughout
the
presentation,
but
just
a
reminder
that
we've
allowed
adus
and
Boulder
since
1983.
So
it's
actually
our
40th
anniversary
of
allowing
adus
an
accessory
dueling
unit
in
Boulder
has
to
be
on
a
lot
with
an
owner
occupied,
single-family,
home,
and
so
the
owner
has
to
live
on
site.
They
can
either
live
in
the
main
house
or
in
the
Adu.
R
We
have
about
450
of
these
adus
in
Boulder
right
now
and
I
went
over
in
November
some
of
these
facts
that
we
and
data
points
that
we
went
through
with
the
evaluation,
which
was
also
attached
to
your
memo
about
the
size,
type
and
affordability.
So
over
the
last
few
years
we
saw
about
two-thirds
of
Adu
applications
were
detached.
R
This
is
just
a
conclusion
of
what
the
evaluation
said.
Just
a
reminder
we
were
looking
for,
which
changes
that
were
made
in
2018
really
seemed
to
reduce
barriers
to
Adu
construction,
and
the
conclusions
were
that
the
increase
in
the
saturation
limit
increase
in
maximum
size
decrease
in
minimum
lot
size
and
allowing
them
in
more
zoning
districts
really
did
reduce
barriers
significantly
with
the
saturation
limit
and
maximum
size.
R
But
we
also
identified
a
few
other
changes
through
all
of
the
work
through
the
evaluation,
such
as
extending
approval,
expiration
flexibility
for
height
and
other
code,
clarification
and
process
improvements
that
would
further
reduce
barriers
to
adus.
For
this
upcoming
project,
I
mentioned
that
we
surveyed
all
of
our
Adu
owners
in
the
city.
This
is
a
survey
that
we've
done
in
2012
and
2017.
So
we've
been
able
to
compare
the
data
over
time.
R
We
got
about
half
of
our
Adu
owners
to
respond
to
the
survey,
which
is
great,
there's
a
lot
of
great
information
in
the
attachments
to
your
memo.
If
you
want
to
learn
more,
but
some
of
the
highlights
are
that
compared
to
previous
years,
a
greater
percentage
of
adus
are
being
used
as
space
for
relatives
in
particular,
but
also
visitors,
and
then
we
asked
the
people
that
chose
the
80,
the
affordable
Adu
route.
R
What
their
reasoning
was
for
that
and
about
40
of
those
people
said
that
they
chose
it
to
reduce
the
parking
requirement,
which
is
one
of
the
incentives.
If
you
do
an
affordable,
Adu
and
then
at
the
time
the
initial
direction
from
Council
had
been
to
explore,
potentially
allowing
more
than
one
Adu,
and
we
so
we
asked
the
question
whether
Ado
owners
would
be
interested
in
over
three
quarters
said
that
they
would
not,
and
that
is
not
something.
That's
part
of
the
scope,
as
we
talked
about
in
November.
R
Also,
as
part
of
the
evaluation,
we've
been
doing
a
lot
of
research
of
other
cities
around
the
country,
so
you
would
have
seen
in
your
packet
There's
a
summary
Matrix
of
34
different
cities
that
we
looked
at
from
around
the
country.
All
of
these
are
cities
that
are
comparable
and
Boulder
to
some
way
so
either
University
Town,
similar
population,
size,
population
density,
housing,
price
things
like
that,
and
they
all
have
Adu
regulations,
so
they
allow
80s
in
some
manner
some
of
the
highlights
from
those
comparable
cities.
R
The
first
one
is
that
none
of
these
34
cities
have
a
saturation
limit
for
adus
in
the
same
way
that
Boulder
does-
and
this
point
has
been
a
little
bit
of
a
sticking
point-
so
I'll
just
explain
that
a
little
bit
further.
So
none
of
the
34
cities,
the
comparable
cities
that
we
looked
at
had
a
saturation
limit
and
we've
been
continuing
our
research
to
try
to
find
another
city
around
the
country
that
has
a
saturation
limit.
In
the
same
way
that
Boulders
works.
R
This
week
we
were
able
to
find
one
town,
town,
a
20,
000
person,
town
in
Connecticut-
that
has
a
saturation
limit
like
we
do,
but
we
haven't
been
able
to
find
any
others.
There
are
certainly
other
ways
that
cities
choose
to
limit
accessory
dwelling
units,
whether
from
not
allowing
them
at
all
or
having
like
a
certain
number
of
permits
allowed
per
year.
Something
like
that,
but
the
kind
of
distance
saturation
that
we
have.
R
We
were
only
able
to
find
the
one
town
I
did
find
some
history
yesterday
that
the
city
of
Seattle
used
to
have
a
saturation
limit.
So
they
had
a
saturation
limit
in
1994
when
they
first
adopted
their
Adu
regulations,
but
they
they
scratched
the
saturation
limit
in
1999.
So
they
only
had
it
for
five
years
and
we
are
on
year
number
40
of
our
saturation
limit.
R
So
some
of
the
other
takeaways
are
that
only
a
few
of
these
34th
comparable
cities
have
a
minimum
lot
size
requirement
for
a
to
use.
That's
definitely
something
that's
been
changing.
A
lot
of
cities
have
been
eliminating
recently,
almost
all
of
the
Cities.
We
looked
at
limit
to
only
one
Adu
per
lot
in
terms
of
the
size
limits.
Boulder's
maximum
size
of
detached
J
to
use
in
particular,
tends
to
be
smaller
than
most
of
the
cities
that
we
looked
at.
R
Cities
in
Colorado
seem
to
be
on
the
smaller
side,
but
Boulders,
even
on
the
smaller
side
of
that,
because
that's
usually
about
600
to
a
thousand.
So
we
allow
only
550.
Typically
it's
around
with
these
cities
that
we
looked
at
it's
around
800
square
feet
or
a
percentage
of
the
principal
structure
related
to
parking.
R
Most
cities
either
require
zero
parking
spaces
or
one
parking
space
for
the
Adu,
and
it
can
usually
vary
based
on
distance
to
Transit
and
almost
all
of
the
Cities
say
that
a
Navy
you
can't
be
sold
separately.
So
it
has
to
be
part
of
the
same
lot
and
about
half
of
the
cities
that
we
looked
at
require
owner
occupancy,
so
just
a
reminder
of
that
comparable
City
and
how
that's
been
helping
to
inform
our
changes
as
well.
R
This
is
something
that
wasn't
in
your
memo,
but
it's
something
that
our
planning
board
asked
for.
So
I
thought
I
would
include
for
this
presentation
as
well.
Also,
it's
very
timely,
because
Governor
polis
and
his
State
of
the
State
address
just
last
week
really
focused
on
housing
priorities.
So
I
just
think
it's
interesting
context
to
think
about
some
of
the
state
legislation.
That's
been
happening
around
the
country
we
haven't
looked
at
every
state,
but
just
some
examples.
R
So
just
a
little
bit
of
Nationwide
context
as
well
on
adus
in
the
political
sphere,
all
right
so
I
mentioned
that
I'll
be
dividing
this
presentation
kind
of
up
by
the
questions
council
member
walk.
Is
it
okay?
If
we
kind
of
stop
at
each
question
after
I,
give
some
framing?
Is
that
or
would
you
like
to
go
through
the
entire
presentation?
No.
R
R
The
saturation
limit
I
know
we
talked
a
little
bit
about
this
in
November,
so
I
will
try
to
be
brief,
but
just
to
explain
because
it
is
a
bit
of
a
complex
topic,
but
the
saturation
limit
that
we
have
in
Boulder
only
applies
to
the
rl1
and
rl2
Zoning
District.
So
those
are
our
low
density
zoning
districts
and
it's
a
20
limit.
It
was
increased
from
10
to
20
back
in
those
recent
updates
in
2018..
R
But
essentially
what
it
says
is
that
a
property
owner
has
to
draw
a
radius
of
300
feet
from
their
property
and
of
all
of
those
properties.
Within
that
300
foot
radius,
only
20
percent
can
have
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
a
co-op
or
a
non-conforming
structure.
So
in
the
simplest
of
examples,
with
my
simple
little
graphic
say:
there's
10
properties
within
300
feet.
R
R
So
that's
how
the
saturation
limit
works.
Like
I
mentioned,
we've
had
the
saturation
limit
since
1983.
That
was
when
Boulder
first
adopted
the
Adu
regulations.
R
Accessory
units
were
actually
common
historically
before
single-family
zoning,
but
in
the
80s
is
kind
of
when
cities
started
to
re-legalize
accessory
dwelling
units,
so
Boulder
was
definitely
on
the
Forefront
of
allowing
adus,
and
understandably
it
was
kind
of
a
New
Concept
at
the
time,
and
so,
as
I've
been
doing
continued
research,
it
seems
that
cities,
maybe
if
they're
doing
like
a
pilot
program
for
adus.
R
They
might
do
something
some
kind
of
limit
like
this,
but
we're
now
far
past
a
pilot
program,
40
years
into
our
Adu
program
or
having
Adu
regulations,
and
so
we
really
do
understand
the
impacts
of
adus
potential
impacts
and
the
ways
to
mitigate
those.
So
most
cities
will
use
their
typical
zoning
standards,
either
specific
to
adus
or
general
to
all
structures
related
to
design
and
compatibility,
and
things
like
that
as
ways
to
mitigate
potential
impacts
of
adus.
R
R
This
kind
of
green
part,
the
light
green
part
of
the
pie,
is
the
properties
that
were
allowed
with
a
saturation
limit
of
above
10.
So
these
are
adus
that
would
not
have
been
approved
prior
to
the
most
recent
changes
so
about
20.
But
it's
interesting
that
over
three
quarters
of
the
applications
that
were
approved
over
time
are
over
the
last
few
years
were
either
in
a
zoning
District
that
doesn't
have
a
saturation
limit.
Like
I
mentioned.
R
It
only
applies
in
the
rl1
and
rl2
Zoning
districts,
or
it
was
already
less
than
10,
so
it
wouldn't
have
needed
that
increase.
R
I
talked
about
this
a
bit
in
November
I,
know,
but
I
just
wanted
to
underscore.
The
saturation
limit
definitely
proves
to
be
a
continued
Challenge
from
both
a
staff
perspective
and
an
applicant
perspective.
These
are
verbatim
comments
from
our
inquire,
Boulder
customer
service
ticket
ticket
portal.
So
we
get
hundreds
of
questions
related
to
adus
that
come
into
our
staff,
and
the
majority
of
them
are
related
to
saturation
limits.
So
it's
something
that's
really
difficult
for
the
public
to
understand
it's,
not
something
that
they
can
measure
or
look
at
themselves.
R
So
staff
has
to
do
that
measurement,
one
by
one
for
staff
to
confirm
the
saturation
limit
and
that's
kind
of
the
first
step
into
whether
people
will
pursue
an
Adu.
So
I
think
that
this
top
right
one
is
a
good
explanation,
we'd
like
to
consider
an
Adu
over
the
garage
of
our
home,
but
we
need
to
confirm
that
the
location
is
not
saturated.
First.
R
How
do
we
do
that
without
submitting
the
full
application
in
400
400
fee,
and
so
we
have
a
lot
of
people
that
just
have
a
lot
of
questions
about
the
saturation
limit
and
one
of
the
unique
things
about
the
saturation
limit
compared
to
most
zoning
standards.
Is
that
it's
not
concrete
over
time.
So
somebody
can
ask
us
somebody
could
have
asked
us
in
January
what
their
saturation
limit
was
and
they
were
fine
and
they
could
pursue
an
Adu.
R
But
if
they're
their
neighbor
has
gone
through
an
Adu
application
and
they've
hit
that
limit,
then
suddenly
that
owner
is
not
able
to
pursue
the
accessory
dwelling
unit.
So
it's
kind
of
a
moving
Target,
which
is
not
typically
what
we
do
for
zoning
standards.
R
So
it
is
unique
in
that
manner
as
well,
and
it
just
creates
a
lot
of
confusion
and
a
lot
of
just
a
either
a
real
or
perceived
barrier
to
accessory
dual
units
in
Boulder
I
mentioned
that
a
lot
of
cities
will
rely
on
their
existing
zoning
standards
to
mitigate
potential
impacts,
since
that
was
kind
of
the
initial.
R
Probably
the
initial
reason
for
having
a
saturation
limit
I
was
trying
to
understand
what
the
impacts
might
be
with
this
newly
introduced
use
type
back
in
1983,
but
we
have
a
number
of
standards
in
our
land
use
code
that
regulate
the
compatibility
of
design
and
uses.
This
is
just
an
example
of
a
typical
7
000
square
foot
lot
in
the
rl1
district.
If
you
were
to
build
a
market
rate
Adu,
these
are
all
the
different
regulations
that
would
impact
the
design
and
location
of
that
Adu.
R
So
we
have
form
and
bulk
standards
so
things
like
height
the
number
of
Stories
the
floor
area
ratio,
the
maximum
building
coverage.
We
have
side
yard
bolt
plane,
which
is
basically
you
draw
a
line
from
the
setbacks
and
then
an
angled
line
in
and
the
building
can't
Pierce
through
that
we
have
a
maximum
length
that
a
building
can
be
before
it
has
to
be
articulated.
So
you
don't
have
a
big
long
wall.
Next
to
you,
we
have
setbacks
for
principal
structures,
accessory
structures.
R
Everything
that's
yellow
on
this
sheet
only
applies
to
accessory
or
Adu
so
separation
from
buildings,
but
building
coverage
within
the
rear
yard
setback
the
maximum
size,
the
owner
occupancy
that
the
owner
has
to
live
on
site.
The
occupancy
limits,
minimum
lot
size
parking
requirements.
We
have
a
requirement
for
open
space
for
detached
units,
a
requirement
to
screen
sign
side
entrances
for
attached
units
interior
connections.
G
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Lisa.
Are
there
any
questions?
First,
before
we
get
into
comments,
seeing
none.
What
did
I
miss
one
I,
don't
think
so.
M
Thank
you.
So
my
question
is
see:
where
is
it
there?
It
is,
is
centered
on
why
it
was
sort
of
mentioned
in
a
couple
points
and
discussed
so
I'm
just
really
curious.
What
why
did
have's
recommendation
of
eliminating
parking
requirements
not
make
the
cut
or
not
make
the
list?
Is
there
a
is
there
I
just
was
sort
of
curious.
What's
the
reason
why
it
didn't
make
the
list
in
that
capacity.
R
R
But
we
talked
about
just
the
balance
of
the
various
planning
and
development
services,
work,
plan,
priorities
and
the
timing
of
finishing
the
projects,
so
the
parking
requirement
we
thought
would
require
significantly
more
public
engagement
in
order
to
understand,
because
in
order
to
just
fully
address
that
issue-
and
so
it
was
kind
of
put
into
a
second
tier
or
like
a
second
bucket
of
something
that
we
could
do
down
the
line
with
future
Adu
changes.
M
You
were
right,
I
was
I,
was
out
of
country
for
that
meeting.
So
pardon
me
for
not
fully
reviewing
my
notes
from
that.
No,
it's
okay
to
clarifying!
Thank
you
for
clarifying
that.
G
At
least
I'm
going
to
make
a
quick
question:
isn't
the
existence
of
the
parking
requirements,
one
of
the
incentives
for
getting
affordable,
adus
yeah,
one
of
the
credit
cards
that
we
that
we
offer
correct.
R
So,
with
a
market
rate,
Adu
owners
are
required
to
provide
a
parking
space,
but
if
they
do
an
affordable
Adu,
they
don't
have
to
meet
that
additional
parking
requirement
so
that
that,
and
that
has
proven
to
be
a
really
successful
incentive.
Based
on
that
Adu
survey,
which
I
said
40
of
people
that
went
affordable,
chose
to
to
do
that
to
reduce
the
parking
requirement.
G
Okay
comments
from
Council
Bob
here
first
followed
by
mayor
Brock,.
E
Well,
I'll
say
a
few
things:
first
Lisa.
This
was
an
outstanding
memo
and
presentation,
one
of
the
best
I've
seen
in
my
years
on
Council.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
doing
just
a
fantastic
bang-up
job
about
this
one.
It
really
made
it
easy
to
understand.
I
want
to
back,
go
back
a
little
bit
history.
E
You
know,
as
Aaron
will
recall,
we
we
had
I
think
almost
two
dozen
public
meetings
and
hearings,
and
this
went
on
for
like
years
because
our
our
1983
Adu
laws
were
really
outdated
and
we
had
a
lot
of
community
members
who
wanted
a
weigh
in,
and
so
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
with
community
members
listening.
Some
wanted
us
to
liberalize
a
lot.
E
Some
that
didn't
want
us
to
touch
them
at
all
and
we
finally
settled
on
a
package
that
was
probably
incomplete,
but
we
kind
of
knew
that
at
the
time
we
we
knew
that
we
were
probably
not
getting
a
completely
right,
but
we
were
kind
of
took
it
as
far
as
we
thought
we
could
go
with
the
thought
that
we
would
come
back,
maybe
in
four
or
five
years
and
evaluate
how
things
were
going,
and
that
was
exactly
five
years
ago.
E
So
here
we
are
five
years
later
and
we're
looking
at
some
of
the
things
that
we
didn't
quite
get
right
back
in
2018
and
one
of
them
was
the
saturation
limit.
You
know,
as
you
pointed
out,
Lisa
under
the
1983
law.
The
saturation
limit
in
Boulder
was,
and
Boulder
was
one
of
the
first
cities
by
the
way
in
the
country
to
to
recognize
adus.
E
And
so
we
didn't
know
what
we
were
doing
Back
40
years
ago,
and
so
we
somebody
just
said
tub
of
10
and
and
that's
what
we
lived
with
for
for
35
years
and
the
intervening
35
years,
a
whole
bunch
of
other
cities.
It
recognized
adus,
and
they
said
why
do
we
need
a
saturation
limit,
so
they
didn't
put
Lots
in
place,
and
so
here
we
fund
ourselves
in
2018,
with
this
old
35
year
old
law
in
one
of
the
few
cities
that
have
saturation
limit,
let
alone
one
at
10
percent.
E
There
were
some
other
reasons
why
some
have
been
created
as
well,
but
we
still
find
ourselves
in
a
situation
where
we're
kind
of
an
outlier
other
than
that
small
town
in
Connecticut.
You
discovered
Lisa
we're
like
one
of
the
only
cities
in
the
country
that
does
that
has
a
saturation
limit
at
all
and
it
was
pretty
modest
for
us
to
go
from
10
to
20
and
and
the
world
did
not
end
in
the
last
five
years.
E
Although
all
the
horrible
things
that
that
we
heard
were
going
to
happen,
if
we
increase
the
saturation
limit,
simply
just
didn't
happen,
I
suspect
very
few
people
even
know
that
there's
an
Adu
in
their
neighborhood
or
if
they
do
know,
if
there's
an
Adu
in
neighborhood
they're,
pretty
happy
with
their
Adu
neighbors.
So
I
I
am
fully
supportive
of
going
all
in
and
eliminating
saturation
limit.
It's
probably
something
we
should
have
done
in
2018.
We
didn't
have
the
courage
to
do
that
back
then,
but
I
hope.
We
have
the
courage
now
to
do
that.
G
B
Yeah
Bob
laid
out
the
history
very
nicely
there
I'm
thrilled
to
be
coming
back
to
it
now,
five
years
later
and
it's
time
to
do
away
with
the
saturation
limits,
I
I
think
they're
an
unnecessary
control
over
a
much
needed
housing
type
in
our
community,
which
is
great,
for
you
know:
kids,
they're,
staying
home
or
mothers-in-law
or
parents-in-law
that
want
to
stay
in
or
for
renting
to
create
housing
for
our
community.
So
I
think
removing
this
restriction
is
is
a
great
Next
Step.
B
So
I'm
excited
to
get
finish
the
the
business
we
started
five
years
ago,
but
at
least
I
just
have
to
ask
the
question:
what
is
that
City
in
Connecticut?
That
also
has
the
saturation
Point.
B
Okay,
all
right
well,
hopefully,
and
soon
there
will
be
the
only
city
in
the
country
with
saturation
limits.
Thanks.
G
I
G
That's
a
good
question:
when
would
you
like.
I
I
R
I,
don't
know
specifically
related
to
the
neighborhood
parking
program,
but
the
parking
requirements
for
adus
are
that
they
have
to
be
on
site,
so
it
wouldn't
be
on
street.
We
can't
use
on-street
parking.
There
certainly
are
cities
that
do
allow
on-street
parking
to
count
towards
a
parking
requirement,
but
as
our
Ada
regulations
are
now,
it
has
to
be
accommodated
on
the
actual
site
so
on
the
private
property
rather
than
the
street
foreign.
G
G
Would
it
be
appropriate
to
take
a
straw
polls
to
how
we
feel
about
the
elimination
of
the
saturation
limits,
all
right,
all
in
favor
of
elimination?
Please
raise
your
hand.
G
It
was
close,
but
nine
to
nothing
so
I
think
that
reflects
the
will
of
counsel
Lisa.
Would
you
like
to
move
on
to
the
next
question
sure.
R
Next
up
so
again,
I
have
rhyming
slides
for
the
question,
so
just
going
back
to
these
Graphics
to
think
about
these
size
limits
because
they
do
differ
by
the
type
of
Adu
so
for
that
attached,
type
of
Adu
So
within
the
the
main
structure,
either
an
addition
or
basement
apartment,
or
things
like
that.
It
has
to
be
one-third
of
the
size
of
the
main
house
or
a
thousand
square
feet.
Whichever
is
smaller,
so
an
example
of
how
that
works
is.
R
R
We
increased
it
from
450
to
550.,
so
this
I
think
I
probably
showed
this
slide
to
you
all
in
November,
but
just
a
reminder
that
some
of
the
data
that
we
looked
at
of
all
the
Adu
sizes
that
were
approved
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
so
the
average
like
I
said,
is
640.
But
we
have
this
kind
of
different
tier
of
what
sizes
are
allowed
based
on
what
type
of
Adu
they
are.
R
So
if
you
start
at
kind
of
the
bottom
line,
what's
allowed
so
a
market
rate
detached
can
be
550
and
affordable
can
be
800
square
feet
and
then,
if
you're
a
designated
historic
structure,
it
can
be
a
thousand
square
feet
for
the
detached
and
then
on.
The
attached.
Side
market
rate
is
either
a
third
or
a
thousand,
whichever
is
smaller,
and
then,
if
it's
an
affordable
unit
or
historic,
it's
a
half
or
a
thousand,
and
so
what
we
saw
over
the
last
few
years
of
having
these
regulations
is
the
average
size
of
a
detached
Adu.
R
As
a
right
of
at
about
550..
You
can
see
the
difference
between
affordable
and
market
rate.
The
average
affordable
size
is
up
to
634,
so
not
really
maxing
out
that
full
800
and
then
the
average
market
rate
detached
is
492.,
there's
not
as
much
differentiation
of
the
attached
sizes,
so
both
affordable
and
market
rate
tend
to
be
right
around
800
square
feet,
one
of
the
other
main
things
that
came
up
through
our
evaluation.
So
our
evaluation
included
interviewing
all
of
the
staff
that
deal
with
Adu
applications,
interviewing
applicants
who
had
withdrawn
their
Adu
applications.
R
Looking
at
the
inquire
Boulder
tickets,
as
well
as
looking
through
the
public
engagement
and
things
that
we've
done.
One
thing
that
came
up
just
constantly
was
the
fact
that
adus
have
their
this
unique
way
of
measuring
floor
area,
and
so
it's
kind
of
just
as
a
matter
of
practice,
but
the
the
more
different
ways
that
you
have
to
measure
something
in
the
code,
the
more
confusing
it
is
for
people.
R
R
At
550
square
feet,
it's
a
detached,
Adu,
that's
above
a
garage
and
the
kind
of
image
off
to
the
right
are
the
three
different
ways
that
people
could
measure
this
and
because
of
the
limited
size
of
the
80s,
you
you
wouldn't
think
so,
but
it
actually
makes
a
really
a
significant
difference
in
what
the
overall
floor
area
of
the
Adu
ends
up
being
so
this
this
gets
a
little
zoning
wonky,
but
it
is
a
constant
struggle
because
we
in
the
2018
included
this
unique
measurement
for
floor
area
for
adus,
and
it's
the
difference
between
measuring
from
the
interior
wall
or
six
inches
beyond
the
interior
wall
or
using
the
exterior
wall.
R
And
then
another
interesting
artist.
Factor
to
think
about
is
that
the
floor
area
of
an
Adu
has
to
include
the
egress
to
it.
So
because
this
unit
is
above
a
garage,
we
have
to
include
the
egress
path
up
the
stairs
and
around
as
part
of
the
maximum
floor
area.
So
that's
not
technically
usable
space
for
the
Adu,
but
it
it
counts
into
that
550
square
feet.
So
it
limits
the
actual
living
space
for
people,
because
that's
a
part
of
the
measurement
as
well.
R
So
we
just
think
that
this,
regardless
of
changing
what
the
the
actual
size
limits,
Are
We
There,
are
definitely
improvements
that
could
be
made
to
the
way
that
we're
measuring
it
to
just
be
consistent
with
the
way
we
measure
floor
area
across
the
code
for
all
other
types
of
buildings,
and
then
I
think
this
is
my
final
slide
related
to
size
limit.
So
as
part
of
the
valuation,
we
also
looked
at
the
variances
that
had
been
applied
for
over
the
last
several
years.
R
There
is
a
variance
option
for
people
to
increase
the
maximum
floor
area
of
an
Adu.
We
saw
four
of
those
applications
go
to
Boza
the
board
of
zoning
adjustments.
All
four
of
those
were
approved.
They
all
were
actually
quite
similar
situations,
so
they
were
all
existing
basements
in
a
home
that
where
they
wanted
to
convert
it
to
an
accessory
dwelling
unit-
and
you
can
see
the
kind
of
the
size
ranged
from
just
over
a
thousand
to
fifteen
hundred
and
all
four
of
those
were
approved.
R
So
we
have
a
potential
size
limit
increase,
really
it's
the
original
proposal
from
2018
of
a
detached
size,
limit
of
800
square
feet
and
then
attached
just
sending
it
at
a
thousand
square
feet,
and
so
we
think
that
that
would
be
a
modest
increase
to
the
size
of
adus.
That
would
allow
more
flexibility
for
additional
housing
types
or
household
types
to
utilize
adus
and
also
provide
some
flexibility
for
those
things
like
egress,
and
things
like
that.
R
But
one
thing
to
consider
when
potentially
limiting
or
increasing
the
size
limit
is
that
the
incentive
there
is
an
incentive
for
affordable,
adus
right
now
that
they
can
build
a
larger
size
Adu.
So
if
we
were
to
increase
that
the
market
rate
size,
then
we'd
want
to
probably
correspondingly
increase
the
incentive
for
the
affordable
Adu.
So
maybe
that
would
be
up
to
a
thousand
for
detached
and
1200
attached.
R
But
this
is
where
we're
really
hoping
for
council's
input
and
Direction
on
what
seems
like
a
reasonable
size
limit
or
the
potential
to
increase
it
or
just
to
improve
the
floor
area
measurement
issue.
So
those
are
all
my
framing
slides,
related
to
size,
limits
and
happy
to
take
any
questions
and
also
to
hear
your
comments.
O
O
R
Yeah,
so
it
gets
pretty
confusing,
so
adus
have
a
special
exception
where
they,
you
can
measure
to
six
inches
beyond
the
interior
wall
instead
of
using
the
exterior
wall,
which
is
how
typically
floor
area
is
measured
and
it
just
trips
up.
Basically
everybody
that
tries
to
use
that
measurement
and
definition,
and
so
it
creates
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
between
the
applicant
and
staff,
which
adds
to
time
and
frustration,
and
things
like
that.
R
Exactly
yeah
I
think
there
was
a
good
intention
behind
it,
but
I
think
there
are
other
avenues
where
we
could
provide
flexibility
like
through
a
variance
or
something
for
a
particular
type
of
construction
or
if
we
had
slightly
larger
adus
allowed.
It
might
not
be
such
an
issue
to
accommodate
that
insulation
for
the
different
types
of
like
alternative
types
of
insulation.
Okay,.
O
Thank
you
for
that
and
then
my
other
question
was
around
the
affordable
adus.
Do
we
know
what
percent
age
of
the
time
on
average,
like
the
permitted,
affordable
adus,
are
rented
out
for.
O
R
O
And
this
might
be
a
discussion
for
a
later
Adu
discussion,
but
to
me
it
seems
like
we're
already
right.
You
are
mentioning
that
not
all
of
the
adus
that
are
being
created
are
being
rented
out
period,
we're
sort
of
maybe
seeing
a
drop
in
that,
and
that
seems
more
and
also
on
top
of
that
for
the
rental
rates
that
we're
getting
it
looked
like.
Most
of
them
are
being
rented
at
affordable
prices,
whether
or
not
they
are
deed,
restricted,
affordable
or
not,
and
so
to
me
this
whole
like.
O
Is
it
an
affordable,
Adu
or
just
a
regular
Adu
is
not
a
super
fruitful
conversation,
because
some
of
the
issues
to
me
it's
more
about
like?
Are
we
housing
people
and
are
we
housing
them
at
rates
they
can
afford
and
if
a
regular
market
rate
unit
Adu
is
doing
that
and
sort
of?
Why
do
we
have
this
whole
extra
system
with
extra
hurdles,
but
I
know
that
that
is
not
on
the
agenda
for
today.
O
So
the
list
that
you
came
up
with
in
terms
of
the
size,
both
clarifying
the
size
how
size
is
measured
and
the
size
restriction,
seems
to
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
me.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
G
E
Well,
this
is
another
thing
that
we
got
wrong
in
2018,
or
at
least
we
didn't
have
the
courage
in
2018,
as
Lisa
mentioned,
for
other
use
attached,
as
example,
the
the
rule
for
35
years
in
Boulder.
Since
1983
was
the
the
limit
for
a
detached.
Adu
was
450
square
feet.
We
there
was
a
proposal
on
the
table
back
in
2018
to
increase
it
to
800
square
feet,
which
is
tonight's
proposal.
We
didn't
have
the
courage
to
go
that
far.
E
There
are
a
lot
of
people
in
town
that
were
opposed
to
that,
so
we
only
modestly
increased
it
for
450
feet
to
550
square
feet
when
you
think
about
a
550
square
foot,
space
and
I've
lived
in
one
of
them.
That's
that's
a
basically
a
studio.
It's
it's
a
very,
very
small
space
that
you're
basically
living
in
a
pull-out
couch
with
a
little
kitchen
over
on
the
side.
E
It's
not
appropriate
for
more
than
two
people.
If
you
have
a
family
of
three
or
four,
it
just
doesn't
work,
and
so
I'm
I'm
delighted
that
you're
recommending
that
we
go
to
800
square
feet
for
rent
attached.
E
And
so
if
they
can
build
a
bigger
unit
at
a
lower
cost
per
square
foot
for
construction,
they
can
justify
the
the
the
construction
costs,
because
the
rent
will
recoup
so
both
for
social
reasons,
that
is,
that
is
creating
adus
for
for
more
than
two
people
at
a
time,
but
also
encouraging
the
Adu
creation,
which
could
cause
rental
income
for
families
that
are
on
a
Asian
place.
I
think
these
both
make
sense
I
do
want
to
offer
two
caveats
to
to
the
endorsement
of
Staff
recommendations.
E
One
is,
and
we
may
not
get
into
this
tonight,
but
I
just
want
to
throw
it
out
there.
I
do
want
to
read,
retain
the
affordability
Delta,
so
I
may
be
in
a
little
bit.
Different
place
than
Lauren
was
I.
E
Think
it's
important
that
we
come
up
with
some
differentials:
I,
don't
know
if
it's
size,
I,
don't
know
if
it's
parking,
maybe
some
other
differentials
to
cause
people
to
continue
to
sign
up
for
for
the
affordability
Covenant
somewhere
around
35
or
40
percent
of
the
adus
that
have
been
created
in
the
last
five
years.
The
owner
has
opted
for
that.
I
realized
that
many
of
our
adus,
even
without
the
affordability
restriction,
are
naturally
or
market
rate
affordable.
E
That
may
not
always
be
the
case
and
so
I
think
we
want
to
continue
to
incentivize
people
to
to
limit
their
rental
charges
to
75
area.
Media
income.
I'm
happy
to
have
a
discussion
at
a
later
date
about
what
those
Deltas
are,
but
I
think
there
should
be
some
Deltas,
whether
there's
parking
for
size
or
something
that
continues
to
incentivize,
that
one-third
to
one
half
of
the
people
who
are
willing
to
to
forego
rent
and
and
do
a
below
Market
rent.
E
The
second
kind
of
caveat
I
would
have
is
while
800
square
feet
for
a
detached
unit,
sounds
good
to
me
and
certainly
better
for
families
and
and
makes
more
economic
sense.
I
can
imagine,
there's
probably
a
few
Lots
in
Boulder
that
are
really
really
tiny,
that
already
have
tiny
houses
on
them
and
adding
another
800
feet
probably
makes
it
pretty
tight
so
and
I
don't
have
a
solution
other
than
to
say
when
staff
comes
back
with
their
with
their
more
concrete
recommendations.
E
If
it's
an
affordable
way
to
you,
it
starts
to
get
kind
of
crowded
and
and
I'm
sure
this
is
something
staff
has
already
looked
at,
but
but
if,
if
you
haven't
drilled
into
it,
I'd
ask
you
to
come
back
and
at
least
make
a
proposal
to
say:
listen,
it
can
only
go
up
to
a
certain
number
of
square
feet
for
a
lot
of
a
certain
size,
and
maybe
it's
a
sliding
scale,
or
maybe
it's
the
far
calculation
or
something
just
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
putting
800
square
foot
detached
adus
on
a
really
tiny
lot.
N
E
Thank
you.
Yes,
absolutely
I
think
it's
a
sliding
scale
both
going
both
directions
and
I.
Don't
know
what
the
what
the
right
formula
is,
but
if
we
could
see
smaller
Lots,
maybe
having
smaller
units
and
medium
lots
of
medium
units
and
large
Lots
heavy
bigger
units,
that'd
be
great.
So,
yes,
Rachel.
Thank
you
for
asking
that
question.
Fabulous
thanks.
Can.
O
I
call
a
quay
on
that
as
well.
I
guess
so,
80
or
80
is
still
required
to
meet
the
sort
of
floor
area
requirements
that
otherwise
are
on
a
site.
R
Yeah,
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
clarify
that
so
yeah,
so
we
have
kind
of
a
sliding
scale
already
for
overall
floor
area
and
building
coverage,
that's
related
to
lot
size.
So
it's
a
calculation
based
on
lot
size,
how
much
floor
area
and
how
much
building
coverage
you
can
have
and
the
adus
are
subject
to
that
overall
requirement
for
the
site
anyway.
R
So,
for
instance,
you
might,
if
you
had
a
smaller
lot,
you
might
be
able
to
do
an
800
square
foot
Adu
technically,
but
because
of
your
building
coverage
and
your
floor
area
overall
for
the
site,
you
might
not
be
able
to
accommodate
the
full
800
based
on
those
sliding
scale,
lot
size
related
requirements,
but
it's
definitely
something
we
can
look
into,
and
certainly
other
communities
have
different
limits
for
different
lot
sizes.
So.
E
That's
really
helpful
Lisa,
and
so
when
you,
when
you
bring
back
whatever
legislation,
you
want
to
bring
back
to
us
this
spring.
If
you
can
kind
of
build
that
into
it
and
show
us
how
that
all
works,
that'd
be
great,
and
maybe
the
fars
are
an
adequate
break
to
to
what
I
was
concerned
about
thanks
thanks.
H
Thanks
and
everybody
just
kind
of
wiped
out
a
lot
of
my
questions.
So
thanks
everyone
for
the
questions
and
colloquies
yeah
I
was
just
going
to
Echo
kind
of
support
for
increasing
the
allowable
size
of
adios,
and
then
I
also
just
had
some
questions
about
how
this
process
compares
to
what
it
would
be
say.
H
If
somebody
has
a
2
000
square
foot
home
that
they
wanted
to
turn
into
a
4,
000
square
foot
home
so
just
like
to
pop
the
top,
like
happens
in
my
neighborhood
a
lot
and
add
on
more
and
I.
Think
for
me,
as
long
as
those
are
kind
of
consistent,
you
know
whether
somebody's
making
their
own
home,
bigger
or
making
a
home
for
somebody
else
to
live
in
then
I
am
I'm
feeling.
Okay
about
that.
G
If
there
are
no
others,
I
I
will
weigh
in
I
think
eliminating
the
calculation
of
square
footage
based
on
egress
is
mere
common
sense.
G
G
You
know
I'm
familiar
with
inside
wall
to
inside
wall,
so
as
long
as
it's
easily
comprehensible
and
consistent
I'm,
fine
with
that,
as
far
as
the
the
increase
in
size
goes,
I
also
want
to
make
sure
there's
enough
Delta
to
incentivize,
affordable,
adus,
I,
think
I
think
they
are
very
important
and
we've
gotten
very,
very
good
response.
So
far,
and
my
concern
is,
if
you
increase
too
much,
you
really
eliminate
the
incentive.
Assuming
you
can
provide
parking.
You
know
you
get
the
800
square
feet.
G
You
can
be
talking
about
a
three
thousand
dollar
a
year,
a
month
unit
and
and
I'd
be
a
little
concerned
about
that.
You
know
we
don't
want
just
more
housing.
We
want
housing
that
will
serve
our
interests
in
terms
of
being
more
affordable
and
bringing
more
people
into
the
fold.
G
So
I
share
Bob's
concern
about
the
the
size
Delta
and
about
the
other
Deltas
of
parking
versus
no
parking,
because
I
want
to
keep
people
agreeing
to
make
their
their
adus
affordable
when,
whenever
possible,
and
now
we
have
more
comments.
The
first
is
Aaron,
then
Lauren.
B
I
I
just
wanted
to
say
to
support
the
staff
recommendation.
I
think
you
all
are
on
target
with
the
changing
the
measurements
and
then
the
increasing
the
sizes
I
think
where
you're
going
is
a
good
direction
and
just
to
remind
us
everybody
that,
as
you've
said
a
couple
times,
that
the
compatible
development
rules
that
were
crafted
back
10
odd
years
ago
do
place
the
significant
limits.
I,
don't
think
we
need
additional
limits
on
the
adus
because
of
we
have
plenty
of
rules
already.
So,
thanks
for
all
your
hard
work
on
this
Lauren.
O
I
just
had
a
quick
question
about
the
affordable
units,
so
what
you
can
rent
them
out
at
per
month
is
capped,
but
isn't
the
Restriction
also
around
who
they
can
be
rented
to
like
do?
Do
people
have
to
income
qualify
for
an
affordable
unit,
or
is
it
just
capping
the
amount,
the
cost
the
amount
of
rent
you
can
collect.
R
G
Shall
we
take
a
straw
poll
to
see
how
we
feel
about
this?
All
who
approve
staff's
recommendations.
G
There
is
no
dissent
all
right,
that's
that's
the
way,
I
like
it.
Next
up,
you're
on
again
Lisa
all.
R
Right
all
right,
so
moving
on
to
kind
of
the
general
code,
simplification
and
clarification
items.
Oh
there
we
go.
So
there
are
a
number
of
items
that
we
found.
While
we
were
doing
that
evaluation.
So,
like
I
said
when
we
were
studying
all
of
the
data
related
to
the
adus
over
the
last
few
years,
interviewing
all
the
staff
interviewing
applicants,
things
like
that
there
are
a
number
of
things
that
came
up
as
opportunities
that
we
thought
would
help
to
eliminate
some
of
the
barriers
to
adus
they
might
not
be.
R
So
this
is
the
list
that
we,
that
kind
of
rose
to
the
top
of
things
that
we
thought
would
make
and
really
make
an
impact,
so
I'll
just
kind
of
give
a
couple
sentences
on
each
bullet
and
if
you
have
any
red
flags
that
come
up
on
any
of
them,
we
can
I
can
definitely
discuss
them
further,
but
just
want
to
explain
each
one
and
just
a
note,
because
I
had
talked
about
it
earlier
in
the
presentation,
but
planning
board
and
housing.
R
Advisory
Board
were
really
pretty
supportive
or
they
were
supportive
of
the
first
four
and
then
we
discussed
kind
of
the
bottom
two.
So
those
are
kind
of
the
the
main
points
to
discuss.
I
think
but
I'll
just
explain
each
one.
So
the
first
is
extending
the
approval
expiration
period.
So
right
now
A.
If
you
get
an
Adu
approved,
you
have
to
establish
the
Adu
within
one
year.
R
Most
land
use
reviews
allow
three
years
before
their
approval
expires,
and
this
just
a
lot
of
people
are
running
into
not
being
able
to
get
through
the
application
process.
The
permitting
process
securing
a
general
contractor
and
then
getting
most
of
their
construction
completed
within
a
year,
especially
with
covid
and
construction
timelines.
This
has
just
proven
to
be
more
and
more
challenging
and
it
causes
a
lot
of
stress
for
applicants.
R
We've
we've
been
flexible
about
this
application
expiration
period
throughout
covid,
but
it
just
provides
a
lot
of
stress
for
the
applicants,
and
so
we
think
that
extending
that
to
three
years,
like
most
other
land
use,
reviews
would
provide
just
more
more
of
a
reasonable
timeline
for
people
to
actually
construct
their
adus
and
it
did.
It
did
seem
to
be
an
issue
that
was
causing
some
people
to
not
ever
apply
for
an
ad
because
they
knew
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
it
within
a
year
and
then
they'd
lose
their
approval.
R
So
we
think
that
that
would
be
an
easy
way
to
remove
a
barrier.
Secondly,
there's
no
flexibility
for
height
of
existing
structures,
so
an
Adu
in
like
an
existing
garage
or
a
historic
garage,
maybe
not
a
designated
historic
garage,
but
just
a
garage.
That's
been
there
for
50
years
if
they
want
to
convert
it
to
a
to
an
Adu
and
it's
over
25
feet.
R
There
is
no
Avenue
for
flexibility
or
variance
or
anything
that
an
applicant
can
pursue
to
convert
that
existing
structure,
and
we
think
that,
for
environmental
reasons
and
other
reasons,
adaptive
reuse
of
existing
structures
is
almost
always
preferred
because
it
uses
existing
materials
and
also
is
likely
to
have
less
of
an
impact
on
neighbors,
because
it's
an
existing
structure
and
so
we've
just
had
a
few
applications
over
the
last
few
months
actually
come
up
that
have
run
into
this
issue,
and
so
we
think
that
providing
some
kind
of
flexibility
mechanism,
whether
that's
a
modification
or
a
variance
process
us
to
allow
people
to
pursue
that
option,
would
would
eliminate
one
of
the
barriers
to
adus
as
well
lockable
separation.
R
This
is
very
zoning
wonky.
This
wouldn't
be
a
substantive
change,
but
deep
within
the
definitions
of
the
code,
there's
a
requirement
that
dwelling
units
have
to
have
a
lockable
separation.
It
creates
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
between
applicants
and
staff
adds
to
application
time
and
confusion.
So
just
pulling
that
from
the
definitions,
putting
it
straight
into
the
Adu
regulations,
we
think
would
eliminate
a
common
friction
point
limited
accessory
units.
So
this
one
I
mentioned
there's
two
types
of
adus
detached
and
attached.
We
actually
have
a
third
type.
R
It's
called
The
Limited
accessory
unit,
there's
only
one
property
in
the
whole
city
that
has
taken
advantage
of
this
option.
It's
essentially
a
non-conforming
duplex,
so
there's
other
avenues
that
that
property
could
use
to
retain
their
second
unit.
So
it's
just
adding
text
to
the
code
currently
right
now
and
it's
been
in
there
for
decades,
so
we
think
cleaning
that
up
that
wouldn't
necessarily
eliminate
a
barrier.
It
would
just
be
cleaning
up
our
code
and
simplifying
it.
R
I
mentioned
that
the
bottom
two
bullets
were
the
ones
that
we
discussed
most
with
housing,
Advisory,
Board
and
planning
board.
So
I
mentioned
that
an
Adu
has
to
be
owner
occupied,
so
the
owner
of
the
property
has
to
live
on
site,
whether
that's
in
the
main
unit
or
the
accessory
dwelling
unit,
and
we
do
have
regulations.
R
But
there
are
some
kind
of
vague
parts
of
the
regulations
or
places
where
it
could
be
better
clarified,
and
we
are
hoping
for
some
direction
from
Council
on
this
as
well
as
we
work
to
clarify
this
just
what
the
policy
direction
should
be
for
either
of
these,
so
the
first
is
llc's
right
now
we
have
a
few
adus
that
have
been
approved
with
a
property
owner
as
an
LLC.
They
do
have
to
prove
they
still
have
to
prove
that
they
live
there
through
their
LLC
membership
documents
and
things
like
that.
R
But
it
isn't
extremely
clear
in
the
code
whether
that
is
allow
allowable
to
do
the
LLC
or
owner
occupancy.
Certainly,
most
long-term
rentals
around
the
city
can
be
in
an
LLC.
That's
that's
permitted,
but
our
short-term
rentals
are
not
allowed
to
be
owned
by
an
LLC,
so
kind
of
hoping
for
some
policy
Direction
there,
whether
Council
thinks
it's
appropriate
for
llc's
or
those
types
of
entities
to
still
be
able
to
prove
owner
occupancy
and
then
kind
of.
Similarly,
along
that
vein,
there's
this
was
raised
by
our
rental
licensing
staff.
R
There's
some
ambiguity
in
the
code
about
our
temporary
rental
exemptions.
So
right
now,
if
you
own
a
property
and
an
Adu.
Well,
if
you
own
any
type
of
property,
you
can't
and
they're
going
to
go
on
sabbatical
or
something
and
be
gone
for
less
than
a
year.
You're
able
to
rent
out
your
house
without
having
to
get
a
rental
license
like
most
people
would
have
to
get
because
it's
a
short
term
that
you're
going
to
be
gone
and
you're
going
to
come
back.
R
So
it
isn't
clear
right
now
whether
that
still
qualifies
as
owner
occupied.
So
obviously
the
owner
is
gone
for
a
certain
amount
of
time,
but
technically
they
might
have
to
remove
their
Adu
while
they're
gone
and
not
rent
that
Adu
out
while
they're
gone
because
they're
not
technically
owner
occupying.
So
that's
another
one
where
we're
hoping
for
policy
Direction
and
to
just
clarify
the
code
about
what
we
intend
with
that
of
whether
whether
people
should
be
allowed
to
leave
for
less
than
a
year
and
still
rent
out
their
main
house
and
the
Adu.
R
And
then
the
final
bullet
point
is
related
to
public
notice.
So
adus
have
a
kind
of
unique
public
notice.
It
goes
to
adjacent
Property
Owners.
The
only
other
application
type
that
is
similar
is
our
solar
access
exemption.
So
a
notice
goes
out
to
neighbors,
but
neighbors
have
no
way
to
influence
the
process
or
influence
the
decision,
because
it's
an
administrative
decision
and
so
we're
just
looking
for
the
standards
that
they
meet.
R
So
it
can
understandably
be
frustrating
for
Neighbors
to
kind
of
reach
out
and
realize
that
their
comments,
maybe
can't
be
incorporated
or
don't
have
to
be
incorporated
by
the
applicant
or
things
like
that.
So
it
also
adds
a
number
of
steps
to
the
process
of
the
Adu,
so
the
overall
timeline
of
the
permit-
and
obviously
it's
part
of
the
fees.
So
that
was
one
issue.
R
We
also
wanted
to
raise
to
understand
if
Council
would
desire
kind
of
it's
kind
of
a
balance
between
obviously
notifying
neighbors,
but
also
trying
to
streamline
processes
so
hoping
for
some
guidance
there
so
happy
to
talk
about
any
of
these,
but
again
kind
of
the
focus
from
those
other
boards
were
on
those
bottom.
Two
bullets.
G
Tara
I
think
you're.
First
up
for
questions
I.
I
R
Yeah
I
I
think
three
years
is
a
pretty
like
a
tried
and
true
amount
of
time
for
most
development
applications
so
because
we
have
that,
as
applicable
for
most
of
our
other
types
of
land
use,
reviews
we've
seen
that
that's
a
possibility
for
construction
timelines.
R
Certainly,
sometimes
people
have
to
ask
for
extensions
even
of
the
three
years,
but-
and
there
is
an
Avenue
to
do
that,
but
we
over
time
have
been
pretty
confident
with
the
three
years
for
most
types
of
applications.
Okay,.
G
Okay,
I
think
Lauren
is
first
then
Bob.
O
Thanks
Mark
so
say
you
have
an
owner
occupied
Adu
and
then
the
person
who
owns
that
or
a
property-
that's
owner,
occupied
with
an
Adu
and
the
person
sells
it
to
someone
who
isn't
going
to
be
on
site.
Can
you
clarify
what
you
mean
when
you
talk
about
the
Adu
being
removed
like?
Are
we
talking
about
and
I
sort
of
know
the
answer
to
this,
but
I'd
love
to
hear
a
little
bit
more
detail,
because
we're
not
talking
about
demolishing
the
structure,
correct,
correct.
R
So
just
talking
to
like
our
rental
licensing
folks,
the
Adu
removal
would
be
like
removing
the
kitchen
or
the
bathroom,
so
it'd
be
a
significant
expense
to
have
to
take
that
out.
While
you're
like
going
on
sabbatical.
O
E
E
So
what
what
percentage
you
know
LLC
is
is
like
a
corporation
and
that
there's
ownership
interests.
What
percentage
of
the
LLC
does
that
designated
on-site
resident
need
to
own
it?
Do
they
need
to
own
any,
or
is
there
one
percent
or
what's
the
threshold.
R
It's
50,
and
so
it's
a
similar
yeah
and
that's
similar
for
like
a
revocable
trust
or
other
types
of
arrangements
as
well.
Okay,.
E
R
They
would
have
to
I
mean
yes,
the
program
is
that
they
have
occupied
Adu,
whether
we
are
able
to
track
that
efficiently
or
things
like
that
might
not
be
easy
for
the
city
to
do,
but
if
they
are
not,
if
it's
you
know,
if
it's
not
the
person,
that's
living
on
site,
then
they're
out
of
compliance
with
ad
requirements.
E
It
just
seems
to
me
that
this
is
this.
Is
an
area
that's
kind
of
fraught
right,
because
you
know,
owner
occupied
is
a
relatively
easy
standard,
because
you
know
the
neighbors
know
whether
the
person
is
really
living
there
or
not
right,
but
the
neighbors
don't
know
how
much
of
the
stock
or
the
ownership
interest
of
the
LLC
the
person
has,
and
so
it
seems
to
me.
Somebody
could
go
through
I
assume
that
you
have
a
rule
that
says
a
human
being
can
only
be
the
designated
occupier
for
for
one
property
in
town
right.
E
R
R
E
We
can
see
where
the
where
the
abuse
could
could
happen,
because
you
know,
let's,
let's
say
you
wanted
two
tenants
and
one
in
the
main
house
and
one
in
the
Adu.
You
just
say
to
the
person
at
this
prospective
tenant-
hey
sign
this
piece
of
paper
for
about
five
minutes,
you're
going
to
be
a
50
owner
of
an
Adu
and
so
the
designated
human
being,
and
then
they
sell
it
back
for
a
dollar
back
to
the
to
the
real
owner
and
and
now
you
have
a
rent,
paying
tenant
who's,
the
designated
human
being.
E
For
a
moment,
time
was
the
50
owner
of
the
LLC,
and
then
you
got
another
tenant.
It
seems
to
me
that
there's
there's
dangers
here
and
we've
heard
stories
from
people
in
the
community
about
things
like
that
happening.
What
what?
What
are
you
proposing
to
do
to
fix
those
loopholes.
R
I
think
what
we
want
to
do
is
just
clarify
one
way
or
another.
Whether
llc's
can
prove
ownership.
So
I
think
that
we
would
use
kind
of
similar
requirements
to
other
places
that
we've
used
require
documentation
of
llc's.
So
we'd
want
to
be
clear
that
an
LLC
can
prove
owner
occupancy
or
cannot,
and
if
they
can,
then
what
do
they
need
to
do
to
prove
that,
but
I
think
one
of
the
issues
just
to
clarify
for
a
typical
owner.
R
So
like
a
not
LLC,
if
they
get
an
Adu
approval,
they
record
their
Declaration
of
use
with
the
county.
They
can
sell
their
property
the
next
year
and
because
we
have
that
document
recorded
with
the
county,
the
next
owner
knows,
but
we
don't
know-
and
we
don't
check
that
that
next
owner
is
still
occupying.
They
are
just
still
subject
to
the
Adu
requirement
of
owner
occupancy
and
if
there
was
an
issue
we
could
enforce
that,
but
we're
not
continually
checking
all
real
estate
transactions
to
ensure
that
the
owner
is
continuing
to
occupy.
E
Yes,
it's
less
about
about
a
person,
a
human
being
occupied
and
more
about
a
human
being,
owning
right
and
so
I
guess.
You've
now
opened
another
Avenue
of
concern
for
me,
which
is
I,
think
you
should
be
doing
that.
It's!
It's
not
like!
There's
that
many
real
estate
conveyances
in
in
the
city
in
a
year,
so
it
seems
to
me
you've
got
a
list
of
adus
and
who
the
who
the
owner
is
supposed
to
be
right.
So
it
wouldn't
be
really
hard
for
somebody.
E
These
is
real
estate
conveyed
away,
so
I
would
recommend
that
and
same
for
the
LLC
I
you
know
I
would
either
I
would
either
prohibit
LLC
ownership,
like
you
already
do,
for
short-term
rentals,
which
is
the
easiest
thing
to
do,
or
if
you
think
that's
true
Draconian,
then
I
would
require
an
annual
proof
with
with
ownership
of
the
real
estate
is
easy
because
you
know
there's
a
deed
right,
so
it's
either
owned
by
party
or
on
board
part
of
B
with
llc's
you're
not
going
to
know
because
those
are
behind
the
scenes
transactions.
E
That's
why
people
do
LLCs,
because
they're
somewhat
secretive
so
I
would
say
that
if
you're
going
to
allow
llc's,
which
I'm
not
sure
I
would
I
I
would
at
a
minimum
I
would
require
an
annual
certification
to
you
that
they
certify
under
Federal
and
perjury,
that
they
still
own
50
or
more
of
the
LLC
that'd,
be
one
way
to
kind
of
address
some
of
the
concerns,
but
I
do
the
same
thing
on
ownership.
You
know
if
they're,
not
LLC,
I
I'd
be
looking
at
Deeds.
R
Understood
one
point
just
to
to
plug
for
our
staff
time
and
things
like
that,
as
you
saw,
the
large
increase
in
number
of
adus
had
a
really
significant
impact
on
the
Staffing
capacity
of
our
planning
department.
So
adding
something
like
that
would
probably
need
some
additional
staff
support
to
be
able
to
track
that
as.
S
We'll
probably
have
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
Staffing
whenever
we
bring
in
ordinance
as
well,
because
once
we
know
how
the
regulations
change,
we
might
find
that
maybe
there
might
be
quite
a
few
Adu
applications
that
might
come
through
after
those
pass
and
that
might
require
additional
Staffing.
So
that's
something
that
we
expect
to
talk
about
more
with
you.
N
I
just
get
a
colloquate
on
Bob's
hypothetical,
like
if
I'm
a
renter,
and
somebody
offers
me
50
through
LLC
for
this
like
pulling
in-house
in
Boulder.
That
has
an
Adu,
I'm
gonna
say
you
know,
keep
my
my
security
deposit
and
I'm
gonna
walk
away
with
that
50
like
I.
Just
don't
think!
That's
something
that
we
need
to
be
worried
about,
because
you,
you
would
just
lose
half
your
property
if
you
didn't
get
it
back,
so
I
want
to
set
and
I
want
to
say
to
any
LLC
owners.
A
Q
I
I
would
we're
we're
asking
the
community
and
I'm
totally
into
this
I'm
really
excited
about
IDs
for
a
lot
of
reasons,
but
we
are
asking
some
members
of
the
community
that
let's
say,
are
less
excited
to
come
with
us.
So
when
we
say
oh
yeah,
well,
let's
do
this
rule,
but
we
really
don't
have
the
staff
to
make
sure
that
we
are
protecting
our
new
rules
or,
however,
you
want
to
put
it
I
think
we're
going
to
lose.
I
Let's
just
say
some
Community
backing
who
we're
trying
to
take
along
with
us.
Let's
just
put
it
that
way,
so
I
think
it
would
be
really
good
to
be
able
to
say.
Yes,
we
are
going
to
be
checking
these
license
these
rental
licenses
and
such
to
keep
Community
Trust
in
this
exciting
Venture
that
we're
doing.
G
I'm
going
to
call
a
Quee
on
that
and
just
point
out
that
llc's
are
corporate
Vehicles,
they
participate
in
real
estate
transactions,
but
they
are
designed
for
secrecy
and
lack
of
disclosure.
And
so
if
we
want
to
bring
people
along,
I,
I
think
the
llc's
could
could
be
very
fraught.
H
Just
a
quick
question
that
came
up
for
me
in
this
LLC
discussion:
I'm
just
thinking
about
you
know
if
you're
a
small
business
owner,
for
example
and
you're,
you
know
your
LLC
is
based
out
of
your
house.
I
am
assuming
that
when
we're
talking
about
llc's
in
this
context,
it
really
just
relates
to
the
ownership
of
the
house
being
under
the
LLC,
but
I
also
want
to
clarify
that
we're
not
going
to
create
any
more
struggles
for
people
who
are
small
business
owners
with
llc's
running
out
of
their
homes.
R
R
So
it
might
not
be
necessarily
that
it's
an
investment
property,
but
really
just
the
owner
wanting
to
protect
that,
but
not
every
owner
obviously
would
put
it
into
an
LLC
and
I'm,
not
sure
how
that
would
relate
to
like
having
a
small
business
and
whether
that
would
be
separate
from
how
that
owned,
how
they
would
own
the
property
I'm,
not
a
legal
expert
related
to
that,
but
certainly
it's
a
it's
a
different
way
to
protect
your
assets
by
having
the
LLC.
H
Yeah
and
I'm
sorry
I,
think
I'm
not
being
clear
in
my
question.
So
I
don't
mean
that
the
the
house
is
sort
of
owned
by
the
LLC,
but
you've
got
a
homeowner
who
is
running
an
LLC
out
of
their
home
right,
like
they're
they're
working
they're
running
their
small
business
from
their
home
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
nothing
that
would
come
up.
That
would
like
flag
that
as
an
LLC
and
you
know
if
they
had
an
edu
and
then
start
them
in
a
process
that
just
makes
their
lives
more
complicated.
H
R
Yes,
I'm
sorry
I,
misunderstood
so
yeah.
It
would
have
to
be
that
the
property
ownership
is
listed
in
an
LLC
I.
Think,
that's
that's
how
we,
because
we
check
the
county
assessor
records
when
an
Adu
application
comes
in.
So
if
it
comes
up
as
like
1920
Main,
Street
LLC,
that's
when
we
need
the
the
ownership
documents
and
things
like
that
that
proves.
Thank
you.
J
B
Yeah
I
think
he's
on
target
with
all
of
these
suggestions
and
I'll
just
weigh
in
on
the
the
LLC
bit
I'm.
My
wife
and
I
both
have
our
participants
in
a
couple
llc's,
and
it's
not
done
for
secrecy
reasons.
You
can
look
up
the
ownership
of
the
LLC
on
the
Secretary
of
State's
website,
it's
purely
for
liability
protection
and
it's
we've
gotten
advice
over
the
years
that
well,
if
you
want
in
certain
circumstances,
you
just
form
an
LLC.
It's
just
what
you
do.
B
That's
like
standard
practice,
so
I,
don't
they're,
not
inherently
nefarious,
so
I
think
as
long
as
you're,
you
know,
testing
that
that
they're
still
owner
occupied,
which
is
trackable,
I,
think
it's
fine
personally
I
think
the
suggestion
is
fine,
because
it's
it
is
a
relatively
common
way
to
own
property
and
just
as
long
as
we
continue
to
validate
the
ownership-
and
you
know
on
our
occupied
nature
of
it,
I
think
that's
fine,
so
I'm
good
with
all
your
suggestions.
R
Thanks
Aaron
and
that
actually
reminded
me
of
Tara,
had
put
a
question
through
to
Brad
yesterday
or
so
about
the
number
of
LLC
rental
properties,
and
so
we
did
have
our
data
team.
Look
into
that,
there's
a
lot
more
that
we
could
do,
but
of
the
kind
of
the
areas
where
adus
would
be
allowed
to
mostly
single-family
homes.
R
G
N
I
also
support
staff's
recommendations
in
general,
just
I'm
gonna
keep
on
this
LLC
thing
for
a
moment:
I'm
Not
For,
a
Moment
I'm,
not
terribly
fussed
about
the
notion
of
LLC
ownership
and
we'll
just
add,
anecdotally:
I
haven't
owned
very
many
homes,
but
two
of
the
homes
my
family
and
I
have
lived
in
were
purchased
by
LLC
Sellers
and
they
were
both
families.
One
was
an
elderly
couple
and
one
was
a
young
family.
N
I
also
don't
know
why
they
had
those
structures,
but
I
think
that
there
are,
you
know,
I,
don't
know.
Maybe
the
elderly
couple
had
you
know
one
one
half
and
passed
away,
and
it
became
a
an
asset
that
the
the
kids
structured
I,
don't
know
what
it
was,
but
these
were
not
owned
by
anyone
who
is
renting
out
the
homes
or
businesses
so
just
want
to
say:
I
wouldn't
want
to
make
it
difficult
for
people
who,
for
whatever
reason,
have
a
financial
structure
that
makes
LLC
advantageous
for
their
families.
N
So
I'm,
okay
with
the
llc's
I,
think
if
I
assume
that
that,
if
somebody
saw
it
being
abused,
we
would
still
have
the
reporting
system
in
place
and
and
we
could
at
least
investigate
yeah.
J
Q
J
G
M
Yeah
I
I
think
by
and
large
we're
headed
in
a
really
good
direction.
It's
interesting
that
we've
toned
down
on
the
LLC
piece.
It
does
mean
limited
liability
Corporation,
so
it
is
usually
about
the
the
liability
aspect
of
protection.
There
are
a
number
of
states
that
offer
anonymity
and
or
secrecy
of
who
is
on
an
LLC
who
owns
it.
Delaware
is
one
of
them.
A
big
chunk
of
llc's
come
out
of
Delaware
because
of
maintaining
that
investor
secrecy.
M
So
you
know
you
can
kind
of
pretty
much
tell
who's
doing
it
for
investment
versus
who's,
just
sort
of
like
got
an
LLC
because
they're
doing
a
business
thing,
so
it's
pretty
easy
to
derive,
perhaps
intent
from
from
some
of
that
pretty
straightforward
without
bearing
into
to
who
the
people
are,
but
by
and
large,
I
I
think
we're
in
a
really
good
spot
and
that
again
just
want
to
credit
staff.
This
is
really
good
stuff
I
like
like,
where
we're
going
so
thanks
for
all
the
hard
work.
G
Okay,
seeing
no
other
hand
I'm
going
to
jump
in
for
a
second,
you
know:
no
major
real
estate
transaction
is
done
without
llc's.
The
issue
for
us
is
appropriate
disclosure
so
that
we
know
who
the
owners
of
the
of
the
building
are
and
who
is
actually
living
there.
G
It's
not
that
there's
any
problem
with
with
using
llc's
as
a
purchase
vehicle.
It's
we
have
a
different
interest
than
that
of
the
of
the
owner
and
and
our
interest
is
to
make
sure
that
we
know
who's
living
there,
and
so,
if
we
can
come
up
with
the
appropriate
forms
of
disclosure,
there's
nothing
inherently
wrong
with
the
LLC,
but
we
don't
want
to
have
the
anonymity
of
most
llc's
be
a
barrier
to
what
we're
trying
to
achieve.
G
Okay
in
terms
of
the
other
issues,
the
expiration
period,
absolutely
the
flexibility
of
height,
yes,
yes,
I
mean
I
I,
think
we
are
going
in
a
good
direction
here.
The
public
notice
requirement
is,
is
almost
a
form
of
politeness
just
to
your
neighbors,
your
adjacent
neighbors.
G
You
know
who
don't
wake
up
one
morning
and
see
a
backhoe
in
the
in
the
backyard
and
have
no
idea
what's
going
on,
so
you
know,
maybe
a
cursory
form
of
notice
to
those
parties
that
are
adjacent
to
you,
not
a
neighborhood
notice,
because
we're
taking
away
the
the
saturation
requirements,
but
you
know
something
where
people
are
being
good
neighbors
and
letting
them
know
that
there's
going
to
be
a
construction
project
next
door
other
than
that
I
would
not
go
past.
G
That
and
I
think
we're
doing
well
here
any
other
comments
on
this.
G
All
right
do
we
have
do
we
have
anything
else
to
deal
with
today.
R
So
one
of
those
that
we've
been
focusing
on
and
that
came
up
a
lot
throughout
the
evaluation
was
a
one-step
review
right
now,
people
have
to
go
through
an
Adu
application
and
then
a
building
permit
application
and
they
have
different
requirements
for
each
and
oftentimes.
People
think
that
that
Adu
application
is
their
full
application
and
they
go
into
the
building,
permit
and
realize.
R
There's
all
new
reviewers
reviewing
building
code
and
they
might
have
these
building
code
issues
that
they
didn't
know
about
can
understandably
be
very
frustrating
for
applicants
drawn
out
process
because
they're
doing
two
separate
instead
of
a
combined
review.
So
that's
something
we'd
be
looking
to
do.
It's
really
only
something
that's
feasible
with
some
of
these
other
changes
like
getting
rid
of
the
saturation
limit,
or
some
of
the
other
streamlining
so
assuming
those
changes,
if
those
would
go
forward
through
the
ordinance
we'd
be
able
to
make
these
process
improvements
as
well.
R
Addressing
I
won't
get
into
the
the
Deep
zoning
issue
related
to
that,
but
essentially,
adus
have
to
be
addressed
as
a
unit
a
and
Unit
B,
and
it's
just
happening
too
early
in
the
process
and
causing
issues.
Declarations
of
use
is
the
legal
document
that
people
have
to
record
when
they
get
the
Adu
application.
R
So
just
looking
at
that
and
making
sure
that
that's
up
to
date
with
all
of
the
changes
that
we've
made
and
then
finally,
very
simple,
things
are
seemingly
simple,
but
things
that
can
have
a
big
impact
are
creating
better
handouts.
Now
that
I've
been
looking
at
all
of
these
other
cities
that
allow
adus
there's
a
lot
of
great
examples
of
things
that
we
can
do
to
help
our
applicants.
Our
customers
understand
what
the
Adu
requirements
are.
R
Obviously,
as
we
simplify
the
Adu
requirements,
all
of
this
kind
of
stuff
gets
easier
and
then,
as
well
as
like
graphics
and
videos,
and
things
like
that
things
that
we
can
do
to
improve
the
process
and
reduce
those
barriers
to
adus
through
these
process
improvements
as
well.
So
if
you
have
any
comments
on
those
happy
to
take
those
as
well
but
again,
not
quite
not
exactly
related
to
the
ordinance.
E
Yeah
Lisa
just
for
I
know
that
with
this
was
in
the
memo,
but
maybe
for
for
our
listing
audience
Could.
You
please
describe
the
next
steps
as
far
as
drafting
a
legislation,
public
hearing
info
the
planning
board
public
hearing
from
the
council.
What
what's
your
time
frame
to
bring
what
you
heard
tonight
into
into
legislative
form.
R
Absolutely
we
had
to
do
a
little
bit
of
rescheduling
or
reshuffling
with
some
other
items,
but
we're
planning
to
bring
this
ordinance
to
planning
board
first
for
public
Hearing
in
April,
and
then
you
would
see
it
in
May,
first
and
second
reading.
So
in
the
meantime,
we'll
be
doing
additional
engagement.
Obviously
the
that
slide
that
I
gave
with
all
the
different
meetings
and
the
virtual
engagement
and
office
hours
and
things
like
that
to
better
understand
the
issues
but
we'll
be
Drafting
and
bringing
an
ordinance
in
April.