►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Meeting 2-2-23
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
A
A
B
Got
Channel
8
going
good
evening
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
Thursday
February,
2nd
2023
regular
meeting
of
the
Boulder
City
Council
so
good
to
have
you
all
here,
we're
going
to
start
with
a
call
to
order
and
then
a
roll
call.
So
I
am
calling
us
to
order
and
Elisha.
If
you
could
call
the
roll
please.
D
B
C
B
You
so
much
so
if
we
can
start
would
invite
a
motion
to
amend
the
agenda
to
do
a
few
things.
One
is
to
add
item
1B,
which
is
a
historic
folder,
Inc
declaration
commemoration
of
50
years
to
be
presented
by
councilmember
Yates
when
his
3i
a
motion
to
authorize
the
city
manager
to
enter
into
settlement
agreement
in
the
amount
of
thirty
three
thousand
two
hundred
dollars
and
33
cents
to
set
all
disputes
arising
out
of
damage
to
the
Snow
Lion
property.
B
Another
one
is
3n
consideration
of
a
motion
to
request
special
counsel
to
investigate
and
prosecute
complaints,
and
when
we
get
there,
I'll
ask
for
a
little
more
information
about
that.
Rather
than
reading
it
all
out
right
now
and
then
finally,
item
8A
under
matters
discussion
regarding
option
of
council
member
right
along
to
the
Boulder
Police
Department
I'm.
F
B
Okay,
that's
unanimous
agenda
is
amended
and
then
one
other
little
item
of
housekeeping
generally
I
will
run
the
meeting
and
generally
the
mayor,
Pro
tem
runs
it
if
I
need
to
step
out
for
a
couple
minutes.
The
mayor
pretended
Wallach
is
absent
this
evening.
If
I
could
just
ask
council's
Indulgence
that
the
person
on
my
left,
if
councilmember
weiner
could
take
over
if
I
need
to
leave
for
a
couple
minutes,
is
that
all
right?
B
Okay,
thanks.
Do
you
mind
if
we
proceed
while
that's
working
on
Jay,
okay,
great
okay?
So
now
we
are
going
to
move
on
to
our
item
1A,
which
is
a
declaration
honoring
Black,
History
Month,
and
that
will
be
presented
by
myself,
but
we
may
give
it
a
second.
B
And
Ms
Woodley,
would
you
like
to
come
up
for
the
presentation.
B
B
Wonderful,
so
here
we
go:
Black
History,
Month,
February
2023
the
month
of
February
has
received
National
recognition
as
Black
History
Month
in
2017
the
boulder
branch
of
the
National
Association
for
the
advancement
of
colored
people.
The
NAACP
was
established
in
Boulder
with
the
purpose
of
promoting
Civic
engagement,
eradicating
racial
Prejudice
and
eliminating
racial
discrimination
in
education,
employment,
housing
and
civil
rights.
B
Educating
and
fostering
a
sense
of
community,
inclusive
and
respectful
of
all
is
needed
to
affect
understanding
and
facilitate
positive
change.
The
Arts
have
always
been
an
important
expression
of
Black
Culture
shared
and
emulated.
Worldwide.
African-American
musicians
are
underrepresented
in
formal
discipline
ensembles.
B
Despite
a
deep
musical
tradition,
including
aerophones
flutes,
Reed
pipes,
trumpets
and
horns
rooted
in
the
Bounty
of
the
African
landscape,
the
Boulder
County
branch
of
the
NAACP
is
honored
to
extend
an
invitation
to
all
to
attend
a
performance
of
the
Premier
Nashville
African-American
wind
Symphony,
an
ensemble
comprised
of
65
black
musicians,
music,
educators
and
professionals
on
February
19
2023
during
the
annual
Freedom
fund
at
Mackey.
Auditorium
on
the
University
of
Colorado's,
Boulder
campus
hope
to
see
many
of
you
there
in
another
part
of
the
city
with
our
University
Partners.
G
G
We
have
started
a
different
kind
of
to
to
add
more
about
even
more
value
to
this
process.
The
Declaration
be
called
Proclamation
declaration.
We
know
what
it
stands
for
and
it
is
such
an
honor.
So
we
decided
to
try
to
create
something
where
we
could
involve
the
community
and
select
someone,
and
in
this
case
it
was
this
lady
right
here,
councilwoman,
Nicole,
Spear
and
I
tell
you
if
you
look
back
at
her
accomplishments,
the
things
she's
working
on
I
asked
her.
G
What
was
the
most
important
thing
to
her
and
she
said
I
asked
for
three
and
she
said
the
top
one
was
working
with
the
education
committee
within
the
NAACP
and
being
able
to
influence
our
young
people,
and
we
all
know
that
they
need
our
support,
and
so
with
that
I
thought
what
could
be
better
and
her
work
speaks
for
itself.
G
H
Thank
you
and
I
would
just
like
to
add
a
personal
comment
of
gratitude.
The
Boulder
County
NAACP
for
the
honor
of
participating
in
the
receipt
of
this
declaration.
There
are
so
many
exceptional
black
leaders
and
community
members
within
our
branch
and
too
often
white
people
like
me,
get
credit
for
the
work
of
people
of
color.
So
it's
something
to
be
asked
to
receive
this
declaration
on
behalf
of
our
branch
and
I'm,
truly
humbled
and
grateful
to
stand
with
the
NAACP
as
an
advocate
for
justice
and
Equity.
H
We
heard
a
little
bit
about
the
mission
and
how
the
branch
has
grown
in
the
last
five
six
years,
since
it
was
organized
in
2023.
Our
branch
has
nearly
a
dozen
committees
working
on
a
range
of
issues
across
Boulder
County
and
across
the
region,
in
partnership
with
NAACP
Colorado
Montana
and
Wyoming
tri-state
area
conference
from
working
on
state
legislation
to
end
the
school-to-prison
pipeline
to
Gathering
Faith
communities
into
the
work
of
social
justice
to
promoting
and
growing
black
and
people
of
color
entrepreneurship.
H
To
celebrating
the
accomplishments
of
black
residents
and
bringing
internationally
renowned
artists
and
musicians
to
Boulder
to
so
much
more
than
I
have
time
to
say,
the
diverse
members
of
the
Boulder
County
NAACP
are
building
up
and
strengthening
our
community
every
day
and
as
a
city
leader
I
am
so
grateful
for
the
work.
Our
local
branch
is
doing.
You
challenge
us
to
be
better
and
to
do
better
in
our
work
to
create
a
more
Equitable
and
just
community,
and
you
bring
Faith
and
Hope
to
so
many
of
us.
E
What
a
great
night
tonight
we
have
two
really
wonderful
declarations.
The
second
declaration
is
going
to
be
read
by
me
relating
to
the
honoring,
the
50th
anniversary
of
the
founding
of
The
prominent
institution
in
our
Town
historic
Boulder
Leonard
seal.
Do
you
want
to
come
on
up?
Len?
Is
the
executive
director
of
historic,
Boulder
and
I
want
to
have
him
up
here
while
I
read
this
to
him.
E
This
is
a
declaration
on
behalf
of
City
councils
commemorating
the
50th
anniversary
of
historic
Boulder
Inc.
The
preservation
of
historic
properties
is
known
across
the
country
to
help
shape
the
character
of
a
community.
Recently
U.S
news
and
World
Report
lists
bouldres
again
as
one
of
the
best
places
to
live
in
America.
Historic
preservation
has
been
a
long
time
value
that
has
contributed
to
the
boulder.
We
know
today,
historic,
Boulder,
Inc,
an
essential
non-profit
organization
serving
our
community
is
celebrating
their
50th
anniversary.
E
Initially,
the
work
was
to
stop
wrecking
balls
from
leveling
historic
schools,
train
depots,
homes
and
theaters
The
Next
Step
was
guiding
the
adoption
of
a
landmark
preservation
ordinance
for
individual
properties,
which
now
number
more
than
200.
following
that
was
a
creation
of
10
historic
districts
around
the
city.
E
Generations
of
older
families
and
visitors
to
town
have
benefited
from
the
preservation,
education
and
advocacy
of
historic
Boulder.
The
character
of
this
city
has
been
celebrated
and
historic.
Tourism
has
become
an
economic
benefit
to
the
community,
so
in
recognition
of
the
preservation
advocacy
services
that
the
members
of
historic
Boulder
have
provided
and
continue
to
provide
for
our
community.
We,
the
city
council
of
the
city
of
Boulder,
declare
February
2
2023
as
historic
Boulder
preservation
day
you
get
Applause
now
and
I'm
going
to
turn
the
mic
over
to
I'm.
Going
to.
E
Let
me
put
these
right
here
during
the
night.
I
think
Len
has
a
few
things
to
say
and
I
think
you've
got
a
little
party
coming
up
next
week
too
party
and
then
I
think
Len
also
has
something
to
give
to
somebody
else
who's
in
the
audience.
So
we're
just
going
to
keep
making
gifts
go
ahead.
Lynn
thanks.
I
You
so
much
absolutely
it
is
an
honor
to
accept
this
certificate
and
Honor
on
behalf
of
historic
Boulder.
Thank
you,
council
members
and
citizens
of
Boulder.
I
Five
Decades
of
volunteers
have
been
working
to
make
a
difference
in
preserving
the
heritage
of
this
community
as
manifested
in
physical
properties
and
buildings,
and
it's
a
delight
that
we
are
able
to
continue
to
do
this,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
do
is
focus
on
different
properties
around
the
community
and
one
of
the
them
is
a
Columbia
Cemetery
and
so
I'd
like
to
invite
Parks
and
Recreation
Department
and
play
Foundation.
People
come
to
come
up
here
and
accept
a
check
that
we
want
to
give
you.
I
It's
a
really
incredible
and
very
popular
way
to
tell
the
stories
and
important
stories
of
Boulder,
and
we
share
the
pro
the
proceeds
of
that
with
the
Parks
and
Recreation
Department
through
the
play
foundation,
and
this
year
we
were
able
to
share
six
thousand
dollars
with
the
foundation
and
and
you
should
help
to
go
to
continue
to
do
the
important
restoration
of
the
cemetery.
So
here
you
go.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Yes,.
I
On
the
10th
of
February,
we
will
be
celebrating
the
50th
anniversary
of
historic
Boulder
at
the
Boulderado
hotel,
with
a
renowned
speaker
from
Back
East,
who
is
an
expert
in
the
values
of
historic
preservation,
and
we
will
have
many
other
festivities
that
evening
and
I'm
going
to
leave
some
postcards
for
more
information
on
the
table
over
here.
So
I
hope
to
see
you
there.
Thank
you.
B
Very
good,
and
so
we'll
now
move
to
open
comment.
I
believe
Brenda
writtenour
will
be
reading
out
our
open
comment:
public
participation,
guidelines
Brenda
you
want
to
do
that.
J
Sure
thank
you
and
good
evening,
everyone,
both
in
person
and
on
zoom
in
our
virtual
space.
J
We
welcome
you
all
here,
we're
glad
that
you're
here
to
share
your
thoughts
with
city
council
tonight
and
if
Emily
will
share
the
slides.
For
me,
that
would
be
great,
so
we
know
many
of
you
have
seen
these
many
times.
We
appreciate
your
patience
while
we
go
over
them
for
those
who
may
not
have
seen
them.
As
often
the
city
has
engaged
with
community
members
to
co-create
a
vision
for
productive,
meaningful
and
inclusive
Civic
conversation.
J
This
Vision
supports
the
physical
and
emotional
safety
of
community
members
staff
and
Council,
as
well
as
supporting
democracy
for
people
of
all
ages.
Identities
lived
experience
and
political
perspectives
for
more
information
about
the
vision
and
the
community
engagement
process.
You
can
visit
the
city
of
Boulder
website
at
bouldercolorado.gov
and
type
productive
atmospheres
into
the
search
bar
next
slide.
J
Participants
are
required
to
sign
up
to
speak
using
the
name
they
are
commonly
known
by,
and
individuals
must
display
their
whole
name
before
being
allowed
to
speak
online.
Currently,
only
audio
testimony
is
permitted.
Online
in-person
participants
are
asked
to
refer
to
refrain
from
expressing
support
or
disagreement
with
other
speakers.
Traditionally,
support
is
shown
through
American,
Sign,
Language,
Applause
or
jazz
hands.
Everyone
may
practice
at
this
point.
If
you
wish-
and
we
appreciate
you
coming
tonight,
I
think
we
are
ready
to
begin.
B
Thanks
Brenda
and
I
had
a
question
from
a
Community
member,
come
in
just
to
be
clear
that
our
our
declarations
are
the
one
exception
to
that.
When
we're
handing
out
declarations,
we
sometimes
applaud,
but
during
the
rest
of
the
meeting
we
ask
to
people
to
follow
the
guidelines.
Brenda
just
specified.
B
Great,
so
we
have
seven
in-person
speakers
and
four
virtual
ones.
Each
of
you
will
have
two
minutes
to
speak.
Our
first
three
speakers
are
Terry
bernsick,
Michelle,
Rodriguez
and
Evan
ravitz.
B
K
I'm
part
of
the
safe
zones
for
schools
initiative,
which
represents
a
group
of
parents
who
are
concerned
about
the
lack
of
safety
surrounding
our
schools.
Our
children
are
required
to
be
at
school.
Many
depend
on
our
City's
bike
path
to
travel
to
and
from
school,
and
use
the
areas
near
campus
for
lunch
and
studying.
Yet
these
areas
have
become
increasingly
unsafe
for
them
they
report
routine
harassment,
offers
of
drugs,
indecent
exposure
and
other
menacing
behaviors
children
are
a
vulnerable
population
are
deserving
of
special
protections.
K
We
are
proposing
that
the
City
established
a
500-foot
safety
zone
around
schools
to
create
a
buffer
for
our
children
from
the
illegal
activity
that's
occurring
in
our
public
spaces.
The
safety
zone
designation
would
eliminate
the
72-hour
grace
period
for
encampment
removals
and
would
instead
make
them
subject
to
immediate
clearance.
To
be
clear,
this
proposed
change
would
only
apply
to
the
500-foot
perimeters
around
schools
and
would
not
impact
broader
City
policies
concerning
encampment
cleanups.
K
There
is
precedent
for
treating
school
zones
with
a
higher
level
of
care
for,
for
example,
liquor
stores
and
dispensaries
can't
be
within
a
thousand
feet
of
a
school.
If
we
feel
that
it
is
necessary
to
distance
our
children
from
legal
sales
of
alcohol,
then
surely
we
can
agree
that
they
should
be
able
to
get
to
school
without
witnessing
Matthews
and
stepping
over
hypodermic
needles.
The
current
city
ordinance
concerning
illegal
camping
does
not
include
a
72-hour
grace
period
provision.
However,
the
city
manager
has
informally
adopted
this
guideline
in
the
implementation
of
this
law.
K
We
are
requesting
that
the
city
management
update
their
guidelines
to
specifically
exclude
the
safety
zones
from
the
72-hour
notice
recommendation.
We
recognize
that
Boulder,
along
with
the
rest
of
the
country,
is
experiencing
a
severe
drug
and
Mental
Health
crisis
and
that
Boulder's
unhoused
population
is
vulnerable
and
in
need
of
support,
but
solutions
to
these
complex
problems
are
going
to
take
time
and
in
the
meantime,
we
cannot
compound
the
problem
by
putting
our
children,
arguably
the
most
vulnerable
population
into
the
mix.
The
safety
zone
concept
is
not
meant
to
solve
the
critical
issues
surrounding
our
community.
F
I
got
hi
guys
Michelle
Rodriguez
here
glad
to
see
all
of
y'all
I
wanted
to
say.
I
was
here
a
couple
of
weeks
ago.
It
was
the
first
time
in
a
long
time
since
I
had
been
trying
to
get
in
here
to
speak.
F
I
had
no
idea
what
the
agenda
of
the
night
was
and
I
quickly
found
myself
surrounded
by
people
that
make
it
difficult
for
me
to
speak
and
I
was
I
was
quickly
made
aware
at
one
of
our
at
our
homeless,
Outreach
that
I
frequent
a
lot
by
some
very
young
people
this
week
that
hi
Miss
Michelle,
you
know,
I
I
saw
you
on
TV
the
other
night
and
I
immediately
kind
of
just
grabbed.
My
mouth
and
I
was
like
was
I
behaving.
F
You
know,
because
it's
very
important
that
I
don't
step
out
of
character
and
that
I
don't
let
what
people
know
or
that
I
I
teach
people
that
have
been
through
affect
how
I
I
act
and
behave
in
the
public
side
and
I
just
want
to
apologize.
F
If
there
was
any
disrespect
and
I'd
like
to
ask
for
for
a
safe
public
forum
to
be
able
to
speak
about
the
tough
subjects
that
thank
you
dear,
that
I
I
haven't
been
able
to
discuss
and
I
want
to
have
the
most
respected
communication
with
my
community
and
I
for
the
people
that
don't
know
where
I'm
from
I
was
out
here
on
these
streets.
F
The
park
was
cleaned
up
in
the
last
couple
of
days
and
I
wish
for
everybody
to
be
able
to
feel
like
they
can
be
in
this
community
safely,
without
fear
from
the
authority
figures
or
anybody
else.
We
all
should
be
able
to
get
along
the
children,
especially
their
most
important,
and
shout
out
to
the
little
person
that
that
enlightened
me
that
what
I'm
saying
is
being
heard,
if
not
by
the
people,
I
mean
it
to
be
by
people
that
are
maybe
going
to
make
something
out
of
what
I'm
saying.
But
thank
you
guys.
L
A
few
weeks
ago,
former
state
representative,
Jonathan
singer,
spoke
here
in
his
new
job
for
the
Chamber
of
Commerce,
saying
the
chamber
wanted
to
work
with
the
city
for
more
affordable
housing
he's
here
again
before,
posing
as
our
pal,
the
chamber
should
fix
what
it
broke.
Former
city
manager,
Jane
brodigam,
admitted
at
a
2020
council
meeting
that
she
worked
behind
council's
back
to
obtain
so-called
opportunity
Zone
status
for
Eastern
Boulder
part
of
the
Trump
tax
cuts
for
the
wealthy.
This
will
speed,
gentrification
and
reduce
affordable
housing.
L
Emails
obtained
through
the
Colorado
open
records
act,
so
the
chamber
Works
secretly
with
the
city
to
make
this
happen
chamber
President,
John
tayer,
who
participated
directly
in
the
incriminating
emails,
was
on
kgnu
radio
on
October,
7th
and
I
questioned
him.
He
pretended
that
the
opportunity
Zone
would
reduce
housing
costs.
This
is
laughable
and
the
city
council's
laudable
efforts
to
delay
and
mitigate
the
opportunity.
Zone
damage
proves
it.
L
The
chamber
corrupted,
whatever
Democratic
process,
still
happens
here,
to
increase
investor
profits
at
the
expense
of
the
rest
of
us
and
its
president
and
CEO
lied
publicly
about
the
intentions
and
effects.
It
should
apologize.
The
only
way
to
undo
the
opportunity
Zone
would
be
to
get
Congress
to
repeal
the
legislation.
That's
what
the
chamber
should
be
working
for,
not
gaslighting
us
to
cover
up
what
it
did
and
the
new
city
manager
shouldn't
be
partying
with
the
chamber
that
corrupted
the
old
city
manager
as
the
camera
reported.
She
did.
Thank
you.
M
Well,
good
evening
my
name
is
Robert
Matthias
I
live
at
980
Crescent
Drive
in
the
city
of
Boulder
and
in
the
10th
state
house.
District
I've
lived
in
Boulder
for
22
years,
split
over
a
couple
of
periods,
starting
in
1970.
I'm
here
to
support
Juni
Joseph
and
to
encourage
her
to
continue
to
represent
my
family
in
both
the
state
house
and
here
on
City
Council
I'd
like
to
thank
you
all
for
your
service
to
my
city,
especially
Juni.
She
joined
the
council
while
still
in
law
school,
which
itself
is
a
full-time
job.
M
She
continued
to
serve
while
starting
to
practice
law
now
she's
serving
well
also
in
the
State
House
Junior
has
made
a
lot
of
sacrifices
to
serve
on
Council,
but
she
has
demonstrated
her
ability
to
handle
it.
All
many
of
you
have
full-time
jobs
besides
city
council,
why
not
Juni?
As
you
know,
Juni
could
make
a
lot
more
money.
As
a
lawyer
than
serving
on
these
two
bodies,
she
is
sacrificing
that
income
to
represent
a
population
that
is
not
represented
by
any
other
council
member.
M
It's
important
that
Judy
continue
on
Council,
because
she's,
the
only
person
of
color
the
only
renter
and
the
only
person
on
Council
younger
than
40.
those
constituencies
deserve
representation
here.
Why
would
we
get
rid
of
that
voice?
Junie
has
been
the
target
of
criticism
for
warring
two
political
hats
simultaneously,
but
I'm
thrilled
that
this
Council
has
a
direct
conduit
to
the
State
House
I
hope
that
Junior
is
supported
by
the
rest
of
you,
members
of
council
and
I'm
sure
there
was
a
white
male
I
would
not
be
subjected
to
the
same
kind
of
criticism.
M
B
To
avalina
here
going
once
twice
how
about
Jacob
Mitchell.
B
No,
maybe
I'm
getting
trolled
here,
John
nestlich
he's
here.
D
Good
evening
my
name
is
John
nestlage
I'm
I've,
been
here
a
couple
weeks
ago
to
speak
with
you
about
an
incident
that
involved
my
child
and
I,
am
here
tonight
out
of
a
sense
of
obligation,
I'm
obligated
to
be
here
because
I
owe
Mr
farnin
an
apology.
I
had
a
conversation
with
David
in
the
hall.
Afterward
I
took
the
time
to
to
visit
with
him.
D
He
took
the
time
to
visit
with
me
and
I
requested
the
police
report
and
I
look
and
I've
learned
subsequently
that
he
did
take
actions
that
he
had
represented
that
evening
that
he'd
taken
he
was
looking
out
for
four
children
which
I
appreciate
and
so
on.
A
human
level
I
want
to
apologize
to
him
and
acknowledge
his
his
actions.
D
The
the
bad
part
of
this
is
that
it
doesn't
take
away
from
what
happened
and
as
a
result
of
what
David
shared
with
me,
I
was
able
to
dig
deeper
I
learned
that
the
police
being
understaffed,
don't
have
a
victim's
advocate,
so
they
weren't
able
to
keep
me
informed.
The
idea
was
that
I
should
be
expected
to
contact
them
regularly
for
any
updates
or
developments.
What
we've
learned
is
that
they
have
identified
a
person,
they
have
not
arrested
the
person
but
through
identifying
him
and
they
he
was
apprehended
in
the
library.
D
It's
discovered
that
he
is
a
registered
sex
offender
and
is
at
the
moment,
still
roaming
freely
among
our
community.
So
just
an
FYI
for
any
concerned.
Parent
I'm
also
here
out
of
a
sense
of
obligation,
because
I
am
a
licensed
attorney
and
attorneys,
have
a
duty
of
Candor
to
deliberative
bodies
and
tribunals.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
I
I,
let
you
know
that
there
I
did
learn
some
things.
D
I've
learned
as
well,
that
the
number
of
incidents
that
I
represented
were
around
the
library
area,
so
it
doesn't
make
it
any
better,
but
there's
still
many
many
incidents
occurring
and
this
needs
to
be
addressed.
We're
also
not
well
served
by
Hyperbole
and
exaggeration.
Some
of
the
articles
that
came
out
after
the
meeting
two
weeks
ago,
representing
that
there
were
large
contingents
of
uniformed
and
armed
police
here,
wasn't
the
case
didn't
happen.
I
was
here,
I
counted.
There
were
four.
The
rest
were
plain
closed.
They
were
all
in
their
seats.
B
N
All
right,
hello,
hello,
everybody
I,
don't
have
a
lot
of
time
because
she
made
this
a
short
amount
of
time,
so
I'm
going
to
get
through
real,
quick,
first
off,
love,
y'all
hope
everyone's
doing
well,
if
not
don't
want
to
hear
it
anyways
school's
going
well.
In
my
end,
midterms
are
amazing,
A's
and
B's.
N
You
know
it's
awesome.
That
being
said
first
off
to
the
NAACP
member,
who
garnered
the
award
and
awarded
to
Miss
Spears
good
job.
Congratulations
second
part
shout
out
to
Korea
white
as
well,
who
was
a
part
of
the
UC
Boulder
African
studies,
group,
wonderful,
lady.
Let's
check
her
out,
Michelle
Rodriguez
I,
see
you
and
I
hear
you
girl
and
I
too
agree.
N
I
too
agree
with
asari
over
to
sorry.
That's
on
a
different
mindset
and
an
aspect
because
say
sorry
also
means
to
understand
that
there
is
more
levels
of
damage,
but
also
to
be
aware
as
to
what
parts
are
played
at
times
when
people
experience
such
Horrors,
it's
because
of
others
sometimes
of
themselves.
N
N
O
You
so
much
yeah
I'm
putting
up
the
volume
I
don't
know.
Can
you
hear
now
much
better
okay,
yeah
concerned
about
Wayland
Lola,
try
abusing
folks
the
police
officer.
I
was
abusive
that
was
hired
from
Denver
that
Boulder
fired
even
with
his
background
and
then
was
then
abuse
and
me
and
I
wonder
where
he's
leasing
now
in
another
state
concerning
especially
considering,
let's
see
Tire,
nickel,
Tyree
Nichols
and
many
others,
the
the
issue
with
the
police
really
needs
to
be
legally
determined
with
the
city.
O
What
the
level
of
the
the
police
oversight
committee
and
what
power
they
have.
First
of
all,
they're
just
advisory.
This
is
old
news,
but
for
the
council
to
get
so
involved
in
who's
on
the
board
when
they've
already
designated
the
authority
of
them
to
choose
their
members
is
really
not.
Okay,
legally
Theresa
hear
that
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
bring
up
is
Excel
Energy,
because
our
bills
are
outrageous.
I
just
went
from
135
dollars
to
278
the
same
time.
O
Last
year
it
was
135.,
and
these
are
things
that
Excel
is
not
going
to
pay
for
a
ground.
Loop
heat
pump.
That's
going
to
cost
me
like
50,
000
bucks
and
to
get
off
gas
and
to
get.
O
Q
Good
evening,
Council
I'd
like
to
thank
those
council
members
who
voted
to
approve
the
police
oversight
panel
last
week
as
Tyree
Nichols
death
reminds
us
tragically
once
again.
Police
oversight
is
ultimately
meaningless.
We're
not
enforced
and
is
not
only
necessary
for
a
functional
Community,
but
is
essential
for
democracy
at
Large,
when
police
are
unaccountable,
they
do
not
keep
anyone
safe
for
those
among
them
who
engage
in
and
propagate
misconduct.
I'm
grateful
that
Boulder's
police
oversight
panel
can
now
move
forward.
Q
However,
I
was
dismayed
to
see
the
influence
of
the
Boulder
Police
Union
and
groups
like
safer
and
delaying
the
approval
process.
Bias
is
not
inherently
bad
and,
as
others
have
rightly
noted,
we
all
have
our
own
biases.
The
question
is
whether
we
allow
those
biases
to
Cloud
our
judgment
and
inhibit
our
work.
I
am
confident
the
police
oversight
panel
will
proceed
with
its
work,
with
the
utmost
grouplessness
and
discipline
and
I
hope.
The
council
will
do
the
same.
Thank.
B
R
Community
that
come
and
share
their
personal
stories,
however,
and
whatever
perspective
is
bringing
but
Forth,
please
know
we're
hearing
on
the
issue
of
the
complex
issue
of
our
unsheltered
community
and
the
impacts
of
horrible
drugs
in
our
community.
We
hear
you.
We
continue
to
work
on
how
to
make
it
better
for
all
and
to
make
sure
that
everyone
has
a
place
in
our
community,
including
those
that
are
unsheltered
as
well,
and
so
we
continue
to
work
on
it.
But
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
for
sharing
your
personal
stories.
B
Thank
you
for
this
kind
words
Maria
and
then
he
city,
council
responses,
I,
see
Rachel
I.
P
Just
wanted
to
offer
Nuria
the
opportunity
to
correct
someone,
says
you're
partying
with
the
chamber:
do
you
wanna
clarify
anything.
R
There
I
appreciate
it:
I
I,
try
and
frankly
I'll
say
that
I
I
appreciate
our
partnership
and
our
relationship
with
the
chamber
I
try
very
hard
always
to
be
remain.
Professional
I
do
not
know
what
article
is
being
spoken
about,
but
I
do
not
end
up
parting
with
the
chamber
or,
frankly,
anyone
else
and
and
I
don't
mean
that
that's
a
negative
thing
I
go
to
events
and
if
there's
someone
who
has
something
very
specific
to
ask
me
I'd,
be
happy
to
respond
to
that.
R
B
H
Just
I
just
had
a
quick
question.
Somebody
mentioned
that
we
don't
currently
have
a
victims
advocate
and
I
was
just
a
little
surprised
by
that
I
think
I
had
seen
this
amazing
room
that
that
folks
had
built
for
the
victim's
Advocate
to
work
with
people.
So
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
clarify
that.
B
C
B
B
S
For
item
3M,
the
police
oversight
panel,
the
purpose
of
these
ordinance
amendments
is
to
provide
greater
transparency
for
the
public
and
to
make
sure
that
the
police
oversight
panel
members
are
able
to
provide
the
information
they
need
to,
so
that
the
community
is
aware
of
what
they
are
doing
and
why
they
are
doing
it.
And
we
believe
that
this
aligns
with
what
their
practices
have
been.
S
Would
you
like
more
information?
Well.
S
S
That's
true,
yes,
and
the
emergency
ordinance
is
allowed
for
preservation
of
the
public
peace,
health
or
property,
and
the
belief
is
that
transparency
in
this
type
of
situation
meets
that
definition.
B
S
Item
3n
is
regarding
the
ethic
complaints
that
have
been
filed.
One
has
previously
been
assigned
to
a
special
investigator
clay.
Douglas,
and
this
is
a
request
to
add
Clay
on
is
an
investigator
for
a
subsequently
filed
complaint
as
well
as
any
other
that
may
come
of
the
same
event,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
having
one
investigator
would
make
sure
that
there
are
the
same
facts
being
found
and
also
would
be
financially
in
time.
Efficient.
B
Mentioned
as
well,
so
this
would
be
more
efficient.
Any
questions
on
this
okay
see
none
thanks
for
those
explanations,
Aaron
appreciate
it
and
if
somebody
shouts
out
Aaron,
you
just
might
have
to
specify
you
know,
is
it
lawyer,
Aaron,
mayor
Aaron,
you
know
prevent
confusion,
all
right,
any
comments
or
questions
about
the
consent
agenda
as
a
whole.
B
P
We
had
one
on
E,
which
is
the
summary
of
community
Broadband
discussion
and
the
second
to
last
bullet
says:
Council
voiced
a
desire
to
better
understand
the
spectrum
of
need
in
the
community,
including
those
who
have
no
access
to
wired.
Internet
staff
will
add
some
Community
engagement
to
the
next
phase
of
work
and
that
confused
me,
because
I
thought
we
clarified
that
we
weren't
really
looking
at
the
Spectrum
of
need
that
we
had
previously
determined
that
there
was
that
we
were
going
to
do
a
community
Broadband.
R
Sure
I
don't
think
the
right
people
are
here,
but
we
will
we'll
take
a
look
back
at
at
that.
I
believe
that
the
ultimate
decision
was
to
sort
of
move
forward
with
option
b.
Certainly
at
some
point,
maybe
we'll
get
to
option
C.
There
was
one
council
member
that
spoke
to
option
A,
but
the
clear
Direction
was
was
given
to
us
and
if
there's
something
that
we
need
to
clarify
in
the
memo,
we
will
happily
do
that.
Okay,.
P
I
think
it
was
just
I
again:
I,
don't
want
to
speak
for
all
of
counsel
in
case
I
got
it
wrong,
but
where
it
says,
Community
engagement,
around
spectrum
of
need
in
the
community,
including
those
who
have
no
access
to
wired
internet
I,
think
we
I.
My
understanding
was
that
we
accept
that
not
everyone
has
great
access
to
wired,
but
we
still
want
Broadband
for
everyone,
so
I,
don't
know
why
we
would
do
community
engagement
on
something
that
sort
of
we've
already
agreed
to.
E
Yeah
I
had
the
same
concern
that
Rachel
did
Maria.
Just
for
your
clarification.
This
is
less
about
option
ba
or
C.
This
is
more
about
the
engagement,
I.
Think,
there's
really
two
two
cohorts
in
the
community
that
we
talked
about
that
night.
One
is
people
with
no
access
to
Internet
and
that's
what
the
memo
refers
of
minutes
referred
to,
and
then
we
also
talked
about
people
who
have
no
access
to
high-speed
internet,
which
is
probably
the
really
thing
that
we're
talking
about
so
I
think.
E
T
E
E
U
B
E
V
W
E
Did
you
have
something
Bob,
hey
Nicole
I,
don't
want
to
call
you
to
put
you
on
the
spot,
but
if,
if
there's
something
on
Jay
that
you
voted
against,
that
you
wanted
to
talk
about
tonight
to
help
staff
in
preparation
for
the
second
reading
I
did
I
did
want
to
maybe
give
Nicole
an
opportunity
to
speak.
If
you
want,
if.
H
H
On
those
so
yeah
happy
happy
to
bring
it
up
when
we
get
to
second
reading.
C
All
right,
let
me
see
if
I
can
read
that
right.
Our
public
hearing
is
item
number
five
on
tonight's
agenda.
5A
is
the
second
reading
and
consideration
of
emotion
to
pass
and
adopt
ordinance,
85-15
amending
Title
IX
land
use
code,
BRC
1981
to
update
the
site
review
criteria
as
part
of
the
community
benefit
code,
change
project
and
setting
forth
related
details.
R
X
You
neria
good
evening
council
members,
I'm
Carl,
geiler
planning
and
development
services
tonight
we're
going
to
talk
about
ordinance
8515,
which
is
to
update
the
site
review
criteria.
This
is
a
revised
ordinance.
Last
we
discussed
this
topic
was
August
2022
at
a
study
session,
so
we've
taken
input
from
council
members
of
the
community
planning
board
design,
Advisory
Board
we've
revised
the
ordinance
based
on
those
comments
and
we're
here
before
you
tonight.
X
So
the
purpose
of
tonight's
discussion
is
for
city
council
to
make
a
decision
on
ordinance
8515,
so
just
to
outline
how
we're
going
to
go
through
the
presentation
tonight,
I'm
going
to
start
with
some
of
the
background,
which
obviously
council
is
pretty
familiar
with
the
background
of
the
project
but
I'll
just
go
over
that
again
talk
about
the
content
of
ordinance,
855
I'm,
going
to
talk
about
the
changes
that
have
been
made
to
the
ordinance
since
we
last
discussed
it
and
then
I'll
move
into
the
staff
analysis.
Why?
X
So
going
back
to
2018
I'll
I'll
try
to
go
through
this
a
little
bit
quicker
than
we've
done
in
the
past,
but
there
were
a
number
of
projects
that
were
being
built
at
that
time
that
raised
concerns
in
the
community
in
terms
of
the
intensity,
the
the
height
of
the
buildings,
the
quality
of
the
buildings
and
some
criticisms
of
of
the
site
review
process.
X
So
this
began,
the
community
benefit
project
which
started
in
2018,
and
a
component
of
that
was
the
site
review
criteria
to
do
an
update.
So
we've
we've
done
a
lot
of
work
on
this
project.
Already.
Council
will
remember
that
in
2019
phase
one
of
community
benefit
was
adopted
which
added
the
additional
permanently
affordable
housing
requirements
for
any
projects
that
propose
a
fourth
or
a
fifth
Story
or
floor
area
greater
than
a
floor
area
maximum
in
certain
zones.
X
We
came
back
in
2021
with
phase
two,
which
was
a
proposal
for
requirements
related
to
below
market
rate
commercial.
That
particular
ordinance
did
not
pass.
So,
following
that,
we
we
moved
into
the
next
component
of
the
project,
which
was
to
update
the
site
review
criteria
really
to
make
the
criteria
more
clear,
more
simplified
to
better
implement
the
goals
of
the
community
Through,
the
Boulder
Valley
Conference
of
plan,
and
to
try
to
make
the
site
review
process
more
predictable.
X
So
these
are
the
goals
and
objectives
that
were
outlined
for
the
project
initially
for
the
site.
Review
criteria
so
identify
incentives
to
address
the
community.
Economic,
social
and
environmental
objectives
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
determine
additional
design
standards
for
project
requesting
a
height
modification
and
identify
other
aspects
of
the
site,
review
criteria
to
further
City
goals
and
create
more
predictability.
X
So,
just
a
refresher
on
the
site
review
process,
site
review
is
basically
required
for
for
most
of
the
larger
scale
projects
in
town,
so
any
that
are
in
a
certain
zone
of
a
certain
size
in
terms
of
floor
area
or
a
certain
size
of
a
site
or
if
there's
a
certain
number
of
units
or
if
an
applicant
requests
modifications
to
the
zoning
requirements.
A
site
review
is,
is
required
and
most
site
reviews
are
staff
level.
All
those
site
reviews
in
order
to
be
approved
have
to
be
found
consistent
with
the
criteria.
X
The
site
review
criteria,
that's
section
9214h.
All
the
decisions
made
by
staff
are
subject
to
planning
board,
call-up
or
citizen
appeal.
There
are
certain
projects
that
automatically
require
planning,
Board
review
and
approval
at
a
public
hearing,
so
any
requests
for
additional
density
in
certain
zones
or
if
an
applicant
requests
to
go
over
a
zoning,
District
height
limit.
Usually
it's
like
35
feet
or
38
feet
or
40
feet
up
to
55ft
feet.
That's
a
height
modification
that
automatically
has
to
go
to
planning
board.
X
So
the
graphic
on
the
left
just
basically
shows
the
community
benefit
piece
where
if
an
applicant
comes
in
and
asks
for
a
fourth
or
a
fifth
Story
that
additional
height
bonus
area
or
any
far
bonus
area
also
shown
in
Orange,
is
subject
to
higher
increased
permanently
affordable
housing
requirements
than
our
typical
25
percent
of
the
number
of
units
on
the
site
or
a
increased
commercial
linkage
fee.
So
that's
already
in
the
code.
It's
already
put
into
the
site
review
criteria.
X
So
some
of
the
criticisms
we've
heard
about
the
site
review
criteria
is
the
ambiguity
that
that's
in
some
of
the
language.
These
are
some
examples:
providing
relief
to
density,
what's
compatible
character
of
the
area,
visual
interest.
What
are
authentic
materials?
These
are
a
lot
of
phrases
that
are
in
our
current
site
review
criteria.
X
Everyone
has
a
different,
you
know,
interpretation
of
whether
they're
met
or
not
what
to
what
degree.
So,
through
this
process,
it's
really
been
about.
You
know
maybe
taking
some
of
these
out,
but
really
flushing
them
out
as
to
what
does
it
mean
to
have
authentic
materials?
What
is
pedestrian
friendly?
What
is
compatible?
We've
made
the
criteria
more
descriptive
to
be
more
clear
and
add
to
the
predictability
in
the
process.
So
that's
a
big
part
of
this
ordinance,
so
the
prior
ordinance
that
we
brought
that
we
call
it
the
May
2020
22
version
of
the
ordinance.
X
We
moved
in
the
direction
of
trying
to
take
what
we
learned
from
the
form-based
code,
which
was
more
prescriptive
requirements
that
we
thought
were
successful
in
Boulder
Junction
and
apply
those
to
the
site
review
criteria.
So
the
the
requirements
are
more
about,
you
know,
is
it
met
or
is
it
not
met?
There
wasn't
a
lot
of
room
for
flexibility,
and
this
caused
some
concern
in
the
community,
particularly
the
development
community,
that
it
was
too
prescriptive.
X
X
So
in
May
of
2022
we
took
the
prior
version
of
the
ordinance
to
planning
board.
We
did
a
very
detailed,
line-by-line
discussion
of
the
ordinance.
The
board
was
largely
supportive
of
the
concepts
of
the
ordinance
back
in
2021.
However,
by
May
the
board
was
largely
mixed
on
the
on
the
ordinance
some
board
members
felt
that
the
criteria
were
too
prescriptive
and
others
felt
that
it
was
appropriately
prescriptive.
It
was
pretty
pretty
split
so
because
of
that
the
board
did
not
make
a
recommendation
on
that
ordinance.
X
They
asked
that
we
take
some
of
the
building
design
criteria,
which
were
kind
of
the
biggest
concern
in
the
ordinance
to
the
design,
Advisory
Board
and
get
their
input.
There
were
also
concerns
about
how
staff
wrote
the
bvcp
Criterion.
They
felt
it
was
too
limiting
that
it
didn't
apply
all
the
the
bvcp
policies,
as
the
current
version
does
and
that
they
felt
like
there
needed
to
be
more
application
of
the
bvcp
through
the
ordinance.
X
The
design
Advisory
Board
was
generally
complementary
of
the
work
that
was
in
the
ordinance
related
to
the
form-based
code,
language,
in
that
it
did
set
a
good
bar
for
design,
but
they
did
have
very
strong
concerns
that
it
was
too
rigid
that
it
was
too
prescriptive
in
that,
if
it
were
to
be
applied,
city-wide
that
we
might
start
seeing
a
lot
of
buildings
that
look
the
same
everywhere,
and
that
was
a
big
concern
to
them.
They
felt
like
the
criteria,
should
be
less
prescriptive
and
written
more
like
design
guidelines,
but
they
also.
X
X
So
when
we
asked
Council
about
the
ordinance,
the
council
felt
that
the
ordinance
was
consistent
with
the
original
goals
and
objectives
that
were
outlined
for
the
project
originally,
but
there
was
consensus
that
it
was
too
prescriptive
and
that
we
needed
to
do
some
more
work.
We
went
back
and
looked
at
some
of
those
requirements.
I
think
Council
felt
that
a
lot
of
the
form-based
code
language
was
a
good
language
to
use
but
used
in
a
different
way,
not
make
it
so
prescriptive.
X
So
we've
gone
back
to
make
a
hybrid
between
the
existing
criteria
and
the
more
positive
elements
of
the
prior
version
of
The,
Code
Council
did
focus
on
the
the
bbcp
Criterion.
Just
like
planning
board
did
I
think
there
was
a
consensus
that
there
should
be.
X
It
should
be
broadened
a
bit
then
then,
where
it
was
but
clarify
how
it
should
be
used,
how
it
should
be
applied,
because
when
you
look
at
a
lot
of
the
the
bvcp
policies,
they're,
not
necessarily
all
written,
to
be
applied
to
development
projects,
they're
written
more
to
like
guide
the
development
of
programs
or
they're
they're
pointed
at
the
city
government
or
the
County
government.
So
we
we've
we've
worked
on
the
criteria
to
make
it
clear
of
how
the
policies
should
apply.
Council
also
discussed
the
greenhouse
gas
emissions
require
government.
X
X
So
we
have
gone
back
and
worked
with
our
colleagues
on
that
particular
Criterion,
and
we've
greatly
simplified
that
Criterion
and
we've
taken
most
of
those
elements
out
and-
and
they
will
be
moving
forward
this
year
with
an
update
that
would
incorporate
the
elements
of
like
the
embodied
carbon
reduction,
electrification,
a
verified
path
to
consistency
with
the
code
and
I'll
talk
more
about
what
element
is
still
in
the
criteria
so
jumping
into
the
ordinance
itself.
This
is
a
slide.
I
showed
last
time.
X
These
were
the
approaches
that
we
took
to
the
ordinance
originally
and
got
consent
on
these
all
still
apply,
even
though
we've
made
it
less
prescriptive,
I've
highlighted
the
area
of
change
where
it
says,
make
criteria
more
prescriptive
and
measurable.
We've
kind
of
dialed
that
back
obviously,
but
many
of
these
other
approaches
to
simplify
it
or
reorganize
it
in
a
more
top-down
approach,
try
to
emphasize
important
city
goals,
we've
that
all
still
applies
to
this
particular
ordinance.
X
So
going
into
a
little
bit
of
the
detail.
Obviously,
we've
we've
combed
through
the
entire
ordinance
and
re
Rewritten
it
to
be
less
prescriptive.
We've
basically
taken
a
lot
of
the
approach
that
we
took
to
the
site,
design
criteria
which
were
written
in
a
more
descriptive
Manner
and
apply
that
to
the
building,
design
and
public
realm
sections
as
well,
where
we
could
simplify.
We've
tried
to
simplify
we've
eliminated
the
public
Realms
section:
we've
eliminated
the
alternate
compliance
section,
because
there's
not
a
need
for
it.
X
We
reworked
the
energy
conservation,
Greenhouse
emissions
reduction,
Criterion.
Basically,
what
it
says
now,
like
I,
said
it's
greatly
simplified.
It
just
requires
that
a
building
or
an
addition,
that's
thirty
thousand
square
feet
or
greater
to
either
be
Net
Zero
or
be
at
least
10
percent
better
than
the
energy
conservation
code.
All
those
other
elements
that
we
had
proposed
previously
are
now
in
the
work
program
for
the
update
for
the
energy
conservation
code,
as
requested
by
Council
back
in
August,
we've
reworked
the
housing
diversity
slightly
that
any
project.
X
If
it
has
elus
it
must
have
two
housing
types.
We've
done
some
tweaks
to
the
open
space
regs
that
that
part
of
the
criteria
is
largely
similar
to
what
you
saw
last
time.
I
think
the
biggest
changes
to
the
criteria
really
to
the
public
realm
and
the
building
design
section.
So
again,
a
lot
of
those
ambiguous
terms
that
I
mentioned
before
have
been
described
much
better
in
this
current
version
of
the
ordinance
of
what
it
means.
X
We've
folded,
the
public
realm
criteria
that
we
had
before
into
the
building
design
criteria
and
the
Landscaping
criteria
just
kind
of
more
organized
to
be
more
clear.
So,
basically,
instead
of
it
being,
is
this
a
very
strict
requirement?
That's
met
or
not
met,
we've
we've
kind
of
dialed
it
back
to
be
a
little
bit
more
like
how
we
have
the
criteria
now.
X
So
basically,
we
have
an
intent
statement
at
the
beginning
of
every
section
that
says
this
is
the
design
intent
that
need
to
me
that
met
in
a
site
review
and
then
in
determining
whether
this
intent
is
met.
The
approving
agency
will
consider
the
following
factors
and
then
everything
gets
considered
on
balance
and
that's
the
way
it's
applied
today,
but
we
feel
that
it's
still
more
predictable
than
than
the
current
version,
because
it's
more
descriptive
there's
a
lot
more
examples
in
the
language
of
how
you
meet
that
requirement.
X
So
because
we've
made
the
sections
a
little
bit
more
flexible,
there's
no
need
for
the
alternative
compliance
section
anymore,
so
we've
removed
that
we've
kept
a
lot
of
the
best
practices
language
from
the
form-based
code,
but
Rewritten
it's
Rewritten
to
basically
be
more
like,
like
best
practice,
rather
than
a
requirement
and
we've
also
added
some
other
design
examples.
Instead
of
just
the
form-based
code
requirements.
So
there's
a
number
of
things
that
that
a
applicant
could
do
to
meet
the
intent
we've
reintroduced
the
compatibility
language,
particularly
for
the
larger
buildings.
X
There
still
has
to
be
a
finding
of
compatibility
if
they
are
proposing
a
larger
building,
and
one
of
the
main
things
with
this
project
was
to
make
to
create
more
design
requirements
for
taller
larger
buildings.
So
we
we've
kept
with
that.
We've
tried
to
just
make
the
criteria
a
little
bit
more
clear,
like
if
there's
a
height
modification
for
a
building,
that's
only
three
stories
and
not
subject
to
community
benefit.
X
But
we
have
kept
a
number
of
the
requirements
of
like
maximum
building
length,
facade
variation,
encouraging
different
types
of
of
heights
of
parts
of
the
building,
but
we've
Rewritten
it
again
to
to
be
in
a
more
flexible
application,
rather
than
the
prior
version
of
the
ordinance
a
couple
new
things:
the
the
roof
materials
requirement.
We
added
so
basically
just
avoids
a
situation
where
you
might
have
like
a
gabled
roof
with,
like
a
kind
of
like
a
rubber
membrane
that
would
be
visible
from
the
street.
X
There
are
a
couple
projects
that
cause
concern,
so
we
just
said
that
if
you
have
that
kind
of
roofing
membrane,
it
can't
be
visible
from
the
street.
So
we've
we've
revised
that
we've
also
added
some
language
about
we've,
updated
the
language
on
polls
and
Emergency
Operations
antenna
it's
already
in
there.
It's
not
really
changing
the
intent,
but
it's
just
making
the
language
more
clear
and
consistent
with
how
the
reviews
are
supposed
to
go
in
accordance
with
state
law.
So
that's
just
mostly
a
clarification.
X
We
did
talk
about
the
acoustic
studies
one
last
time
and
there
was
a
concern
about
requiring
a
noise
study
for
certain
projects.
So
we've
revised
that
to
be
that
there's
no
requirement
for
a
study,
but
if
a
project
is
on
an
expressway
or
a
railroad,
a
big
contributor
of
noise
that
there
has
to
be
certain
wall,
all
construction
to
dampen
that
noise
and
that's
just
a
requirement
that
we
already
use
now
in
the
residential
and
Industrial
Zone
standard.
So
it's
something
that's
already
in
the
code.
X
I
won't
go
into
a
lot
of
depth
on
this
particular
slide
since
we've
talked
about
it
before,
but
on
the
left,
you
can
see
there's
a
number
of
ways
that
we've
tried
to
solicit
input
on
this
project
since
2018..
The
comments
that
are
on
this
particular
slide
relate
to
the
prior
ordinance.
So
again,
there
were
some
members
of
the
community
that
liked
how
the
ordinance
was
better,
trying
to
Foster
more
City
policy
compliance
through
the
criteria,
but
we
also
heard
the
concerns
about
too
many
shall
statements
in
the
prior
version
of
the
ordinance.
X
So,
in
the
new
version
of
the
ordinance
we've
we've
been
emailing,
Architects
and
folks
in
the
design
community
and
a
number
of
folks
that
are
interested
in
the
criteria
to
get
their
feedback
on
the
latest
ordinance.
We
definitely
heard
a
lot
more
support
for
the
latest
ordinance
from
our
site
review
focus
group.
X
We
did
hear
some
concerns
just
that
there
they
that
the
additional
you
know
greenhouse
gas
requirements
like
some
of
the
additional
requirements
were
still
arduous,
but
in
general,
we've
seen
a
lot
more
support
from
from
the
site
review,
focus
group
members,
so
we
brought
the
ordinance
to
planning
board
on
December
20th
again,
we
went
through
a
detailed
line
by
line
review.
X
It
took
over
six
hours,
but
we
have
eventually
got
to
a
motion
from
the
planning
board
where
they
recommended
approval
of
the
ordinance
six
to
zero
and
they
made
the
recommendation
that
staff
revised
the
ordinance
on
any
points
of
consensus.
So
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
just
like
on
minor
edits
and
word
choice
throughout
the
ordinance
which
we've
updated.
X
There
was
a
request
to
simplify
the
language
in
the
purpose
section
which
we've
done
broadening
the
BBC
policy
Criterion
to
include
other
policies
beyond
the
built
environment,
section
which
we've
done
and
creating
some
more
consistency
in
the
language
where
there's
any
references
to
adopted
area
plans
and
guidelines
and
then
in
the
community
benefits
section.
There's
a
number
there's.
Actually
a
alternative
Community
benefits
section
that
we
already
had
in
the
code.
X
There
was
just
a
request
to
add
environmental
as
a
possible
consideration,
and
we've
done
that
so,
based
on
all
this
input
and
the
changes
we've
made,
we
continue
to
find
that
the
ordinance
does
meet
the
goals
and
objectives
that
were
outlined
for
the
project,
obviously
with
more
discretion.
There's
less
predictability
than
the
prior
ordinance,
but,
like
staff
also
understands
that,
if
you
have
more
prescription
in
the
ordinance,
there
would
be
more
design
uniformity
throughout
the
the
community
and
that's
not
necessarily
something
that
we
want
to
see.
X
We
feel
that
the
ordinance
does
strike
an
appropriate
balance
to
meet
these
goals
and
objectives.
So
there's
a
number
of
arguments
that
are
are
in
your
memo
of
why
we
we
believe
that
it's
it's
a
it's
an
improvement
over
the
current
criteria,
so
we
find
that
it's
still
consistent
with
the
comp
plan.
It
furthers
the
goals
of
sustainability
and
diversity
of
housing,
types,
human
scale,
building
design
and
Community
benefits.
X
So
that's
why
we're
recommending
approval
of
the
ordinance
tonight
again,
we
have
outlined
some
other
arguments
for
why
we
we
believe
that
this
ordinance
achieves
those
goals
and
objectives
that
were
outlined.
We
feel
that
there's
an
appropriate
amount
of
flexibility
and
simplicity
in
the
latest
version
of
the
ordinance
and
would
have
less
impact
to
the
smaller
sized
projects
than
the
May
version
of
the
ordinance,
and
we
feel
that
it
also
accomplishes
the
requirement
or
the
request
for
the
additional
design
standards
for
for
taller
and
larger
buildings.
X
This
is
the
suggested
motion
language
that
we've
included
in
the
packet.
We
did
send
out
a
hotline
today,
which
you
probably
have
all
seen.
We
did
meet
with
Aaron
and
Lauren
today
to
talk
about
some
some
edits,
so
we've
listed
those
out
in
that
hotline
have
them
up
on
the
slide
as
well.
If
there's
any
interest
in
discussing
those
or
any
other
potential
changes.
So
if
there
are
any
changes
to
the
ordinance,
it
would
have
to
be
something
that's
adopted
on
third
reading
on
consent.
X
So,
in
conclusion,
if
this
ordinance
is
passed,
it
would
complete
the
community
benefit
project,
we're
proposing
an
effective
date
of
July
1st
just
to
give
people
a
designer
some
lead
time
so
that
they
can
start
designing
their
projects
according
to
the
new
criteria.
If
passed
and
like
we've
heard
from
members
of
the
site
review
focus
group,
we
completely
agree
that
we
will
continue
to
analyze
the
criterias
of
efficacy
as
we
move
forward
to
see
if
there
are
any
additional
changes
that
need
to
be
made
moving
forward.
So
with
that.
That
concludes
the
presentation.
U
I
had
one
that
I
forgot
to
ask
earlier
so
I
apologize
for
that,
but
I
noticed
that
one
of
the
comments
from
planning
board
was
around
having
defined
entries
every
50
feet,
feeling
more
rigid
than
they
would
like
and
I
I.
Believe.
That's
still
in
the
final
version,
and
so
I
was
just
wondering
what
the
thinking
was.
X
That
we
have
revised
the
ordinance
to
to
be
a
little
bit
more
loose,
I
I.
We
we
show
the
50
Feet
more
as
a
best
practice.
That
may
not
be
the
right
answer
in
every
context.
We
added
some
language
that
recognizes.
There's
gonna
be
different
contexts
where
that's
not
going
to
make
sense,
but
either
way
the
way
the
the
criteria
are
reworded.
It's
more
to
factor
to
consider
it's
not
something
that
has
to
be
originally
applied.
They
don't
have
to
ask
you
know
for
a
modification
or
something
if
it's
not
met.
U
Thank
you
because
it
is
something
that
I
notice
in
buildings
in
Boulder.
We
have
quite
a
few
that
have
gone
through
this
process
that
end
up
with
key
mark
entries
that
are
locked
and
closed
at
all
times,
so
I
I
feel
like
that
ends
up
being
sort
of
to
the
detriment
of
the
built
environment
to
have
entries
where
people
don't
want
them.
Y
On
the
screen,
that's
the
price
I
pay
for
being
sick.
My
only
question
is
just
sort
of
a
slight
semantics.
One
I
saw
that
in
sustainability
on
the
amended
section
we
seem
to
soften
our
climate
language
and
so
I'm
wondering
why
we
went
from
reduced
greenhouse
gas
emissions
to
simply
just
address
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
so
I'm
wondering
because
that's
a
pretty
substantive
change
in
terms
of
our
normal
climate
goals.
It
seems
so
I'm
just
curious
about
that.
B
B
But
the
thing
that
I
was
concerned
about
is,
it
said,
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
but
there
is
not
yet
a
project
to
reduce
emissions
from
and
so
any
project
that's
built
will
inevitably
have
at
least
a
little
bit
of
emissions.
And
so,
if
you
say
well,
you
were
supposed
to
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
but
in
fact
the
project
does
produce
a
nominal
amount,
and
so
it
having
spent
many
years
in
planning
board
of
hearing,
sometimes
people
can
get
tied
up
in
knots
over
language
like
that,
since
you're
starting
off
from
potentially
zero.
B
So
I,
we
came
up
with
the
word
address:
I'm
very
open
to
other
alternate
wording
to
get
at
that
intent.
Y
I
I
appreciate
your
explanation,
I
that
the
context
helps
me
understand
that
I
I
built
that
I
I
just
didn't
know
where
it
came
from
so
thanks.
Aaron
I
appreciate
that,
and
thanks
Aaron
and
Lauren
for
doing
that.
Work
to
clean
this
up
so
appreciate
that.
B
Thanks,
Matt
and
and
thanks
for
staying
home
and
not
getting
us
all
sick
appreciate
you
doing
that
for
the
good
of
all
of
us.
Okay,
so
go
to
the
public
hearing.
Now
we
have
one
person
signed
up.
They
will
get
three
minutes
to
speak
so
Lynn
Siegel,
you're
up.
O
The
problem
that
I
have
with
this
review
is.
These
are
basically
tweaks
to
something
that's
a
much
more
looming
problem
in
town
and
that
and
largely
I'm
concerned
about
the
density
bonus
and
the
community
benefit
of
density.
Bonus
is,
is
you
know,
on
Democracy
Now,
yesterday,
I
heard
there's
500
people
using
two
bathrooms
with
two
showers,
something
to
do
with
the
the
refugee
situation,
but
you
know
the
density
that
happened,
for
example,
and
I,
don't
know
if
papillos
is
in
the
Oz,
but
they
went
from
density
of
63
units
to
165
units.
O
He,
you
know
this.
The
council
wanted
for
sale
and
the
council
wanted
more
density,
which
I
think
is
against
their
own,
better
judgment
and,
as
a
result,
he
comes
back
with
more
density,
but
no
for
sale.
You
can't
do
it
he's
just
going
to
do
his
cash
in
lube
and
the
city
council
handed
over
mu3,
which
gives
him
a
penthouse,
a
fourth
story
and
swimming
pool
that
none
none
of
the
you
know
paltry
amount
of
affordable
housing
in
that's
going
to
be
on
site
can
even
use.
O
I
I
want
to
see
a
quantifiable
metric
of
the
community
benefit.
They're
they're
actually
producing
linear.
B
All
right,
public
hearing
is
oversold
close
the
public
hearing
and
bring
it
back
to
council
for
discussion.
B
B
Yeah,
so
well,
that's
good,
so
the
the
first
one
Matt
already
asked
the
question
about,
and
so
that's
been
explained.
The
second
one
is
just
a
typo
yeah.
It
should
have
been
If
instead
of
in
the
next
one,
and
this
is
again
for
me
sitting
through
a
lot
of
planning
board
hearings.
B
There
was
language
about
minimizing
motor
vehicle
miles,
traveled
and
you
know,
theoretically,
zero
is
the
minimum,
and
so
sometimes
people
will
say
well,
if
you
do
anything
oriented
towards
a
motor
vehicle,
you
haven't
minimized
it,
but
they'll
probably
still
will
occasionally
be
motor
vehicle
services.
So
the
the
change,
the
language
to
clarify
it
was
with
the
goal
of
lowering
VMT
motor
VMT
I'll
just
go
through
these
really
quickly.
B
B
U
Yeah,
so
this
one
was
just
kind
of
clarify,
framing
it
more
around
the
intent
of
All
Roofing
membranes,
not
that
are
visible
from
not
allowing
any
roof
membranes
to
be
visible
from
the
street
level,
as
opposed
to
just
a
particular
kind
of
roof
membrane,
and
also
because
it
had
language
about
on
a
sloping
roof
which
even
quote
unquote
flat
roofs
slope.
So
just
clarifying
some
of
that.
B
B
So
when
we
added
the
word
in
here,
the
the
feedback
from
plain
board
members
that
that
should
be
near
instead
to
accomplish
what
they
were
intending
so
I
would
I
would
propose
changing
that
in
in
that
to
near
based
on
their
feedback.
B
B
E
I
just
want
to
thank
Lauren
and
Aaron
for
for
the
extra
work
you
guys
put
in
to
make
those
improvements.
I
support,
all
of
them
just
a
kind
of
process
question
if
we
were,
if
majority
Council
agrees
with
those
changes,
would
you
want
us
to
pass
this
on
second
reading
then,
and
then
the
third
reading
on
consent
is
that
kind
of
the
thinking
that's.
B
U
Also
had
a
request
from
the
community
to
look
at
this
after
a
year
to
sort
of
see
make
sure
that
that
if
there
are
any
issues
that
we
can
address
them
at,
that
point
is
that
something
we
would
including
that,
or
is
that
just
something
that
will
have
in
the
work
Planner
on
staffs.
E
So
I
moved
that
that
we
passed
an
adopt
ordinance
8515
with
the
revisions
reflected
on
the
screen
this
evening,
contributed
by
Lauren
and
Aaron.
B
F
E
So
don't
say:
adopt
okay
I'll
say
that
again,
I
I
move
that
we
pass
in
second
reading
ordinance
8515
with
revisions
suggested
by
colleagues.
Full
groups
in
Brockett
I
believe
that
those
amendments
were
actually
sent
out
on
hotline
today
as
well.
So
they're
reflected
both
in
tonight's
presentation
in
the
hotline.
B
U
B
Instead
of
in
into
near
and
and
to
or
is
that
clear
enough,
yes
great
motion
by
Bob
second
by
Juni,
any
any
comments,
do
you
want
to
speak
to
no.
AB
B
Very
good,
so
if
we
could
then
go
to
a
vote
on
the
motion,
please
Elisha.
AC
B
B
X
B
Four
and
a
half
ago,
so
right
up
there
anyway,
it's
huge
amount
of
work,
so
much
effort,
so
many
twists
and
turns
along
the
way
and
then
you've
brought
it
to
a
beautiful
conclusion
here
with
this
latest
revision.
So
just
incredibly
grateful
to
everyone
on
staff.
Who's
worked
so
hard
on
this,
as
well
as
for
the
community
members.
Who've
contributed
to
the
process
over
the
years
and
the
planning
board
members
too.
It's
it's
great
to
finally
get
box
checked,
that's
a
big
box
to
check.
A
B
So
much
but
we're
not
done
with
you,
so
we
got
5B
our
second
public
hearing.
R
And
with
that
mayor
I
said
we
had
exceptional
pndf
staff,
someone
who
is
not
a
stranger
to
you,
as
you
have
seen
Lisa
frequently
lately
so
I'll
turn
it
right
over
to
Lisa.
AA
Thanks
nurian
good
evening,
Council
I
am
looking
forward
to
talking
about
some
more
revised
ordinances
with
you
tonight,
so
we'll
be
focusing
on
the
use
table
and
standards
ordinance.
You
last
saw
this
at
your
December
15th
meeting,
so
I
have
a
few
introductory
slides
but
I'm
going
to
focus
really
on
just
the
revisions
that
were
made,
since
you
saw
it
last
in
December,
but
I
am
happy
to
take
any
questions
on
any
of
the
other
items
as
well.
AA
Oh
sorry,
I'm
Lisa,
Hood
senior
city
planner,
all
right,
so
the
use
table
and
standards
project
is
another
long,
long-lasting
project
that
started
back
in
2018
we're
now
in
phase
two
of
the
project
you've
heard
about
this.
Before
we
adopted
the
first
module
the
functional
fixes
back
in
June.
This
is
module
two
of
the
project
or
phase
two
focused
on
industrial
areas
and
then
we'll
move
on
to
module
three,
which
is
centers
around
neighborhood,
centers
and
neighborhoods.
AA
Once
we
are
completed
with
module
two
just
a
reminder
of
the
goals
of
this
project,
it
really
was
since
its
outset
in
2018
to
simplify
the
use
table,
which
is
a
really
important
part
of
the
land
use
code
and
streamline
the
regulations
where
it's
possible,
make
them
more
understandable
and
legible.
They
had
gotten
increasingly
complex
over
time
so
trying
to
create
more
predictability
and
certainty
in
this
really
vital
part
of
the
land
use
code,
especially
related
to
module
two.
AA
More
recently
in
2022
back
in
August,
we
talked
with
you
all
in
more
depth
about
these
projects
or
the
the
project
and
the
record
or
the
feedback
at
the
time
was
that
residential
was
not
appropriate
in
all
areas
of
industrial
zoning
and
that
Council
would
like
to
see
some
guard
rails
put
in
place
to
protect
industrial
uses,
especially
in
the
is
or
Industrial
Service
zones
regarding
office,
which
is
another
major
topic
of
this
ordinance.
AA
Most
recently,
at
the
public
hearing
on
December
15th,
the
guidance
received
by
Council
was
really
focused
on
three
main
topics:
residential
office
and
Manufacturing.
So
what
we
heard?
What
staff
heard
at
that
meeting
was
regarding
residential,
don't
prohibit
residential
in
the
IM
zoning
District,
as
had
originally
been
proposed,
and
then
there
were
kind
of
mixed
opinions
on
residential
uses
in
the
industrial
service.
Is
zoning
districts
related
to
office?
The
direction
given
was
to
remove
the
proposed
limit
on
ground
floor
office
space
that
had
originally
been
suggested.
AA
Prohibition,
and
then
some
openness
was
expressed
to
a
50
000
square
foot
limit
to
an
individual
office
use
rather
than
the
actual
site
combined
regarding
manufacturing.
You
might
remember
that
we
discussed
some
potential
unintended
consequences
with
the
proposed
definition
capturing
some
uses
that
might
be
desirable
unintentionally,.
AA
I
showed
this
slide
last
time,
so
I
won't
go
into
too
much
detail,
but
just
to
show
you,
the
public
engagement,
that's
been
done
for
module
two.
We
had
a
group,
our
planning
board
Liaisons.
We
had
two
members
of
planning
board
who
really
dug
in
with
us
on
this
project
and
dive
deep
into
it
to
provide
feedback
this
summer
and
fall.
We
also
convened
a
use
table
in
standards,
public
working
group
who
gave
great
feedback
and
input
and
guidance
throughout
the
project.
AA
AA
So
that
brings
us
to
the
revisions
to
the
ordinance
tonight.
This
is
kind
of
a
high
level
overview.
I
do
have
some
more
slides
where
I
add
more
detail
on
each
one
of
these,
but
again
breaking
it
down
into
those
three
main
topics
that
were
talked
about
in
December,
residential
office
and
Manufacturing.
The
revisions
to
the
ordinance
tonight
regarding
residential
is
that
residential
is
now
permitted
by
use
review
in
the
im
or
industrial
manufacturing
District,
as
well
as
IG,
which
was
how
it
was
proposed
when
you
last
saw
it.
AA
We've
also
now
developed
three
options
for
properties
to
meet
the
location,
standard
and
I'll
explain
those
more
on
later
slides.
We
have
chosen
in
the
revised
ordinance
to
continue
to
prohibit
residential
in
the
is
Industrial
Service
zoning
district.
There
is
an
option
for
live
work
units,
though
related
to
office.
AA
I
just
wanted
to
go
back
to
a
couple
of
these
slides
that
just
are
the
kind
of
framing
of
the
industrial
districts
and
the
policy
background
before
I
dive
into
the
specific
changes
in
a
little
more
detail.
So,
as
you
know,
there
are
three
main
areas
in
Boulder
that
have
industrial
zoning,
and
so
that's
really
the
focus
of
these
changes
tonight
and
for
the
ordinance
overall.
So
we're
really
focused
on
Gun
Barrel,
East,
Boulder
and
North
North
Boulder,
which
is
where
we
have
our
industrial
zoning.
AA
Our
land
use
code
has
four
different
types
of
industrial
districts.
We
have
and
I've
mentioned,
most
of
them
already.
The
is
Industrial
Service
IG
industrial
General
I
am
industrial
manufacturing
and
IMS,
which
is
our
industrial
mix.
Service
I
mentioned
that
one
of
the
main
goals
of
this
project
is
better
aligning
the
use
table
with
the
Boulder
Valley
comprehensive
plan
for
the
light
industrial
areas.
This
really
pulls
from
policy
2.21
from
the
comprehensive
plan
and
those
three
guiding
principles.
AA
Those
top
three
guiding
principles
in
the
green
box
here,
so
those
are
preserving
established
businesses
and
the
opportunity
for
industrial
businesses,
but
also
encouraging
housing
and
fill
in
appropriate
places
and
offering
a
mix
of
uses.
So
that's
really
been.
The
focus
of
all
of
these
changes
is
trying
to
align
the
use
table
with
those
guiding
principles,
in
particular,
so
I
will
get
into
the
proposed
revisions
in
a
bit
more
detail,
starting
with
residential,
which
is
probably
the
most
complex
of
the
three
kind
of
main
topics
going
back
to
those
guiding
principles.
AA
Just
some
of
the
detail
that
is
in
that
policy
2.21
related
to
residential.
It
says
that
housing
should
occur
in
a
logical
pattern
in
proximity
to
existing
and
planned
amenities.
It
does
specify
area
zone,
industrial
General,
but
minimizing
the
potential
Mutual
impacts
of
residential
and
Industrial
that
are
in
proximity.
It
also
says
that
housing
in
Phil
should
be
encouraged
in
appropriate
places
such
as
near
Transit,
along
open
space,
Greenways
near
other
residential
uses
or
Retail
Services.
AA
So
the
changes
tonight
to
the
revised
or
the
revised
ordinance
tonight
like
I
mentioned,
continues
to
prohibit
in
the
is
District
the
Industrial
Service.
There
is
the
option
like
I
mentioned,
that
to
do
a
live
work
unit,
which
is
a
type
of
residential,
but
other
types
of
residential
would
not
be
allowed.
So
I
wanted
to
explain
that
a
little
bit
more
in
detail,
because
back
in
December,
when
I
was
here,
there
were
some
questions
raised
by
Council
about
how
much
land
area
is
actually
in.
AA
That
is
zoning
district,
and
we
did
I
wanted
to
explain
why
we
maintained
that
recommendation.
So
we
looked
into
the
land
area
and
out
of
about
2
300
acres
of
land.
Only
eight
percent
of
that
is
actually
in
the
is
zoning
District.
So
it's
a
very
limited
land
area.
That's
in
that
district
and
looking
back
through
all
of
the
public
engagement,
that's
been
done
for
this
project
and
related
to
Industrial
uses
over
several
years.
The
results
consistently
indicate
that
there's
a
strong
interest
in
retaining
Service
Industrial
uses.
AA
The
other
main
part
of
the
residential
changes
is
that
previously
we
had
recommended
only
allowing
other
residential
uses
in
the
IG
District.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
it's
back,
the
revised
ordinance
allows
a
use,
review
option
for
IG
and
IM
zoning
districts
rather
than
just
IG,
and
then
we've
worked
on
three
options
for
the
location
standard
that
they
have
to
meet.
So
that
is
the
Baseline
that
Pro.
So
all
properties
are
eligible
for
use
review,
but
they
have
to
meet
a
location
standard.
AA
So
it
ends
up
that
only
a
certain
proportion
of
those
properties
are
actually
eligible
based
on
their
location,
but
what
we've
done
is
tweak
the
options
for
the
location
eligibility
in
order
to
identify
what
locations
are
appropriate
and
so
there's
three
options.
The
first
is
the
same
option
we
presented
in
December
that
using
the
land
use
guidance
from
adopted,
subcommunity
plans.
AA
These
are
long,
long-standing
projects
that
include
a
lot
of
public
engagement
over
time
to
add,
if
I,
where
residential
is
appropriate.
The
second
is
proximity
to
Transit.
So
the
way
it's
drafted
in
the
ordinance
is
within
a
quarter
mile
of
the
Boulder
Junction
transit
station
lot
lines
and
then
the
third
one
is
actually
bringing
back
the
1
6
contiguity
requirement,
which
is
the
current.
AA
Currently,
the
only
standard
for
locations,
so
that's
one-sixth,
contiguity
from
residential
user
zoning
districts,
Parks
or
open
space
I
have
a
couple
more
slides,
that
kind
of
Show
graphics
related
to
that
so
I'll
get
into
that
a
bit
more
later.
The
bottom
two
bullets
are
actually
the
same
as
what
we
brought
forward
in
December,
so
still
some
tweaks
to
the
standards
for
residential
and
in
those
industrial
districts.
Removing
the
minimum
lot
size,
some
of
the
unique
form
standards
and
also
continuing
to
require
an
environmental
assessment.
Noise
mitigation.
AA
Things
like
that
those
have
remained
in
the
revised
ordinance
foreign
so
to
dig
in
a
little
deeper
to
the
1
6
contiguity
I
wanted
to
create
a
graphic
or
show
visually
how
that
1
6
contiguity
works,
because
it
is
a
fun
little
math
problem
because
it
is
actually
based
on
the
calculation
is
the
perimeter
of
the
lot
and
the
1
6
of
the
perimeter
has
to
be
contiguous
to
a
residential
use,
zoning
Parks
or
open
space,
and
so
what
that
does
it's
actually
based
on
the
state,
Annex
annexation
law-
that's
been
in
place
for
decades.
AA
So
what
it
does
is
it
ensures
a
more
gradual
change
over
time.
So
you
can
see
the
kind
of
the
image
on
the
left.
If
light
blue
is
industrial
and
yellow
is
residential.
How
that
impacts
the
eligibility
of
the
parcels
around
it
with
1
6
contiguity
in
that
middle
graphic,
only
the
middle
that
smaller
parcel
in
the
middle
becomes
eligible.
Based
on
that
geometry,
if
you
were
to
use
something
like
direct
contiguity,
it
would
be
a
much
more
wholesale
change
as
certain
Parcels
develop
into
residential.
AA
It
creates
much
more
eligibility
at
a
just,
a
faster
scale.
So
that's
why
staff
is
continuing
to
recommend
using
the
1
6
contiguity.
One
of
the
reasons
we
wanted
to
bring
that
back
as
an
option
is
based
on
the
feedback
that
we
got
at
the
last
or
in
December,
just
ensuring
that
the
properties
that
are
eligible
for
residential
today
under
our
current
code,
don't
lose
that
eligibility
based
on
these
changes.
AA
In
the
future-
and
we
think
we
we
did
contemplate
whether
the
direct
continuity
might
be
another
option,
but
I
think
that
you
know
the
tried
and
true
Matthew
tried
and
true
method
with
the
annexation
law
and
the
backing
behind
that
really
ensures
that
it's
more
gradual
over
time,
as
you
can
see
in
the
graphic
and
then
another
reason
for
the
contiguity
is
that
as
I
mentioned,
we
have
three
different
options.
AA
So
one
of
the
main
options
is
the
location
within
an
existing
subcommunity
plan
and
whether
that
gives
guidance
about
where
the
residential
is
appropriate.
There's
only
a
few
areas
that
are
not
covered
by
sub-community
plans.
I
created
this
graphic.
Just
this
is
kind
of
the
East
Boulder
area,
the
the
Shaded
kind
of
shaded
black
areas.
AA
You
can
see
that
those
are
the
boundaries
for
the
East
Boulder
sub
community
plan
and
the
transit
Village
area
plan,
so
it's
kind
of
more
the
southwestern
portion
that
isn't
covered
and
so
by
having
that
contiguity
requirement
that
gives
another
lever
or
another
option
for
meeting
that
location
standard.
If
you're,
not
within
a
sub
community
plan
up
in
Gun
Barrel,
it's
a
little
bit
different
because
the
gun
barrel
Community
Center
plan
is
smaller,
so
that
southern
portion
of
Gun
Barrel
is
not
covered
by
the
sub-community
plan
or
the
area
plan.
AA
So
the
contiguity
gives
another
option
for
those
properties
to
be
eligible
without
being
within
a
sub-community
plan
boundary
and
then
my
final
slide
related
to
residential
is
just
kind
of
taking
you
through
these
different
iterations
of
the
ordinance
and
how
they've
impacted
the
parcels
that
are
eligible.
So,
on
the
left
side,
you
can
see
our
existing
code
as
it
stands
today.
The
parcels
that
are
eligible
have
to
be
in
the
IG
or
IM
zoning
District.
AA
We
only
use
the
1
6
contiguity
standard
and
that
results
in
71,
Parcels
or
16
of
the
industrial
land
or
the
IG
and
IM
Zone
land
being
eligible
for
residential.
Today,
the
ordinance
that
you
saw
on
December
15th,
which
we
focused
just
on
the
IG
zoning
district
and
using
the
sub-community
plan
guidance
that
made
139
Parcels
or
about
30
percent
of
the
industrial
Parcels
eligible
for
residential
development,
with
the
changes
that
are
the
revisions
that
are
proposed
for
tonight's
ordinance.
AA
It's
back
to
ig
and
IM
with
the
sub-community
plan,
Guidance
the
1
6
contiguity
and
the
proximity
to
Transit
as
an
option,
and
that
brings
it
up
to
267
Parcels
or
nearly
60
percent
of
IG
and
IM
Zone
Parcels
being
eligible
for
residential
development.
These
can
change
over
time
as
some
Community
plans.
You
know
the
TV
plan
will
come
back
and
be
potentially
be
amended,
which
properties
are
appropriate
for
residential.
The
1
6
contiguity
as
I
showed
in
that
graphic
changes
over
time.
AA
So
as
properties
are
developed,
residentially,
the
ones
that
meet
that
contiguity
are
also
eligible.
So
it
will
grow
over
time,
but
as
it
stands
as
it
stands
right
now,
it's
at
60
percent.
So
with
all
of
these
changes
and
considering
the
comprehensive
plan
guidance
to
balance
both
preserving
those
existing
industrial
uses
with
allowing
housing
infill
but
really
in
appropriate
places,
it's
a
pretty
significant
shift
from
16
of
parcels
being
eligible
to
nearly
60
percent.
So
we
think
staff
thinks
that
this
recommendation
with
the
three
location
options
strikes
an
appropriate
balance
between
those
policies.
AA
I
only
have
one
slide
on
office,
so
it's
a
little
simpler
than
the
residential
just
going
back
to
the
intent
of
the
changes
related
to
office.
This
is
really
a
code.
Simplification
trying
to
combine
the
professional
and
Technical
office
use
types
that
we
have,
but
also
establishing
a
new
strategy
to
prevent
the
proliferation
of
offices
in
the
industrial
districts.
AA
It's
something
that's
in
our
code
today
it
had
been
proposed
to
remove,
be
removed,
but
bringing
that
back
to
allow
for
some
of
those
supporting
office
uses
that
might
be
on
a
separate
lot,
but
they
support
an
industrial
or
r
d
use
so
allowing
that
keeping
that
in
the
code,
as
well
with
some
slight
tweaks
to
the
definitions,
the
final
changes
are
related
to
manufacturing.
AA
Y
All
of
a
sudden
I
can
barely
hear
you.
Can
you
guys
hear
me.
Y
Matt
you're
up
I
appreciate
that
I
just
had
one
question
before
moving
to
comments
and
that
kind
of
had
to
do
around
the
one
sixth
contiguity-
and
it
was
mentioned
about
the
number
of
parcels
gained
from
existing
code
to
December
15
to
tonight
for
one
I
I
love
the
direction
that
we're
we're
increasing
Parcels
do
you
have
a
sense
of
if
there
was
no
one-sixth
continuity
and
it
was
direct?
Y
How
many
Parcels
would
then
be
eligible
in
that
sense,
I'm,
just
sort
of
wondering
what
that
Pi
moves
to
when
you
think
about
direct
versus
the
1
6.
AA
AA
What
was
I
saying?
It
was
so
great.
A
AA
Yeah
the
difference
of
using
con
the
1,
6,
contiguity
and
direct
contiguity
at
this
point
in
time
is
about
maybe
a
little
over
30
Parcels.
But
the
issue
is
that,
with
this
graphic,
that
I
was
showing
that
once
Parcels
turn
over
into
residential
use,
it's
a
much
more
drastic
change
in
what
becomes
eligible
rather
than
the
1
6,
which
keeps
things
kind
of
gradual
over
time.
So,
while
it's
not
a
vastly
significant
at
this
point
in
time,
it
would
more
quickly
change
the
percentage
from
60
to
something
much
larger.
Y
AA
B
B
AC
We
have
an
I
am
zoned
property
near
the
airport.
This
hearing
directly
affects
this
project,
would
add
111
efficiency
living
units
into
the
city
housing
market,
but
without
amendments
to
the
proposed
land
use
table.
There's
a
large
question
mark
hanging
over
this
project,
whether
it
can
be
heard
by
planning,
board
and
city
council.
AC
AC
We
do
not
feel
that
an
arbitrary
number
of
1
6
is
essential.
1
6
is
an
Antiquated
number.
We
believe,
and
we
should
ask
ourselves
why
not
direct
contiguity.
AC
As
we
heard
you
know,
direct
contiguity
increases
the
amount
of
projects
in
the
pipeline
which
there
will
increase,
attainable
housing
and
affordable
housing
by
Nature,
and
so
the
city
shouldn't
limit
the
number
of
properties
that
can
apply
for
use
review
if
housing
is
a
top
priority,
one-sixth
requirement
is
just
another
unnecessary
hurdle.
We
believe
that
the
mere
adjacency
or
direct
contiguity
to
a
residential
zone
or
residential
use
should
be
sufficient
to
show
the
property
has
enough
local
amenities
to
support
the
proposed
residential
use
on
an
IM
property.
AC
With
the
use
review
process,
that's
already
in
place,
the
city
already
has
an
effective
mechanism
to
closely
scrutinize
and
evaluate
a
variety
of
land
uses.
They
should
put
it
to
good
use.
In
this
case,
it
would
give
the
flexibility.
In
our
case,
you
know,
with
one
percent
shy
of
contiguity.
You
could
see
the
merits
of
our
project
for
what
they
are.
The
city
is
in
a
housing
crisis
and
we
are
all
asking
ourselves:
what
can
we
do
to
combat
this
shortage
of
housing?
AC
I
firmly
believe
that
tonight
you
have
the
ability
to
change
the
course
of
this
housing
crisis
by
letting
more
properties
become
eligible
for
residential
housing.
In
light
industrial
zones.
With
these
small
tweaks
to
the
proposed
use
table,
we
would
see
an
uptick
in
projects
coming
through
the
pipeline,
which
will
translate
to
more
attainable
and
more
affordable
housing
for
people
in
need.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
thanks.
T
Good
evening
members,
mayor
of
Mayor
and
members
of
council
I'm,
Jonathan,
singer
I'm
the
senior
policy
program
director
for
the
boulder
chamber
and
without
echoing
the
sentiments
too
much
of
your
previous
speaker,
I'm,
going
to
Echo
the
sediments
of
your
previous
speaker.
T
So
I
want
to
thank
first
of
all
staff
for
their
tireless
tireless
work
over
the
holidays
and
probably
some
other
holidays
that
I
might
have
missed
as
well,
and
also
the
council
I.
When
I
came
here
originally
I
said,
let's
measure
twice
cut
once
I
think
at
this
point.
Maybe
third
time's
a
charm
we're
almost
there
folks,
we
are
almost
there.
When
you
hear
about
the
continuity
requirement.
T
There
is
no
perfect
solution
to
any
land
use
problem,
but
I
think
there
is
an
elegant
solution
and
that
elegant
solution
is
using
that
use
review
process
that
use
review
process
does
provide
significant
guard
rails
in
this
ever
evolving
situation.
Precedent
is
always
good
to
listen
to
it's
not
always
great,
to
follow.
There's
a
there's,
a
reason
and
a
rhyme
for
all
of
these
things
right
and
so
I
just
will
will
close
on
on
this.
T
When
you
look
at
what
the
project
history
and
background
is
we
talk
about
simplifying
the
use
table,
streamlining
regulations
were
possible,
making
use
standards
and
use
standards
and
table
more
understandable
and
legible,
creating
more
predictability
and
certainty,
and
also
I'm,
going
to
point
out
to
one
project
goal
here:
encouraging
15-minute
neighborhoods
through
use
table
changes
in
all
types
of
districts,
residential,
commercial
and
Industrial.
Acknowledging
Transportation
barriers
may
exist
using
the
use
review
process.
As
that
guard
rail
meets.
These
goals
meets
that
Vision
I.
T
Believe
Danica
Powell
sent
you
an
email
that
guide
outlined
the
guidelines
around
the
use,
review.
I'm
sure
she
would
be
happy.
I
would
be
happy
to
walk
that
through
you
with
that
through
you,
as
well,
but
I'll
just
say:
third
time's
a
charm
we're
almost
there.
Thank
you
again
for
your
hard
work
and
I
look
forward
to
proceeding
and
making
the
right
decision
here.
O
O
You
know
more
gun
barrels,
but
guess
what
Gun
Barrel
was
for
getting
more
sales
tax
revenue
and
we're
not
going
to
get
that,
because
the
services
can't
keep
up
the
environmental
costs,
can't
keep
up
the
transportation
all
of
the
extra
Transportation
opportunities
you're
presenting
that's
for
people
to
go
further
and
further
to
get
the
services
they
want.
Do
they
want
to
live
out
on
the
outskirts
of
Boulder
I,
don't
think
so?
O
What
What's
Boulder
here
for
the
flat
irons,
the
open
space,
the
cost
of
that
is
heavy
and
this
growth
is
not
paying
for
it.
The
services
aren't
there,
the
transportation
costs
the
in
the
the
the
air
quality
costs.
All
of
that,
so
this
is
just
this
whole
thing
is
tweaking
again
on
the
on
on
just
growth.
Overall
I
took
extensive
notes
here
that
go
into
the
details,
but
you
know
you
give
three
minutes
and
you've
got
five
minutes.
O
That's
taken
up
with
these
things
on
critical
decisions,
you're
making
I
wanted
to
say
that
well
and
the
Boulder
Valley
comp
plan
is
not
very
specific.
You
know
it
says:
infill
needs
to
be
appropriate.
Well,
what
does
that
mean
and
logical
and
to
the
amenities
and
the
15-minute
neighborhoods?
Yes,
Jonathan
15
minute
neighborhoods
are
great,
but
you
got
one
15-minute
neighborhood
and
another
15-minute
neighborhood
and
another
one
and
another
one
until
you
have
a
whole
sprawl,
that's
what
you
have
sprawl
and
when
you
have
sprawl
you
have.
O
You
have
a
lot
of
costs
of
Transportation,
because
people
are
wanting
to
go
where
they
can't
go.
You
know
I
mean
they
can't
go,
they
can
go
there,
but
we
can't
pay
for
it.
We're
in
deficit
with
our
Open
Space
Mountain
Parks
heavily,
and
this
this
needs
to
be
all
considered
before
you
approve
these
kind
of
zoning
changes
and
making
you
know
I
mean
pretty
soon.
O
W
Awesome
so
good
evening
to
city
council
and
staff
and
the
audience
here
tonight.
My
name
is
Kelsey
Hunter
I'm,
director
on
the
development
team
at
biomed,
Realty
here
in
Boulder.
It's
a
pleasure
to
have
the
opportunity
to
speak
with
you
again
tonight
and
I
promise
to
keep
it
pretty
brief.
W
W
AD
Good
evening,
Mark
painter
from
Holland
and
heart
on
behalf
of
biomed,
Realty
and
some
other
industrial
property
owners,
I
know
I'm,
usually
here
to
point
out
problems,
but
not
tonight.
I
want
to
Echo
the
comments
of
all
the
earlier
speakers
thanking
Brad
and
Charles
Lisa
and
Carl
for
all
their
hard
work
on
this,
and
also
thanking
city
council
for
allowing
us
the
chance
to
work
through
some
of
the
Practical
issues
here
and
find
some
solutions,
but
I'm
not
going
to
belabor
all
that
you've
heard
a
lot
of
things
already.
AD
AD
Kelsey
and
I
have
been
focused
with
staff
largely
on
the
office
issues
and
that's
what
I
was
going
to
talk
about
tonight
at
the
first
reading,
Council
expressed
concern
about
the
complexities
of
the
50
000
square
foot
limitation
on
office,
space
per
lot,
perlot
being
the
important
part
of
that,
for
instance,
a
multi-tenant
building
could
go
over
a
50
000
square
foot
threshold
on
an
aggregate
basis
just
based
on
one
tenant's
expansion,
and
so
this
was
changed
to
an
aggregate
by
user,
which
makes
more
practical
in
enforcement
sense
and
it's
more
predictable
for
the
city
for
tenants
and
owners,
and
so
we
are
very
appreciative
of
that
change.
AD
But
the
buy
lot
standard,
oh
dear
I,
didn't
turn
off
my
cuckoo
clock.
I'm,
sorry,
no
worries,
but
the
buy
lot
standard
remained
for
evaluating
accessory
uses
which,
from
a
practical
standpoint,
didn't
make
sense
for
industrial
zones.
Often
adjoining
Lots
in
industrial
areas
are
owned
by
the
same
party
or
Affiliates,
and
just
as
often
the
buildings
on
those
lots
can
work
like
a
campus
for
a
single
user
with
r
d
uses
being
joined
by
c-suite,
accounting
and
other
admin
offices.
AD
We
discussed
with
staff
carving
out
an
exception
from
the
legal
lot
standards,
so
that
administrative
offices
for
research
and
development
user
could
be
located
on
a
separate
legal
lot
instead
of
being
disqualified.
This
was
a
big
lift
given
the
league,
a
lot
Concepts
pervas
and
it's
pervasiveness
through
the
code,
but
staff
suggested
reinserting
the
administrative
use
definition
within
industrial
zones
and
with
a
couple
of
tweaks,
including
removing
the
limitation
of
relative
size
which
was
critical
to
make
it
work.
AD
This
solved
the
stakeholders
concerns,
and
we
very
much
encourage
Council
to
adopt
these
specific
changes
as
meeting
the
city's
goals
Outlets
listed
by
Jonathan
earlier
and
the
stakeholders
concerns
of
making
sure
we
continue
to
encourage
vibrant
positive
businesses
that
support
the
local
economy
and
employees.
We
were
not
successful
at
this
point
in
Seeking.
A
change
to
reviews
for
new
tenants
in
existing
space.
Often
full
use
review
is
required
for
a
new
tenant
to
move
into
an
existing
building.
We'd
encourage
Council
to
look
Mark
going
simpler.
B
B
N
Y
All
right
so
I
for
one
I
just
want
to
thank
staff
in
the
community
for
their
thoughtful
work.
Y
Y
So
that's
really
my
first
comment:
I
I
will
sort
of
Center
on
a
recommendation
to
kind
of
remove
that
one-sixth,
contiguity
and
and
largely
because
it
seems
like
the
primary
justification
is
just
to
abide
by
gradual
change
and
I
mean
real,
simply
put
we're
in
a
housing
crisis
and
I'm,
not
sure
any
crisis
is
adequately
addressed
by
gradual
change.
Y
In
fact,
I
would
argue
from
a
housing
perspective.
Brad
the
the
ship
sailed
over
20
years
ago
with
regards
to
gradual
change,
and
so
we
don't
have
that
card
in
Our
Deck
anymore
to
play,
and
so
we
need
to
move
much
more
expeditiously
with
regards
to
our
housing.
So
I
I
I'd
like
to
recommend
to
my
colleagues
and
staff
to
sort
of
think
about
removing
that
1
6
continuity
and
really
start
to
think
about
how
use
review
can
just
really
kind
of
take
care
of
some
of
those
concerns
going
forward.
Y
So
I
appreciate
all
the
great
work
and
you've
done
done
great
work,
so
hopefully
we
can
move
forward
on
that,
one
sixth
contiguity
or
at
least
remove
it,
so
I
appreciate
it
thanks.
Thanks.
U
U
U
I
appreciate
all
the
different
ways
that
you've
looked
at
this,
but
I
would
like
to
propose
a
slightly
different
adjustment
to
what
Matt
just
mentioned,
I'd
like
to
propose
the
possible
ability
of
bringing
some
of
the
residential
closer
to
our
city
center
by
sort
of
there's
the
one
quarter
mile
radius
around
the
transit
Junctions
station
that
we're
looking
at,
but
increasing
that
to
be
a
quarter
mile
within
the
the
or
adjacent
to
the
Boulder
Valley
Regional
Center,
which
really
goes
along
30th.
U
So,
ultimately
that
would
make
sort
of
the
whole
West
End
sort
of
from
where
that
Circle
was
on
the
map
that
we
saw
directly
south
all
be
all
have
the
possibility
for
added
residential
I.
Think
that
that
thank
you
for
bringing
that
up.
So
that
would
be
kind
of
from
the
blue
circle
going
straight
down.
U
And
then
in
addition
to
that,
as
we
it's
not
quite
related
to
the
work
we're
taking
on
tonight.
But
as
we
look
towards
the
rezoning
for
the
East
Boulder
sub-community
plan.
I'd
like
us
to
encourage
staff
to
look
at
increasing
the
amount
of
is
zoning,
because
I
think
that
that
the
Service
Industrial
that
zone
does
the
best
job
of
protecting
Service,
Industrial
and
I.
U
Think
that
that
is
an
important
thing
for
this
community
to
maintain
and
so
I
think
that
those
this
adjustment
now
and
then
the
future
adjustment
would
help
align,
along
with
the
regulations
being
suggested
this
with
our
housing
goals
and
also
protect
some
of
the
Service
Industrial.
That's
so
important
to
our
community.
Z
So
why
would
this
is
for
Lauren
question
for
Lauren?
Why
would
you
want
it?
Why
couldn't
you
just?
What
would
be
the
pot?
The
reason
why
you
would
want
to
switch
it
out?
Why?
Why
can't?
Why?
Wouldn't
you
just
leave
the
industrial
is
Zone,
as
it
is
now
up,
30th
Street,
why
do
you
think
it's
a
better
idea
to
add
housing
there
versus
in
East
Boulder.
U
U
B
P
I'm
I'm
just
gonna
support
the
staff
proposal
for
tonight.
I'm
I'm,
always
a
little
bit
leery
of
legislating
from
the
dice
with
last
minute,
changes
that
we
haven't
vetted
with
the
community
or
advisory
boards
and
and
there
may
be
Ripple
effects
that
that
at
least
I
wouldn't
be
aware
of,
although
I
know
I'm
sitting
next
to
an
expert
which
I'm
certainly
not
I,
I,
think
that
we
are
probably
at
sort
of
good
enough
and
don't
want
to
have
perfect,
be
the
enemy
of
the
good.
P
On
this
that
has
been
in
process
for
so
long.
I
think
that
also
the
state
is
potentially
going
to
make
some
changes
on
zoning
that
might
really
shake
up
residential
opportunities,
Statewide
and
certainly
here
in
Boulder.
So
you
know
to
to
the
point:
we're
in
a
crisis
like
I
think
that
we
may
get
some
some
separate
help
there
as
well
and
and
that
we
can
kind
of
go
back
and
revisit
this
if
we
need
to
but
I'm
just
going
to
support
staff
Rec
thanks.
H
This
was
just
another
question
for
Lauren,
which
is
that
am
I
understanding
correctly,
that
what
you're
proposing
is
not
necessarily
changing
kind
of
some
of
the
work
that
staff
has
already
done.
It's
really
just
kind
of
expanding
some
of
the
areas
where
residential
would
be
allowed
sort
of
outside
of
of
what's
in
the
ordinance
currently.
U
Yeah,
what
I'm
proposing
would
be
to
add
five
words,
which
would
be
so
on
page
47
line.
Eight
there's
it
states
the
the
lot
or
parcel
is
located
within
a
quarter
mile
of
the
Boulder
Junction
transit
station
and
I
would
propose
that
we
add
or
Boulder
Valley
Regional
Center.
A
AA
I,
don't
have
the
exact
boundaries,
but
this
this
bright
blue
circle.
The
colors
kind
of
look
kind
of
odd
up
there,
but
that's
the
bright
blue
circle
is
a
quarter
mile.
So
you
can
tell
the
radius
of
that
Circle.
Sorry,
you
can't
see
my
cursor
on
the
left
hand
side.
So
if
you
were
to
kind
of
draw
a
line
down
from
that
Circle,
that's
about
a
quarter
mile,
but.
AA
I'm,
sorry,
it's
right
where
this,
the
pink
Parcels
start
below
the
blue
circle,
so.
AE
U
The
the
Boulder
Junction
Transit
area
is
at.
R
B
I
wonder
Lauren
if
we're
to
maybe
potentially
consider
that
if
we
might
be
more
predictable
to
to
give
like
Street
boundaries
like
something
like
you
know:
east
of
30th,
North
of
Arapahoe,
south
of
Valmont,
west
of
the
east
or
Pearl
Parkway,
a
not
Pearl,
Parkway
Foothills
Parkway.
This
is
basically
just
that
corner
that
would
get
that
corner
and
then
it'd
be
a
little
more
easier
to
understand
than
the
quarter
mile
of
the
pvrc.
B
G
B
AA
Sure
so
I
think
that
it's
something
that's
come
up
in
our
public
comment
as
well
as
what
to
do
with
that
kind
of
unspoken
for
corner
so
I
think
it's
certainly
reasonable.
It's
something
that
we
didn't
feel
staff
didn't
feel
comfortable
kind
of
making
that
policy
decision,
because
there
hasn't
been
a
plan
adopted
for
that
area
of
whether
it
was
appropriate
one
way
or
the
other.
AA
So
as
you
can
see,
the
contiguity
allows
kind
of
those
Southern
Port,
Southern
Parcels
to
become
eligible,
and
then
the
expansion
of
the
transit
center
allows
some
of
the
northern
Parcels
to
become
eligible,
but
it
does
leave
that
kind
of
middle
Zone
and
then
a
few
of
those
Parcels
along
the
boundary
as
ineligible,
but
I
think
that
certainly
proximity
to
Transit
and
other
services
with
that
rationale,
I
think
that
it's
reasonable.
Whether
a
quarter
mile
is
the
right
number.
AA
That's
typically
a
a
common
walking
distance.
So
that's
why
we
did
the
quarter
mile
from
the
transit
station,
so
I
think
that
that's
a
reasonable
distance
as
well.
So
it's
a
reasonable
suggestion.
It's
the
conclusion!
I
guess
that.
B
I'll
call
on
myself
it's
a
bit
of
a
tough
one,
because
we
want
to
encourage
more
housing
in
the
city,
but
we
also
want
to
maintain
some
industrial
land
as
well
as
an
important
use
type
in
our
in
our
city,
so
I'm
torn
between
some
conflicting
priorities
here,
I
kind
of
like
Lauren's
idea
here
in
what
what's
attracting
me
to
it,
is
that
more
central
part
of
town
right
that
we
would
be
looking
for
additional
residential
opportunities
where
it
is
more
centrally
located
and
where
you
do
have
a
lot
of
services
already
within
an
easy
walk
of
that
quarter
mile,
so
that
to
me
potentially
strikes
a
balance
between
saying,
okay,
you
know
every
industrial
parcel
other
than
is
is
eligible
for
residential
and
while
also
finding
some
additional
housing
opportunities,
so
kind
of
kind
of
interested
in
it
other
thoughts,
yes,
cool.
H
B
V
Yes,
Brad
Mueller
with
planning
and
development
services,
I'm
I
might
be
the
only
one
in
the
room
confused,
but
I
do
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
go
down
this
path
without
clarification.
V
B
Y
Else's
question
yes:
can
I
clarify
it?
Yeah
Lauren's
suggestion
was
that
in
was
that,
in
addition
to
removing
one-sixth
or
separate
and
and
not
inclusive
to
that,
because
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear,
that
is
there
sort
of
roughly
two
ideas
floating
out
there,
or
was
this
an
addition
to
one
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
from
Lauren's
perspective,.
B
Z
Now
that
I
know
now
that
I
know
where
we're
talking
about.
Thank
you
Brad.
It
seems
to
me
that
it
makes
I'm
just
going
to
say
that
I
think
I
would
leave
it
as
it
is.
It
doesn't
call
out,
doesn't
scream
out
to
me
make
some
residential
here
as
an
area.
I
would
actually
rather
see
it
in
each
folder.
Personally,.
B
H
I'll
make
a
motion
to
move
this
ordinance
forward
with
Lauren's
suggested
changes.
B
H
Okay,
then
I
make
sorry
the
motion
to
amend
ordinance,
8556,
mending
Title
IX
land
use
code,
BRC
1981,
to
update
the
use
table
and
use
standards
related
to
Industrial
uses
and
districts
with
Lauren's
suggestion
for.
AF
For
expanding
or
for
adding
those
five
words,
can
you
say
what
those
five
words
were
Lord.
U
Or
Boulder
Valley
Regional
Center
to
the
end
of
on
page
47
line
eight
after
the
quarter
mile
to
the
boulder
transit
station.
H
H
L
AB
I
will
support
Lauren's
Edition
at
first
I,
didn't
understand
it
very
well,
but
after
a
little
bit
of
explaining
and
understanding
the
benefit
is
to
ensure
more
housing,
especially
here
in
Boulder,
when
we
are
dealing
with
housing
shortages
and
other
issues
that
makes
it
hard
for
community
members
to
get
housing.
So
I
will
support
that,
but
it
did
sound
complicated
just
coming
up
with
it
on
the
Fly.
Thank
you.
B
P
Just
if
we
want
to
support
the
plan,
but
not
this
amendment
to
it
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
to
vote.
No
one
I
mean
I'm
I'm
for
the
I'm
for
the
general
amendments,
but
not
this
amendment
to
you
to
the
new
quote.
B
Yeah
I
mean
you,
you
have
a
couple
choices,
I
mean
you.
Could
you
could
just
vote?
No
on
the
whole
thing,
you
could
propose
an
amendment
of
your
own
to
remove
those
additional
words
and
we
could
take
a
vote
on
that.
P
Motion
to
amend
council
member
Spears
motion
to
remove
council
member
fogert's
additional
five
boards.
P
Well,
just
that
I
think
that
there's
enough
confusion
from
the
dice
tonight
on
like
what
we're
looking
at
and
again,
we
haven't
heard
from
the
community
and
I'm
I'm
I'm,
just
so
leery
of
tinkering
with
something
that
that
staff
didn't
bring
to
us
and
that
that
I
don't
feel
like
I
heard
from
community
on
so
I
I
agree.
We
absolutely
have
a
housing
crisis
and
we
are
adding
a
ton
of
options
here
through
through
what
we're
doing
tonight
already
and
we
don't
want
to
lose
forfeit
our
our
disperse
industrial
spots
too.
P
So
I
personally
just
need
more
information
before
I
would
want
to
move
in
in
a
direction
that
expands
what
what
I
think
we
were
pretty
intentional
about
and-
and
we
always
hear
about,
Ripple
effects
after
the
after
the
fact
and
and
I
have
no
idea
what
those
might
be
thanks.
Z
E
I
have
a
question
for
for
staff
if,
if,
if
we
we
adopt
the
plan
as
you
proposed,
that
is
with
without
the
additional
Amendment,
but
we
asked
you
to
go
back
and
take
a
look
at
that
Amendment
could.
E
Could
you
bring
that
back
to
us
in
a
month
or
two,
just
as
a
standalone,
little
mini
adjustment
I'm
not
asking
to
do
a
lot
more
work,
but
I'm
just
I'm,
just
what's
what's
in
the
role
possible,
because
I
think
Rachel
made
a
good
point
about
about
we're
kind
of
making
some
changes
on
the
fly.
It
may
not
be
fair
to
you
guys.
E
X
I
mean
it's
certainly
a
possibility,
but
it
is
work
and
it
would
take
time
away
from
other
things
that
we
of
course
need
to
be
working
on.
I
guess,
I
would
suggest
you
know
it's
something
we
could
look
at.
M
X
In
more
depth,
and
maybe
even
bring
it
back
as
part
of
module
three
potentially,
that
might
be
a
a
better
way
to
just
analyze.
That
idea
a
little
bit
further
and
look
at
the
implications
of
it.
It
also
takes
time
to
put
an
ordinance
together
and
there
there's
be
community
outreach.
That
probably
would
make
sense
as
part
of
that
so
I
think
the
additional
time
would
be
warranted.
F
X
That's
the
goal,
obviously
we're
gonna
have
to
look
at
some
of
the
other
code.
Changes
and-
and
some
of
those
are
I
would
say
more
prioritized
based
on
things
we've
heard
from
the
council
so
seeing
how
that
shakes
out
when
we
move
forward
on
those
other
items.
But
our
goal
is
to
try
to
do
it
in
2023.
V
V
Would
just
endorse
that
excellent
idea
and
and
to
put
a
finer
point
to
it.
Occupancy
and
adus
are
kind
of
right
behind,
and
even
just
the
mechanics
of
getting
to
the
board
and
all
those
things
do
unfortunately
take
time
even
for
the
smallest
thing.
Thanks.
AB
Y
V
Was
agreeing
that
that's
that's
a
maybe
a
good
way
to
deal
to
address
that
issue
without
causing
problems
to
the
schedule?
That's
very
tight
and
kind
of
lined
up
right.
Y
AB
AB
AB
AB
B
And
I'll
just
call
myself
to
to
I
I
was
brought
on
board
in
part
because
the
when
Lisa
said
it
seemed
like
a
reasonable
idea.
You
know:
okay,
we
haven't
done
a
lot
of
Outreach
on
it,
but
we
did
think
about
this
some
and
it
and
it
seemed
like
a
reasonable
idea
that
could
be
considered.
So
that's
I'm
willing
to
consider
based
on
that,
but
any
other
comments
before
we
go
to
about
map
and
then
Lauren.
Y
B
So,
where
we're
at
is
there's
a
motion
on
the
table
to
amend
Nicole's
motion
to
remove
the
five
additional
words
that
Lauren
had
proposed
and
that
did
get
seconded,
so
our
next
step
would
be
to
vote
on
that
now.
If
that
motion
is
successful,
then
Lauren's
proposal
goes
away
right
now,
but
we
could
then
for
afterwards
say,
but
could
you
bring
it
back
at
some
Future
Point.
AA
AE
AA
B
H
I
would
really
like
this
to
be
done
tonight,
whether
whether
we
move
forward
with
this
or
not
staff,
you
put
in
so
much
time
in
2018,
it's
five
years
right
that
is
and
I
know
it
hasn't
all
been
continuous,
but
we
have
so
many
other
planning
related
things
on
our
work
plan
that
all
need
to
get
done
in
theory,
before
November,
December
and
I
really
do
not
like
the
idea
of
putting
even
putting
something
back
in
at
a
later
stage.
H
H
And
I
do
think
it's
like
just
a
simple
little
change.
We
made
some
other
simple
little
changes
to
wording
and
stuff
in
the
previous
ordinance,
and
so
for
me
this.
This
feels
okay,
great.
B
All
right,
so
we
got
a
motion
on
the
table
by
Rachel
seconded
by
Tara,
which
would
remove
the
extra
five
words
and
return
the
proposal
to
the
staff
recommendation.
Can
we
do
this
with
the
show
hands?
Okay,
all
in
favor
of
Rachel's
motion,
it's
four
and
then
all
opposed.
B
That's
wait.
Matt
I
didn't
see
how
you
voted.
Y
B
C
AC
W
B
Great
well
thank
thanks,
everybody
and
that
there
was
a
little
minor
drama.
Maybe
I
should
have
straw
pulled
it,
but
it
was
fun
to
do
some
Robert's
Rules
there.
That
was
we
don't.
We
don't
usually
go
through
all
that
Rachel.
B
B
If
I
can
call
myself
or
then
Bob
I'll,
so
I'm
interested
in
this
as
well,
but
the
with
the
understanding
that
it's
going
after
the
other
Council
priorities
that
we're
really
working
to
get
on
done
by
November.
So
if
we
get
to
this
in
November,
December
or
so
fantastic,
but
let's
get
through
the
other
Council
work
plan
priorities
and
then
take
it
up
when,
when
this
is
time
and
to
your
point,
Nicole
like
I,
don't
want
to
delay
any
of
the
other
stuff.
AA
B
Z
B
So,
thank
you
so
much
Lisa
and
Carl,
and
everyone
else
who's
worked
on
this.
This
has
also
been
many
years
in
the
making
and,
oh,
my
goodness,
the
amount
of
boxes
we
got
checked
tonight
and
accomplishments
made
just
congratulations
just
so
grateful
for
all
your
work.
Z
B
Didn't
so
yeah?
Okay,
so
we
got
one
last
item,
which
is
a
matter
under
from
mayor
members
of
council
and
specifically
Rachel
friend.
In
this
case,
do
we
do
you
want
to
read
it
in
or
oh
all,
right,
Alicia
item.
P
Everybody
probably
knows
that
I
like
field
trips
and
I
go
on
as
many
as
I
can
as
a
council,
member
and
so
I
requested
a
ride
along
with
the
police
department
and,
at
the
end
of
it,
I
learned
that
I'm,
the
only
council
member
in
kind
of
recent
memory
that
has
done
that,
and
so
you
know
versus
rec,
centers
and
libraries
and
open
space.
This
is
just
not
an
area
that
we
are.
P
You
know
making
policy
on
and
budget
decisions
on
that
I
personally
get
a
lot
of
exposure
to
like
day
to
day
and
we've
gotten
a
lot
of
emails
about
crime
and
policing,
so
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
see
for
myself
and
and
I
have
you
know
similarly
pitched
to
council
like
when
we
were
when
early
encoded,
we
received
invitations
to
go
visit.
P
This
is
a
quote
from
him
by
joining
our
officers
for
a
shift,
attending
shift,
briefings
and
getting
a
chance
to
know
the
human
beings
behind
the
uniform.
We
believe
it
is
is
highly
beneficial
for
both
sides.
When
you
wrote
along
with
officers
a
week
or
so
ago,
I
heard
many
conversations
in
passing
about
your
ride-along
and
how
officers
were
thrilled
that
you
took
the
time
to
come
out
and
see
for
yourself
what
a
typical
day
for
them
entails.
P
P
So
I
will
say
that
the
The
Ride
Along
I
did
did
sort
of
debunk
some
stereotypes
from
me
in
that
in
One,
Direction
and
I'm,
hoping
maybe
from
the
other
direction
back
at
me.
So
just
sharing
out
the
opportunity
thanks.
B
W
E
I
would
add
on
to
that
is
I'm
doing
police
walk
alongs
too,
because
a
lot
of
our
police
officers
actually
do
a
lot
of
their
work
on
foot
and
going
along
with
them
on
foot
sometimes
is
even
more
direct
interaction
with
with
their
daily
lives.
Look
like
they
need
the
ride
in
the
back
of
the
car.
So
I
will
also
tell
you
that
when
I
did
a
ride
along
with
the
police
department,
I
got
stuck
in
the
back
of
the
car
yeah.
E
AB
Well,
since
we're
talking
about
our
experiences
Lauren
mayor,
Brackett
and
I,
we
walked
the
hill
with
officers
a
few
months
back,
and
it
was
a
really
great
experience,
just
learning
about
the
work
that
the
officers
were
doing
in
the
community
and
especially
in
the
Hill
area,
as
well
with
the
noise
issues
that
is
happening
there
so
yeah.
It
was
a
good
experience.
So
yeah
man.
Y
Oh
thanks
Aaron
also
thanks
Rachel
for
bringing
this
up
I'm
scheduled
to
do
my
ride
along
on
the
13th,
so
I'm
looking
forward
to
that
in
just
about
10
days
time,
I
I'd
like
to
take
what
Rachel
sort
of
suggested
here
and
try
to
think
of
maybe
one
step
further,
that
that
there's
a
that,
we
may
be
set
up
in
our
Council
rules
or
expectations
that,
over
a
two-year
stretch
in
one's
term,
that
you
do
some
number
of
ride-along,
ride-along,
singular
or
plural,
with
Boulder,
Police
and
Boulder
fire,
and
these
are
two
departments
that
we
have
that
you
know
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
get
some
of
that
on
the
ground.
Y
Understanding
of
and
so
I
think
that
might
be
a
worthwhile
thing
for
us
to
put
in
as
an
expectation
of
the
member
account
so
that
you
will
do
that
once
or
some
number
of
time
in
a
two-year
chunk
of
one's
tenure
or
one's
term
on
Council.
B
Man
and
I'll
just
note
thanks
for
this
Rachel
I
I
have
done
tours
of
police
and
fire,
but
never
actually
done
a
ride
along.
So
I
really
appreciated
you
bringing
this
forward
and
learning
from
your
experience.
I
scheduled
one
for
February
the
17th.
So
thanks
for
bringing
this
forward
I'm
looking
forward
to
mine
coming
up
here
soon,.
P
B
Thanks
for
that,
all
right,
any
final
thoughts
on
the
meeting.