►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Meeting 6-15-23
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
B
Speak
to
some
tragedies
that
have
happened
in
our
community
this
week.
Unfortunately,
we've
lost
two
children
in
Boulder
here
in
this
last
weekend,
two
month
old,
baby
and
a
nine-year-old
boy
and
I
just
want
to
send
wishes
for
healing
and
from
the
Boulder
City
Council
and
may
their
families
and
loved
ones
we're
with
you
in
in
your
grief
this
week.
B
So
it's
it's
been
a
hard
week
with
these
losses,
but
I
also
want
to
thank
the
First
Responders
that
responded
so
quickly
to
those
events
and
did
their
very
best
to
save
those
individuals
and
work
their
very
hardest,
our
fire
and
our
police
and
other
First
Responders
and
then
the
very
the
very
day.
Afterwards,
when
we
experienced
a
severe
thunderstorm
and
significant
flooding
in
the
community,
they
did
several
water
rescues
as
well
and
managed
traffic.
D
E
B
Which
is
for
2023
boards
and
commissions,
the
mid-year
recruitment
period
is
now
open
from
May
29th
to
July,
2nd
2023.
and
we're
accepting
applications
for
these
boards
and
commissions.
The
beverage
licensing
Authority,
the
Boulder
Junction
access
District.
Both
parking
and
travel
demand
management,
the
downtown
management
commission,
the
landmarks
board
and
the
University
Hill
commercial
area
management,
commission,
and
you
can
find
descriptive
descriptions
and
vacancies
online
at
www.bouldercolorado.gov
boards,
Dash
commissions.
B
F
B
F
B
Now
I'm
going
to
ask
for
a
motion
to
amend
the
agenda.
Bear
with
me.
It's
a
bit
lengthy
so
to
change
the
title
of
item
H
item
3H
to
the
following
consideration
of
a
motion
to
authorize
the
City
attorney
to
appoint
special
counsel
to
investigate
and,
if
necessary,
prosecute
a
complaint
related
to
alleged
code
of
conduct,
violation
file
pursuant
to
sub
section
278
e16
BRC
19981,
the
added
languages
and
discussion
of
options
regarding
the
police
oversight.
Panel's
vote
to
stop
work
so
that
Council
can
consider
passing
a
moratorium
on
the
panel's
acceptance
of
new
cases.
B
Next
is
to
add
item
3M,
which
is
consideration
of
a
motion
to
accept
the
council.
Employee
evaluation
committee's
recommendations
for
the
appointment
of
Jeff
H
con
as
the
interim
municipal
court
judge
and
directing
the
city
manager
to
negotiate
an
employment
contract
and,
to
also
add
item
3M,
a
consideration
of
a
motion
to
call
a
special
meeting
of
the
city
council
on
June,
22nd,
2023
and
finally,
to
remove
item
5B,
which
was
a
second
reading
and
consideration
of
a
motion
to
adopt
ordinance.
8577.
B
A
J
Ma'am
I
I
apologize
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
on
Zoom
we,
our
staff
is
working
on
video
of
the
council
chambers.
It
should
not
impact
those
viewing
us
on
Channel
8,
but
for
unfortunately,
our
two
virtual
colleagues
they're
not
quite
able
to
see
all
they
can
hear
chamber
so
we're
getting
that
resolved
as
soon
as
possible.
B
G
Thank
you
I
presented
this
last
year
and
I'm
happy
to
do
it
again,
noting
again
that
I
am
the
grandson
of
immigrants
who
fled
Dreadful
conditions
in
Europe
before
World
War.
One
and
my
wife
is
the
daughter
of
immigrants
who
fled
Nazi
Germany
well
from
Austria.
They
fled
Hitler
before
World
War
II.
G
D
D
D
The
fight
for
Freedom
does
not
exist
in
a
vacuum,
and
the
struggle
against
oppression
and
for
sovereignty
is
one
we
collectively
share
and
are
inextricably
linked
to.
Juneteenth
celebrates
the
unity
and
mutuality
of
American
Liberty
realized,
which
makes
Juneteenth
a
celebration
of
freedom
and
justice
for
all
Americans,
not
only
those
enslaved
in
their
descendants.
D
The
faith
and
strength
of
character
demonstrated
by
former
enslaved
African
Americans,
remains
an
example
for
all
people
of
the
United
States,
regardless
of
background
religion
or
race.
The
late
Lula
breaks
Galloway
of
Saginaw
Michigan,
author
social
activist
curator
of
African
American.
History
was
the
originator
of
the
interim
Juneteenth
creative
Culture,
Center
and
museum
in
Saginaw.
Michigan
Galloway
successfully
worked
to
bring
National
recognition
to
Juneteenth
Independence
Day
and
encouraged
Congress
to
pass
a
resolution
in
1997
in
honor
of
the
day
in
continuation
of
those
efforts.
K
D
Founder
of
the
executive
committee,
African-American
cultural
events
of
Boulder
County,
with
the
help
of
many
partners,
has
been
leading
efforts
to
organize
Juneteenth
celebrations
across
Boulder
County
originally
started
in
Longmont
Juneteenth
events,
including
flag
racing
ceremonies,
storytelling
classes,
lectures
and
more
now
spans
several
days
and
are
hosted
in
communities
across
the
county
to
benefit
our
entire
Community,
particularly
residents
that
are
homebound
or
restricted
due
to
health
challenges.
Miss
strong
Woodley
ensured
that
these
events
be
available
virtually
via
social
media
channels
and
other
platforms.
D
In
2021
e
c,
a
a
c
e
in
partnership
with
the
NAACP
Boulder
County
hosted
the
city
of
Boulder's
first
Juneteenth
flag,
raising
ceremony
in
2022,
the
city
of
Boulder
joined
the
federal
and
state
government
and
officially
recognizing
Juneteenth
as
a
holiday.
Juneteenth
celebrations
will
undoubtedly
continue
to
grow
in
the
city
of
Boulder
through
the
cherished
Partnerships
and
the
strength
of
current
and
Future
Leaders.
D
Finally,
this
declaration
serves
to
recognize
Miss
strong
Woodley
as
the
official
founder
of
the
Boulder
County
Juneteenth
celebrations,
and
to
further
acknowledge
Ms,
strong
Woodley's
leadership
and
dedication
to
this
community
over
the
course
of
many
years.
Miss
strong
Woodley's
dedication
to
organizing
African-American
cultural
events
in
Boulder
County
has
strengthened
and
enhanced
our
community
in
celebration.
The
city's
human
relations
commission
is
co-sponsoring
local
events
throughout
the
weekend,
in
partnership
with
the
NAACP
Boulder
County
and
executive
committee
African-American
cultural
events
Boco
for
their
third
annual
Boulder
County
Juneteenth
celebration.
D
D
Movement
is
an
example
of
pure
resilience.
This
declaration
underscores
the
freedom
with
dignity
of
every
human
being
as
a
governmental
body.
We
oppose
and
reject
any
form
of
Oppression
and
pledge
to
support
our
community
members
and
local
entities
working
to
achieve
equality
and
protect
human
rights.
B
K
All
that
you've
done
to
support
this
effort
and
to
support
the
ongoing
education
and
celebration
of
learning
and
sharing
more
about
each
other
I
want
to
say
that
before
I
talk
about
Pedro
I'd
like
to
tell
you
give
you
just
a
little
bit
one
tomorrow
tomorrow
at
city
council,
there
there
will
be
a
flag
raising
service
at
3,
P.M
tomorrow
and
I'm,
encouraging
every
citizen
that
is
capable
and
able
to
be
there
to
meet
us
at
1777
Broadway,
because
we're
going
to
use
city
of
Boulder
as
a
model
for
progression
being
Progressive
and
growing,
and
recognizing
the
need
for
Change
and
doing
something
about
it.
K
And
this
service,
which
is
taken
on
nationally
now,
as
as
a
part
of
the
celebration
for
Juneteenth,
is
phenomenal.
It's
amazing
and
I'm
so
very
honored
to
say
older,
you're,
stepping
up
and
you're
stepping
out
and
so
we're
just
going
to
keep
it
moving.
Keep
it
growing,
and
please
see
you
tomorrow
at
3
P.M,
it's
going
to
be
a
celebration,
unlike
you've
ever
seen,
we're
gonna
it's
gonna,
be
virtually
produced
and
shared.
K
So
voters
don't
hit
the
map
again
tomorrow,
but
in
a
very
good
way.
That
said,
Pedro
Silva
I
was
corrected.
Pedro
silver.
K
K
K
It
was
an
education
for
me,
but
he
has
been
one
man
that
I
have
seen
in
many
many
facets
as
a
father
as
a
minister
as
a
leader
as
I
mean
it
just
goes
on
and
on
in
terms
of
what
he
has
contributed
to
this
Boulder
Community,
which
is
why
we're
so
proud
to
ask
that
you
accept
and
receive
this
proclamation
in
honor
of
the
words
in
everything
you've
done.
K
Thank
you,
mayor,
mayor
bracket
and
to
the
Council
of
Boulder,
and
with
that
Pedro
I
hope
that
you
accept
it
with
the
greatness
that
we
divide
you
and
we
know
know
that
you
will
represent
well.
Thank
you.
L
Thank
you,
and
that
means
a
lot
to
me.
I'm
very
touched
and
I
think
that
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
could
stand
up
here
or
sit
here
virtually
and
and
represent,
especially
you
and
your
sister
Minister
strong
and
strong
Brenda
strong
I
mean
Glenda,
strong,
Robinson
and
so
many
other
people.
But
in
this
moment
I
will
say
that
I
grew
up
celebrating
Juneteenth
and
it
wasn't
until
I
went
into
the
military
and
went
to
was
stationed
in
Tucson
Arizona.
L
That
I
found
out
that
it
wasn't
something
that
was
celebrated
across
the
country.
I
asked
somebody
where's
the
Juneteenth
Festival,
and
they
said
what
are
you
what's
Juneteenth
and
I
was
shocked
that
it
wasn't
anywhere
else
and
I
since
I
had
grown
up
with
it,
I
thought
it
was
everywhere
and
I
also
found
it
in
Tucson
Arizona,
where
I
was
stationed.
They
also
didn't
celebrate
Martin
Luther
King
Jr
day
and
when
I
realized
that
I
it
hit
home
that
certain
histories,
certain
parts
of
American
History,
are
deeply
devalued.
L
I
was
blessed
that
in
my
family,
I
was
taught
black
history
from
an
early
age
and
saw
it
as
intricately
woven
into
the
American
history,
and
that
history
is
complex
and
it's
not
static
as
we
learn
in
our
present
time.
It
also
informs
the
way
that
we
view
the
past
and
unfortunately
many
people
believe
that
history
is
static
and
that
it
is
not
that
the
future
is
not
affected
by
history
and
that
the
past
is
not
affected
by
our
present
Consciousness
and
that's
absolutely
untrue.
L
It's
important
for
us
to
learn
history
because
we
become
more
well-rounded
human
beings,
and
so
I
am
grateful
that
Boulder
County
is
holding
this
space
and
allowing
it
to
be
sacred,
having
Representatives
like
yourself
and
Judy,
and
other
people
in
the
community
who
are
holding
that
history
and
will
be
the
the
ancestors
at
some
point
and
down
the
road.
L
I
want
to
remind
folks
also
that
ritual
is
very
important
and
tomorrow
the
ritual
of
raising
the
flag
is
is
important,
but
I
also
want
to
come
with
a
warning
that
when
you
do
ritual
enough,
there
can
come
a
time
where
the
ritual
becomes
a
performative.
As
opposed
to
symbolic,
and
so
my
hope
for
Boulder
County-
is
that
this
ritual
continues
to
be
symbolic,
because
in
a
symbol
you
see
something
grander
than
just
the
image
or
grander
than
just
the
words.
L
It
goes
deep
to
the
heart
of
the
narrative
that
it
has
been
created
and
is
being
continually
created,
and
so,
as
we
look
toward
the
future
of
more
juneteenths
and
more
celebrations
that
we
always
stay,
grounded
in
the
reality
that
this
is
built
on
the
lives
of
people
and
that
these
people
have
shaped
and
will
continue
to
shape
the
reality
they
were
all
a
part
of
and
the
more
we
get
grounded
in
that
reality,
the
better
humans
we
can
be
for
each
other,
the
better
systems
we
can
create.
So
that's
my
hope.
L
B
Today,
well,
thank
you
so
much
for
this
powerful
words,
Pedro
and
Madeline
as
well,
for
your
comments
appreciate
this
very
much
and
we
look
forward
to
seeing
you
and
everyone
else
tomorrow.
3
P.M
right
here
at
the
Penfield,
take
the
second
Municipal
Building
at
3
P.M
for
the
Juneteenth
flag
racing
all
right,
thanks
again,
all
right
so
that
moves
us
now
to
open
comments.
So
Brenda,
could
you
go
over
the
public
participation
guidelines?
Please.
M
Absolutely
I
will
and
Emily.
If
you
want
to
share
this
well,
there
they
are
lovely
I,
also
have
them
written,
because
I
can't
see
them
in
the
little
box,
so
the
city
has
engaged
with
community
members
to
co-create
a
vision
for
productive,
meaningful
and
inclusive
conversations,
and
we
appreciate
all
of
you
who
are
here
tonight
for
your
patience.
While
we
go
through
these
guidelines,
we
know
some
of
them.
Some
of
you
are
familiar
with
them,
and
some
of
you
may
not
be
so.
We
find
it
important
to
go
through
them.
M
Each
meeting,
the
vision
that
we
co-created
supports
physical
and
emotional
safety
for
community
members
staff
and
Council,
as
well
as
democracy
for
people
of
all
ages,
identities,
lived
experiences
and
political
perspectives
for
more
information
about
this
vision
and
the
community
engagement
processes
that
we
conducted
in
order
to
arrive
at
the
vision,
you
can
go
to
the
city's
website,
bouldercolorado.gov
and
search
productive
atmospheres
in
the
search
bar
next
slide.
Please.
M
Advised
code
and
other
guidelines
that
will
support
this
Vision.
These
will
be
upheld
tonight
during
this
meeting.
All
remarks
and
testimony
shall
be
limited
to
matters
related
to
City
business.
No
participants
shall
make
threats
or
use
other
forms
of
intimidation
against
any
person,
obscenity,
racial
epithets
and
other
speech
and
behavior
that
disrupts
or
otherwise
impedes
the
ability
to
conduct
the
meeting
are
prohibited.
M
Participants
have
been
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
refrain
from
expressing
support
or
disagreement
verbally
with
or
with
the
pro
Applause
other
than
the
Declarations,
and
we
appreciate
your
appreciation
of
those.
M
Traditionally.
Support
can
be
shown
during
public
comment,
silently
through
American
Sign,
Language
Applause,
or
sometimes
we
call
them
jazzings.
So
thank
you,
those
of
you
who
are
here
to
participate
tonight.
We
know
we
have
some
emotional
issues
on
the
agenda
tonight
and
we
appreciate
you
following
these
guidelines.
Thank
you.
B
N
My
name
is
Hope
Michelson
and
I'm
here
to
speak
against
increasing
occupancy
and
introducing
duplexes
and
triplexes
in
low
density
neighborhoods.
This
plan
includes
absolutely
no
assurances
of
affordability
and
neglects
the
city's
need
to
address
climate
change.
Future
Generations
are
counting
on
you
to
make
informed
decisions,
not
Hollow
symbolic
gestures
that
ignore
real
problems,
make
them
worse
and
push
them
off
on
future
Generations.
N
The
analysis
in
the
city
packet
makes
it
clear
that
the
rezoning
plans
under
consideration
will
not
improve
affordability
and
will
probably
make
Boulder
even
less
affordable
data
from
Den.
The
Denver
metro
area
and
Austin
Texas
predict
a
negative
outcome
for
affordability.
With
this
type
of
rezoning,
we
can't
leave
increased
affordability
to
the
free
market
that
doesn't
work.
N
If
you
really
care
about
affordability,
you
have
two
programs
that
are
effective,
increasing
linkage
fees
and
increasing
the
percentage
of
inclusionary
housing,
both
of
which
are
a
fraction
of
what
they
could
or
should
be,
and
we
haven't
heard
of
peep
from
the
city
council
about
those
approaches.
What's
more,
this
policy
will
have
severe
negative
impacts
on
future
Water
Resources,
while
the
fire
risks
and
infrastructure.
If
you
believe
climate
change
is
real,
it
is
a
moral
to
densify
Boulder
without
accounting
for
climate
driven
decreases
in
water
availability
and
increases
in
Wildfire
risk.
N
N
O
A
P
O
to
preserve
a
balance
between
the
growing
number
of
high
turnover
student,
rentals
and
the
homes
occupied
by
CU
professors,
staff,
families
and
other
long-term
residents.
The
new
low-density
zoning
limited
the
unrelated
occupants
to
three
houses,
subdivided
into
apartments
or
rooming
units
maintain
their
non-conforming
status
with
three
tenants
per
dwelling
unit.
This
created
a
large
number
of
grandfathered
properties
with
higher
occupancy
than
that
landlords
snapped
up
whenever
they
could
go.
Could
next
slide?
Please.
O
O
This
map
represents
each
long-term
rental
property
as
either
green
or
blue
properties
with
a
red
outline
are
short-term.
Rentals
I
have
not
included
them.
There
are
213
long-term
rental
licenses
in
the
RL
Zone
East
of
9th
96
are
occupancy.
Non-Conforming,
that's
45
percent.
Next
slide,
please
The
rl1,
Zone
West
of
ninth
to
the
city
limits
stretches
with
zigzags
from
Arapahoe
to
Baseline.
There
are
147
long-term
rental
licenses
in
that
zone.
64
are
occupancy,
non-conforming,
that's
43.5
percent.
O
Next
slide,
please
many
of
the
old
subdivided
houses
are
in
poor
condition
if
occupancy
has
increased.
The
health
and
safety
of
tenants
will
deteriorate
more
rapidly
of
the
360
rentals
on
University
Hill
160
are
occupancy
non-conforming,
that's
44,
please
freeze
the
occupancy
of
non-conforming
properties
at
the
current
number
of
tenants
for
the
health
and
safety
of
all
Hill
residents.
Thank
you.
B
Thanks
Lisa
well-timed
Patrick,
O'rourke,
Richard,
Harris
and
Peter
barlaran.
E
Good
evening,
mayor
Brockett
in
city
council,
my
name
is
Patrick
O'rourke
I'm,
the
preservation
chairperson
for
historic
Boulder.
A
year
ago
to
this
this
week,
June
14th
of
last
year.
We
bought
forward
a
proposal
to
expand
the
Bandshell
and
it
was
voted
down
because
staff
it
was
a
five
to
four
or
four
to
five
vote.
Staff
had
requested
time
to
have
three
things
occur.
E
E
The
second
reason
was
that
Parks
and
Recreation
and
the
landmarks
board
had
not
had
a
collaboration.
It's
my
understanding
that
the
staff
have
met
several
times
since
the
beginning
of
this
year
and
that's
completed.
Although
the
two
boards
have
not
met
that's
an
oversight
on
their
parts,
not
on
historic
Boulder
and
the
third
one,
was
that
James
Hewitt,
the
director
of
preservation
here
in
Boulder
at
that
time,
thought
the
best
solution
would
be
to
have
a
historic
district
move
forward
and
come
back
before
this
board.
E
In
the
third
quarter
of
this
year
on
May
30th
of
this
year,
we
submitted
a
historic
district
application.
We
don't
know
the
name.
It's
it's
up
in
the
air.
Invest
we'd,
be
interested
to
see
where
that
goes.
We
were
hoping
to
get
it
in
front
of
the
sitting
board.
That's
before
us
today.
The
proposal
that
was
submitted
back
to
us
staff
has
it
coming
back
to
the
city
council
in
January
of
next
year.
E
Q
However,
there's
nothing
in
the
proposals
the
council
is
considering
later
that
will
ensure
increased
housing
prices
for
that
modest
income.
People
could
pay
without
be
without
being
seriously
cost
burdened.
What
they
do
ensure
is
unnecessary
impacts
that
will
not
be
offset
by
any
Greater
Community
benefit.
This
entire
effort
could
potentially
have
beneficial
results.
Of
course,
if
undertaking
with
more
undertaken
with
more
careful
consideration
of
what
will
be
required
to
achieve
the
desired
results,
Boulder
needs
a
housing
study
to
understand
what
we
have
what's
on
the
way
and
what
we
need.
Q
We
encourage
Council
to
slow
down
and
do
the
work
that's
required
to
actually
create
affordable
housing,
not
just
more
and
more
housing
that
isn't
affordable
every
market
rate
project.
That's
approved,
eliminates
opportunities
for
real,
affordable
housing
which
might
do
some
good
for
the
celebration
we're
having
tomorrow
for
Juneteenth.
R
Thank
you
and
good
evening.
My
name
is
Peter
barlar
and
I
live
in
the
Goss
Grove
neighborhood
members
of
the
council
and
city
of
Boulder
staff.
With
respect
the
renewed
drive
to
relax
occupancy
limits
is
not
your
finest
hour
November
2021's
ballot
question
300,
whose
proponents
labeled
bedrooms
are
for
people
lost
by
52
to
48..
R
Some
may
have
seen
the
recent
New
York
Times
piece
about
the
favorable
climate
renters
enjoy
in
Vienna
Austria.
The
article
refers
to
upzoning
in
many
countries,
including
the
United
States
saying
and
I
quote
often.
The
benefits
of
allowing
greater
density
are
captured
by
developers
who
price
the
new
units
far
above
cost.
R
R
The
city
could
use
some
of
the
receipts
from
revised
property
tax
assessments
to
buy
more
real
estate.
It
could
hold
commercial
real
estate
developers
to
a
higher
standard.
If
they
want
to
build,
they
should
be
required
to
contribute
more
to
affordable
housing,
and
if
the
university
wants
to
keep
adding
more
students,
let
it
use
some
of
its
Choice
land
to
build
more
on-campus
housing.
R
S
Hello,
my
name
is
Laura
Harvin
and
I'm
here
tonight
to
ask
that
the
matter
of
the
demolition
of
the
historic
structure
located
at
661
Maxwell
is
called
up
for
review
next
slide.
Please
this
Show's
two
accessory
structures
within
30
feet
of
each
other
you'll
notice
that
both
garages
were
listed
as
contributing
to
the
historic
neighborhood.
Both
were
reassessed
in
96
and
also
2005..
The
condition
of
661
Maxwell's
garage
was
listed
as
excellent,
while
the
condition
of
the
one
at
652
Concord
was
listed
as
deteriorating.
S
S
This
is
what
was
revealed
when
the
siding
was
removed
from
the
structure
behind
652,
Concord
and
you'll
actually
notice.
The
arrow
to
the
left
shows
the
proximity
of
the
garage,
that's
located
behind
661
Maxwell.
In
the
Concord
alley,
the
question
is:
can
an
old
garage
be
concealed
with
new
siding
and
then
demolished
I'm
asking
you
to
call
this
up
for
a
review,
because
details
can
be
shown
that
neither
of
these
structures,
the
one
at
661
Maxwell
nor
652
Concord,
are
the
first
structures
that
were
built
on
these
properties.
T
U
U
U
U
So
if
we
can
preserve
the
existing
affordable
housing,
it
should
be
a
very
high
priority,
and
these
scrape-offs
and
the
expansions
on
false
grounds
should
be
stopped.
If
we
were
true
to
us,
it
would
devalue
the
land
and
stop
developments
just
continually
converting
affordable
housing
into
unaffordable
next
one.
U
So
the
other
thing
that
I
think
the
city,
particularly
this
our
city
manager,
could
an
Institute
is.
We
should
provide
housing
for
employees,
and
that
should
be
the
city.
Should
set
the
example,
another
organization
should
follow
it,
and
there
are
a
few
rules
that
you
can
come
up
with,
which
will
help
that
anybody
that's
applying
for
a
job.
That's
already
living
in
Boulder
should
have
a
higher
priority
than
somebody
commuting
in
next
one.
P
U
P
B
V
Hello,
hi
I'm,
Connor,
Hall
and
I'm
here
to
speak
in
favor
of
raising
the
minimum
wage
I
just
like
to
begin
briefly
by
saying,
like
I've
lived
in
Boulder,
since
my
parents
got
divorced,
we
moved
back
out
here
because
we
have
family
here
that
was
12
years
ago.
I
can
consider
the
community
of
Boulder
really
important
to
my
upbringing
and
it's
something
that
I
I.
V
You
know
I
value
being
a
part
of,
unfortunately-
and
this
is
not
anything
new
we're
talking
about
other
proposals
to
address
the
affordability
crisis,
not
just
in
you
know,
which
is
not
just
unique
to
Boulder,
but
Boulder
is
a
particularly
bad
example
of
I
for
one
have
been
forced
to
leave
Boulder,
even
though
I
still
continue
to
work
here,
even
though
I
still
continue
to
find
it
important
to
myself
to
you
know,
be
a
member,
a
productive
member
of
this
community,
because
I
simply
cannot
afford
to
live
here
and
that's
true
across
the
board
is
that
when
you're,
an
hourly
worker
when
you're
way
just
tied
to
the
hours,
you
work
you're
constantly
selling
your
time
and
unfortunately
that
scenario
puts
it
in
you.
V
In
a
case
where
your
needs
often
make
the
decisions
for
you
so
just
to
to
illustrate
I,
believe
I'm
sure
anyone
who
signed
up
to
speak
today
is
familiar
with
us,
but
there's
a
limit
on
20
people
speaking
just
to
have
the
time
to
speak.
Today
you
have
to
have
the
day
off
you
had
to
have,
or
you
had
to
at
least
have
this
time
off.
Here
you
had
to
be
able
to
sign
up
ahead
of
time.
You
had
to
be
able
to
take
the
time
to
prepare
to
speak.
V
Sorry,
sorry,
let
me
collect
myself
a
little
bit.
This
is
for
those
who
went
through
all
of
the
Hoops
of
speaking
just
to
have
their
time
cut
off
and.
V
B
T
T
The
Boulder
area
label
council
is
advocating
for
a
25
minimum
wage
by
the
20
year,
2028
and
I'm
asking
you
to
support
this
proposal.
If
we
want
the
residents
of
Boulder
to
live,
happier,
healthier
and
more
compassionate
lives,
we
need
to
make
Boulder
County
an
affordable
area
not
only
to
live
in
but
to
thrive
in
as
well.
Thank
you
all
for
your
time.
W
Yeah,
so
my
name
is
Rishi
Raj
and
I
live
on
age,
63,
14th,
Street
and
I've
lived
there
for
25
years.
So
you
know
the
question
I
asked
myself
is:
who
is
pushing
for
this
High
occupancy?
Who
is
it?
W
W
W
W
I
mean
if
you
adopt
one
of
them,
it'll
be
a
mess,
so
my
recommendation
to
you
is
to
vote
for
status
quo
with
one
important
Proviso
that
we
set
up
a
committee
that
develops
a
vision
for
the
neighborhoods
in
Boulder,
and
these
neighborhoods
are
very
vital
to
us.
They
are
our
culture,
they
are
our
history.
Without
them,
Boulder
will
not
be
bolder,
and
I
would
like
you
to
appoint
a
committee
to
give
voice
to
the
citizens
to
develop
a
vision
for
the
neighborhoods
as
what
is
going
on.
W
L
X
My
name
is
Megan
Coles
I
live
in
Whittier.
There
are
four
points
I
want
to
make
about
the
housing
and
Zoning
occupancy
issues
that
you're
going
to
decide
tonight.
Number
one
is
I'd
like
to
see
the
occupancy
limit
raised
to
five.
You
know
in
the
renters
and
young
people
are
demanding
this.
It
is
single
family,
homeowners,
people,
my
age,
people
like
me
who
seem
universally
opposed
to
it.
X
We
need
to
look
at
that.
It
gives
people
options
to
building
the
huge
house
that
they
could
instead
provide
more
modest
houses
for
people
at
a
lower
price
point
that
more
people
could
afford.
Yes,
eliminate
the
31600
square
feet
and
1200
square
foot
open
space
requirements
in
summer
zoning
districts.
The
fact
that
we
have
those
unrealistic,
open
space
limitations
has
fueled
some
of
the
concept
reviews
that
you've
had
to
do
and
the
special
ordinances
to
make
projects
like
diagonal,
Plaza
happen
and
fourth,
yes,
reduce
the
site,
review
criteria,
the
size
criteria
for
residential
housing.
B
B
B
Y
Three,
the
goal
of
protecting
and
the
extent
and
permeability
of
urban
soils
in
the
city's
Urban
Tree
canopy
for
flood
mitigation
purposes,
for
the
goal
of
protecting
the
city's
blue
line
and
Building
height
ordinances
that
protect
the
city's
view
shed
and
open
space
five.
The
goal
of
protecting
the
unsustainable
growth
limiting
social,
economic
and
Environmental
Protections
in
the
Boulder
Valley
comprehensive
plan.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
Z
My
name
is
Dorothy
Cohen
I
live
at
2845,
Elm
Avenue
in
Martin
Acres.
Please
do
not
increase
occupancy
and
live
it
limits.
I
read
in
the
packet
for
tonight's
meeting
that
Austin
Texas
has
increased
occupancy
limit
to
six,
but
it
failed
to
lower
Rents
It,
actually
increased
rents
per
person,
which
makes
the
profits
for
our
landlords
increasing
occupancy
will
not
lower
rents
in
an
elastic
Market.
It
simply
benefits
landlords,
many
of
whom
are
out
of
state
owners
who
do
we
want
to
benefit
renters
or
landlords?
Z
Parking
is
also
a
big
problem
in
these
neighborhoods
near
CU.
I
live
in
Martin
acres
and
people
Park
their
car
constantly
in
front
of
my
house.
They
leave
them
there
for
three
days
before
they
move
them.
They
know
the
regulations.
Most
of
the
folks
do
not
even
know
to
keep
five
feet
from
the
driveway
I've
even
had
cards
block
cars
blocking
my
driveway.
The
solution
isn't
making
us
pay
for
a
parking
program
just
to
park
in
front
of
our
own
homes.
Z
If
you
must
increase
occupancy
limit,
please
accept
the
four
neighborhoods
adjacent
to
CU
Martin
Acres,
University,
Hill,
Cross,
Grove
and
East
Aurora.
Currently,
Market
Martin
acres
is
around
60
rental,
so
the
changes
were
very
would
be
very
disproportional
to
those
close
to
CU.
Neighborhoods
farther
from
sea
will
have,
who
have
far
fewer
rentals
would
be
much
less
affected.
This
is
unjust.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
AA
The
other
thing
that
I've
really
been
working
on
during
this
process,
especially
around
the
Statewide
occupancy
level
changes,
is
that
I
got
confirmation
from
the
city
of
Boulder
that
under
our
current
policy
and
going
forward
that
the
city
of
Boulder
will
continue
to
aggressively
enforce
this
on
fam
unrelated
families
with
children,
and
this
entire
policy
is
discriminatory.
But
it
is
just
absolutely
unacceptable
that
we
do
not
have
an
allowance
for
children
of
chosen
families
to
be
protected
under
the
law
rather
than
face.
AA
Eviction
and
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
policy
in
general.
We
had
this
year
in
the
state
legislature,
a
policy
that
would
have
forbade
cities
to
enforce
these
discriminating
laws
against
unrelated
people
that
passed
the
state
senate
and
I
want
to
tell
you
another
another,
interesting
development.
The
last
speaker
and
many
speakers
like
to
talk
about
Austin
and
how
important
it
has
been
for
them
to
keep
their
occupancy
limits.
There's
proposal
going
to
the
Austin
city
council
right
now
to
get
rid
of
these
discriminatory,
discriminatory,
occupancy
limits
based
on
family
status.
AA
K
I
Hello,
I'm,
Kelsey,
Castellano
I
actually
want
to
share
my
support
for
what
Mark
Wallace
said
earlier,
that
we
should
treat
everyone
equally
and
with
dignity
and
respect,
and
that
is
one
of
the
many
reasons
why
I've
been
working
so
hard
alongside
so
many
people
to
reform
our
exclusionary
housing
law
that
treats
unrelated
people
as
lesser
than
we
all
deserve
equal
access
to
housing,
especially
those
who
have
been
historically
marginalized,
communities
of
color
lgbtq
people,
immigrants,
all
of
which,
who
have
been
disproportionately
impacted
by
our
discriminatory
occupancy
laws.
I
In
the
memo
that
staff
provided,
it
was
highlighted
that
Community
connectors
said
the
following
quote:
occupancy
limits
and
other
policies
were
put
into
place
to
restrict,
who
is
able
to
live
and
Boulder
effectively
keeping
bipod
populations
out.
We
need
to
be
a
transparent
about
this
end
quote
well
I
value
that
Bob
is
concerned
about
the
health
and
safety
of
those
who
share
housing.
There
are
clear
and
definitive
answers
to
those
well-meaning
concerns,
as
staff
reiterated
to
you
several
times.
Health
and
safety
codes
always
take
precedence
and
supersede
occupancy
limits.
I
For
example,
right
now
we
have
so
many
studio
apartments
across
Boulder
where
the
occupancy
limit
is
currently
for,
and
we
are
not
currently
worried
about
health
and
safety
in
those
cases,
because
health
and
safety
codes
take
precedence,
and
we
just
see
very
few,
if
not
zero
cases
of
issues
in
those
situations
that
we
currently
have.
We
have
non-conforming
uses
on
the
hill,
because
the
city
council
down
zoned
the
hill
in
the
past,
a
decision
that
did
not
make
our
community
more
affordable
and
exasperated
our
housing
crisis.
I
It
would
make
zero
sense
for
the
whole
Community
to
have
a
higher
occupancy
limit,
have
a
higher
occupancy
per
unit
than
buildings
that
have
historically
had
higher
occupancies
relative
to
their
neighbors.
Please
move
forward
tonight
with
housing
policies
that
get
us
closer
to
treating
everyone
equally,
as
Mark
says,
with
the
Indian
respect.
AB
Thank
you
in
the
last
10
years,
CU
undergraduate
enrollment
has
increased
two-fold.
Increasing
occupancy
will
not
support
more
affordable
housing
for
low
to
moderate
income
workers.
This
will
only
address
the
exploding
student
housing
needs
and
mind
the
pockets
of
the
rental
property
owners,
while
driving
out
families
in
low
to
moderate
income
workers.
Research
confirms
this
trend.
Occupancy
increases
will
not
address
the
needs
of
low-income
older
residents.
The
people
of
Boulder
have
already
spoken
by
voting
down.
Bedrooms
are
for
people
initiative.
AB
Martin
Acres
of
the
Hill
should
be
exempt
from
any
ordinance
changes,
as
these
neighborhoods
are
disproportionately
impacted,
given
their
proximity
to
CU
Boulder
and
the
current
state
of
having
far
more
rentals
versus
owner
occupied
than
other
neighborhoods.
This
information
is
in
the
council
briefing.
We
need
to
create
separate
regulations
for
student
occupancy
limits
and
maintain
the
limit
of
current
of
the
current
ordinance
of
three
unrelated
adults.
This
has
occurred
in
other
jurisdictions
and
is
held
up
in
court
by
keeping
student
occupancy
at
three
unrelated
and
increasing
non-student
occupancy
the
foreign
related.
AB
This
would
have
the
council's
intention
of
creating
housing
for
low
to
moderate
income
Boulder
residents.
We
should
also
cap
the
number
of
rentals
in
neighborhoods
with
high
density.
We
need
meaningful
urban
planning
that
balances
the
needs
of
homeowners
with
future
growth
and
preserves
Boulder
open
space.
We
do
not
need
unfettered,
unbalanced
infill
that
does
not
have
guard
rails,
ensuring
affordable
housing.
Thank
you.
AC
Yeah
hi
Council
I'm,
asking
you
tonight
to
please
show
Bold
leadership
by
directing
staff
to
quickly
craft
an
ordinance
allowing
five
unrelated
adults
and
their
dependents
to
legally
live
together
in
homes
throughout
Boulder.
While
this
new
policy
still
would
not
treat
all
equal
all
people
equally
under
the
law,
it
is
an
important
and
long
overdue
step
towards
Justice
that
would
decr
criminalize
the
majority
of
shared
housing
opportunities
in
Boulder,
enabling
five
adults
and
their
children
to
legally
share
a
home
that
can
safely
house
that
number
of
humans
is
not
a
radical
idea.
AC
Many
other
cities
and
several
States
across
the
country
have
already
allowed
this.
No
previous
councils
have
been
willing
to
address
this
problem,
choosing
instead
to
postpone
this
pressing
challenge
until
some
future
council
is
brave
enough
to
confront
it,
they've
allowed
a
small
but
vocal
minority
to
continue
to
impose
an
archaic,
ineffective,
occupancy
limit
on
households
across
the
entire
city,
maintaining
a
failed
status
quo
for
decades,
rather
than
continuing
to
pretend,
like
our
current
occupancy
limits,
aren't
broken
and
worth
fixing
right
away.
AC
You
have
the
opportunity
to
be
the
council
that
finally
passes
this
basic
reform
to
give
all
people
more
equal
access
to
live
in
existing
homes
across
Boulder.
You
all
possess
the
courage
to
choose
to
prioritize
a
practical
solution
above
concerns
about
some
minor
political
pushback,
to
pass
this
legislation
that
will
immediately
benefit
thousands
of
people
in
our
community
by
increasing
housing
options
for
everyone.
AC
AD
Can
you
hear
me
yes,
okay,
I'm,
Mark,
stangle
and
I'm
here
to
give
you
my
observations
as
a
45-year
resident
of
Boulder
and
a
current
rental
licensing
inspector
for
the
last
22
years,
when
I'm,
when
I
moved
first
moved
into
Boulder
I
moved
into
Martin
acres
and
I
found
I
couldn't
sleep
at
night
it
was
too
noisy.
AD
I
got
involved
in
the
Martin
Eggers
neighborhood
association
and
became
an
officer
and
later
president
and
I
participated
in
many
City
communities
regarding
noise,
occupancy
Etc
over
the
years
and
I
then
became
a
rental
inspector
in
2001
after
having
taken
an
interest
in
this
issue
and
I
have
over
the
years
I've
seen
the
housing
stock
really
improving
quality
over
the
years,
but
I've
also
seen
that
there's
been
a
lot
more
internal
development
of
many
places
and
there.
Currently
there
is
more
than
five
people
living
in
many
places.
AD
In
Boulder.
As
a
rental
inspector,
we
never
report
how
many
people
are
living
there
in
the
bedrooms.
So
I
think
it's
a
it's
fictional
to
think
that
increasing
the
the
number
of
people
allowed
will
actually
increase
the
number
of
opportunities
for
people
to
find
occupancy.
In
Boulder,
I
think
it's
I
I
just
think.
AD
There's
no
factual
basis
for
that
that
that
conclusion,
because
we
are
now
using
as
I,
understand,
we're
using
our
current
four
or
more
foreign
related
or
three
or
foreign
related
it
to
take
care
of
different
requirements
or
when
there's
problems
in
an
in
a
household.
So
I
believe
that
this
will
not
get,
will
not
be
a
beneficial
move
for
the
city
at
all
and
will
not
increase
any
housing
stock
whatsoever
and
I
just
I.
Just
can't
believe
it
that
you
guys
are
even
considering
this
with.
AD
AE
Hello
there
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
yes,
I
strongly
support,
increasing
occupancy
to
five
city-wide
and
allowing
plexes
in
single-family
residential
zones.
Currently
access
to
housing
is
Boulder's
biggest
problem
in
housing
policy
and
climate
change
are
inextricably
linked.
Getting
rid
of
strict
limits
on
occupancy
is
the
fastest
way
to
provide
more
affordable
housing
city-wide
with
no
environmental
impacts.
AE
If
a
family
of
five
can
live
in
a
house,
so
can
five
unrelated
people
I
know
this
is
wonky,
but
I
looked
at
the
code
regarding
the
property
in
Bob's
hotline
example
on
9th
Street
and
concluded
that
the
occupancy
would
remain
the
same
as
it
is
now
at
six
persons.
Even
when
we
change
the
occupancy
to
five
to
the
best
of
my
professional
understanding
of
the
code,
the
conditions
on
non-conforming
properties
in
BRC
9-8-5c3
would
still
limit
the
occupancy
given
in
that
example,
property
to
six
unrelated
people,
not
ten.
AE
It
says
there
in
the
section
on
non-conforming
properties
that
units
with
an
occupancy
greater
than
four
unrelated
persons
shall
not
exceed
a
total
of
occupancy
of
the
dwelling
unit
of
one
person
per
bedroom,
so
non-conforming
properties
already
have
additional
restrictions.
On
top
of
the
building
codes
that
address
the
size
of
habitable
spaces,
as
well
as
health
and
safety
concerns,
assuming
that
there
are
six
bedrooms
in
that
duplex
property,
the
limit
would
remain
the
same
as
it
is
today
and
even
if
duplexes
are
allowed,
that
project
is
still
non-conforming
due
to
parking.
It's
a
distraction.
AE
AE
I
thought
it
was
interesting
that
using
the
data
on
page,
11
and
12
of
the
packet,
62
percent
of
the
current
housing
units
are
on
25
percent
of
the
land
zoned
for
residential
units,
allowing
plexes
in
the
other
75
percent
of
the
land
will
help
to
adjust
this
land
use
imbalance.
Wouldn't
it
be
nice
to
live
in
a
community
that
welcomes
people,
it
doesn't
shut
the
door
in
their
face
thanks
thanks.
AF
Good
evening,
Council
I,
I'm,
Margaret,
lecompte
and
I
live
at
290
Pawnee
in
southeast
Boulder.
Come
Apostle
is
down
playing
the
real
threat
that
duplexes
triplexes
and
increased
occupancy
rates
posed
to
single-family
neighborhoods
I
live
in
such
a
neighborhood
that
also
has
triplexus
duplexes,
several
large
blocks
of
Nest,
affordable
housing
and
a
number
of
single-family
houses
that
are
not
now.
Rentals
parking,
noise
and
crowding,
as
well
as
poorly
cared
for
our
rental
houses,
are
already
a
problem.
AF
That's
why
I
voted
against
ballot
measures,
the
bedrooms
for
for
people,
but
once
again,
city
council
is
trying
to
vote
nor
a
clear
vote
of
the
community
and
try
unilaterally
to
pass
a
similar
measure
via
a
council
vote.
So
much
for
democracy
in
Boulder.
Council's
efforts
to
increase
occupancy
rates
actually
will
increase,
not
decreased
rents,
landlords
charge
for
occupant,
more
renters
per
dwelling
doesn't
mean
landlords
will
lower
their
rents.
They'll
only
make
more
money
by
acquiring
more
renters
per
dwelling.
More
importantly,
council
is
ignoring
two
very
good
ways
at
the
affordable
housing.
AF
Supply
can
be
increased.
Number
one
raise
the
commercial
linkage
fees.
The
fees
are
currently
too
low
and
aren't
enforced.
This
would
give
100
percent
permanently
deed,
restricted,
affordable
housing,
but
Council
hasn't
read
the
word
since
2017
about
increasing
linkage
fees.
Other
communities
show
that
this
really
works
and
enforce
the
inclusionary
housing
percentage
requirements
for
new
residential
developments.
These
currently
remain
at
25
percent.
That's
one
affordable
unit
for
three
luxury
priced
market
rate
units.
Why
doesn't
Council
increase
this
percentage
requirement?
This
really
works
in
2022.
AF
P
H
AH
J
AH
Good
evening,
Council
Marcy
growing
principal
historic
preservation,
planner
in
pnds,
so
the
the
public
process
for
historic
districts
sets
very
clear
deadlines
in
terms
of
public
hearings
and
when
it
goes
to
the
landmarks
board
and
then
planning
board
and
then
to
you
for
a
final
decision
and
we've
run
the
the
dates
into
that,
and
it
would
not
come
to
you
before
the
the
November
timeline
and
there's
actually
a
tremendous
amount
of
work
that
fits
into
that
eight-month
period.
AH
So,
while
we
could
look
at
it
again,
there's
nothing
in
the
code
that
would
allow
the
ex
Expediting
those
timelines
and
I
will
also
say
that
in
order
to
do
this
well,
I
would
also
encourage
us
to
use
the
time
provided
in
the
code.
H
AH
I
will
I
will
have
to
double
check
the
dates
and
maybe.
AH
AK
Good
evening
Council
Kurt
fernhawber
I
support
the
housing
and
Human
Services,
so
any
any
commercial
property
that
has
excuse
me
add
square
footage
goes
to
a
permitting
process
in
order
to
get
through
the
permitting
process.
They're
required
to
pay
the
linkage
fee.
I
don't
see
that
there
would
be
any
opportunity
not
to
enforce
our
linkage
fee
on
any
new
square
footage.
B
B
B
For
that,
so
what
I'm,
gonna,
I'm
gonna
start
with
saying
I
believe
that
we're
going
to
need
to
pull
G
and
H
off
the
consent
agenda
for
specific
discussion.
So,
with
council's
permission,
I'd
like
to
go
through
those
two
items.
First
and
then
we
can
come
back
to
the
passage
of
the
rest
of
the
consent
agenda,
set
it
right:
okay,
I'm,
seeing
they're
not
being
they're
being
brought
forward
for
discussion;
yeah
not
set
up
for
public
hearing.
Okay
I
saw
nodding,
heads
there.
So
sorry
Rachel.
B
That
about
30
seconds
when
I
get
that
agenda
I'd
on
them
on
the
table
thanks
for
asking.
So
if
we
could
talk
about
agenda
item
3G,
please
Alicia.
Do
you
want
to
read
that
into
the
record?
Yes,.
F
Sir
item
3G
is
a
consideration
of
a
motion
to
accept
the
recommendation
of
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees.
The
information
presented
at
the
open
space,
Board
of
Trustees
special
meeting
on
May
31st
2023
and
any
relevant
information
provided
by
Carolyn
Miller
at
the
June
15
2023
city
council
meeting
and
remove
Carolyn
Miller
as
a
member
of
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
for
non-attendance
to
duty
and
cause
declared
a
seat
vacant
and
adopt
a
replacement
as
soon
as
possible.
H
AG
L
AG
Hear
from
the
osbt
board,
chair,
Dave
Coons,
to
explain
the
board's
position
on
this
matter
and
and
speak
to
the
vote
and
resolution
before
you,
then
I
recommend
that
you
give
Carolyn
Miller
an
opportunity
and
I
would
give
15
minutes
for
the
chair
to
speak.
Then
I
would
recommend
that
you
give
Caroline
Miller
15
minutes
to
address
the
council
as
well.
Since
the
motion
before
us
is
is
to
be
removed
for
cause,
it
seems
appropriate
to
give
Miss
Miller
an
opportunity
to
speak
and
that's
opposed
to
something
procedural
or
technical
grounds.
AG
Then
I
recommend
you
accept
questions
from
Council
moving
on
to
a
discussion
before
the
motion,
and
then
they
have
the
mayor,
invite
a
call
for
a
motion
in
a
second.
Obviously,
if
there's
no
Motion
in
second,
then
this
item
would
fail
and
you
would
move
forward.
B
AL
AL
AG
AL
I
just
thought
the
public
might
be
interested
in
the
resolution
itself,
so
I
will
do
that
quickly.
AL
AL
Above
be
it
resolved
by
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
of
the
city
of
Boulder
Colorado
that
one
John
Carroll
moved
the
board
recommend
to
the
city
council
that
Caroline
Miller
be
relieved
of
her
duties
and
removed
as
a
member
of
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees,
and
that
the
council
appointed
replacement,
Brady,
rabbits
and
seconded
the
motion
passed
four
to
one
with
Caroline
Miller
opposing
I
will
read
a
statement
for
you
and
then
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have
I'm
reading
my
statement
to
council
so
that
the
record
is
clear
and
that
there
is
no
misunderstanding
of
what
I
will
say.
AL
AL
AL
It
is
unfortunate
that
we
are
here
tonight
to
deal
with
this
matter
of
the
conduct
of
a
member
of
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees,
but
regrettably
necessary
the
Catalyst
for
the
recommendation
on
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
resolution.
Before
you
is
the
statement
made
at
the
November
9
2022
meeting
of
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
by
trustee
Caroline
Miller.
AL
AL
Security
presence
was
requested
for
subsequent
meetings
of
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
in
the
ensuing
months.
Following
the
November
9th
meeting,
no
efforts
were
made
by
Ms
Miller
to
clarify
your
comments.
Explain
her
concerns
present
any
evidence
to
support
her
allegations
of
conditions
in
wrongdoing
or,
oh
sorry,
of
collusion
and
wrongdoing
sorry
or
to
reach
out
in
any
way
to
reassure
staff
of
or
the
trustees
of,
the
intent
of
her
comments.
AL
The
lack
of
resolution
of
Ms
Miller's
comments
on
November
9th
have
affected
the
open
space,
board's
ability
and
capacity
to
function
effectively
by
continuing
to
be
disruptive
and
distracting
time
has
not
provided
any
understanding
or
closure
on
what
Ms
Miller
was
attempting
to
convey
in
her
comments
time
without
intention.
Rarely
manages
to
repair
an
absence
of
trust
and
understanding.
AL
AL
The
absence
of
one
member
on
a
small
board
like
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees,
impairs
its
ability
to
meet
its
responsibilities
to
the
community
and
hamstrings
its
ability
to
serve
the
expectations
of
the
community
and
the
council.
Are
that
appointed
board
members
know
and
accept
the
roles
and
responsibilities
of
the
position.
AL
AJ
G
I
am
happy
to
make
my
determination,
based
on
the
narrow
scope
of
what
you
have
provided
in
terms
of
failure
to
attend
and
disruption
of
the
normal
functions
of
osbt.
But
I
have
to
ask,
in
light
of
the
extremely
personal
nature,
of
some
of
these
allegations
allegations
which
remain
unsupported
to
this
day
by
anything
that
resembles
a
fact.
Why
did
you
make
the
determination
not
to
make
that
part
of
the
basis
or
removal.
AL
We
felt
that
that
part
of
the
conduct
was
more
appropriately
investigated
through
other
means,
and
so
we
thought
that
we
would
limit
our
scope
in
the
resolution
to
objective
behaviors.
As
far
as
non-attendas
to
duty.
G
Okay,
I
I
will
accept
that
although
I
remain
very
distressed
at
the
the
nature
of
the
allegations
made
in
the
November
meeting
and
the
fact
that
they
remain
to
this
day
entirely
unsupported
by
anything
that
we
generally
consider
factual
in
the
real
world.
Thank
you.
AL
Excited
could
I,
just
I
would
say
Mark
that
other
board
members
are
distressed
as
well,
and
I
think
that
this
action,
while
not
lightly
considered,
certainly
exhibits
the
level
of
frustration
by
other
board.
Members
on
this
particular
matter.
B
Right
so
not
seeing
any
other
questions,
Mr
Kunz
thanks
for
being
here
and
stick
around,
we
may
conceivably
have
a
follow-up
question
later
on
so
Caroline
Miller.
If
this
is
your
turn
to
speak,
if
you'd
like
to
come
forward,
join
us,
you'll
have
15
minutes
on
the
clock.
If
you
would
like
them,
speak.
AM
Okay,
just
checking
the
mic
if
I
go
quieter,
get
away
from
it
feel
free
to
just
wave
at
me
and
I
should
be
able
to
notice.
AM
Oh
this
clock.
This
is
my
my
15
right
here.
AM
AM
AM
AM
Good
evening
my
name
is
Caroline
Miller,
open
space
board
of
trustee
public
official
appointed
by
city
council
March
of
2020
for
a
five-year
term
2020
through
2025
I'm
here
to
provide
relevant
information
to
city
council
for
their
agenda
item
3G,
where
they
are
being
asked
to
consider.
A
motion
for
removal
after
a
special
meeting
was
called
May
31st
2023
by
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees,
where
the
vote
was
4-1
in
favor
of
my
removal
as
I
was
a
single
trustee
who
voted
no
for
my
removal.
J
AM
AM
The
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
serves
its
purpose
by
providing
recommendations
to
Council
on
a
variety
of
subject
matter
boards
and
staff
collaborate
with
each
other
on
a
regular
basis.
Other
City
departments
are
regular
presenters
at
osbt
meetings,
and
this
is
all
done
to
provide
city,
council
and
independent
body
that
works
with
staff
to
ultimately
serve
the
best
interests
of
our
city
now
and
for
the
future.
AM
My
objectives
this
evening
are
to
provide
defenses
to
the
grounds
brought
forward
by
my
fellow
trustees,
State
several
causes
of
action,
for
which
I
seek
relief,
further
clarify
what
has
been
labeled
as
fake
references,
followed
by
my
action
of
dismissing
myself
from
the
November,
9th
2022
osbt
meeting,
which
is
a
significant
event
for
what
has
now
come
to
city
council.
As
a
motion
for
my
removal,
my
intention
is
to
provide.
L
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
I'll
give
defenses
to
the
grounds
brought
forth
and
additional
grounds
that
I
believe
are
related
to
the
motion
to
remove
acknowledging
that
they
are
absent
from
the
grounds
provided
to
council
I'm,
actually
going
to
start
at
the
end
and
provide
motions.
Now
so
my
intent's
known
to
counsel
for
the
entirety
of
the
time
that
I'm
speaking
and
then
I'll
start
back
at
the
beginning.
AM
AM
AM
AM
I've
not
cried
all
day,
I,
don't
know
why
I'm
doing
this
I'm
so
sorry
and
our
ability
to
engage
in
autonomous
decision
making
within
the
rules
and
scope
of
our
board
were
significantly
hindered.
AM
I
absolutely
knew
prior
to
doing
that
act
on
November
9th.
There
would
be
significant
real
consequences
that
I
would
not
want
to
face.
You
know
which
is
being
here
this
evening,
but
I
felt
compelled
that
it
would
somehow
protect
my
silence
following
was
due
to
my
concern
that
I
would
be
deemed
adversarial
to
council
staff
or
the
city.
I
am
not
ever
cereal
now,
nor
were
my
actions
then.
AM
AM
So
this
is
done
just
to
clarify
what
I
did
not
do
well.
The
first
time
I
quoted
council
member
Rachel
friend
in
that
meeting
in
a
somewhat
elusive
way
and
I'll
elaborate
as
to
why
I
did
so
at
the
city
council,
November
3rd
22.
Excuse
me,
2022
meeting
one
week
prior
council
member
friend
was
making
a
point
regarding
the
county
shuttle
that
had
several
drop
points
that
trailheads
stating
her
concern
was
quote.
AM
Prior
to
making
that
statement
and
relevant
to
the
open
space
board
council
member
friend
states
that
the
feedback
she
received
was
that
there
were
concerns
that
the
shuttle
would
have
the
effect
of
too
much
increase
on
open
space
and
she
had
concerns.
If
that's
the
philosophy
of
one
of
the
main
participants
there
she
went
on,
she
went
on
to
State.
She
wanted
to
understand
how
or
why
open
space
and
who
else
maybe
would
get
invited
to
join
that
conversation.
To
make
sure
there
was
a
really
strong
focus
on
equity
and
transportation
goals.
AM
There
are
other
factors
outside
of
those
comments
that
have
been
hindering
our
autonomy
as
a
board
foreign
for
the
discussions
surrounding
e-bikes,
which
was
the
agenda
topic.
The
night
that
I
excused
myself
very
early
in
the
meeting
our
packet
instructed
us
to
our
packet
instructed
us
on
the
specific
questions
we
would
be
able
to
ask
staff
if
the
question
was
not
listed
for
us,
it
was
not
to
be
asked.
AM
AM
The
decision
for
e-bikes
surrounds
the
language
of
passive
recreation
in
the
charter.
A
majority
vote
of
no
to
e-bikes
on
open
space
was
given
the
reason
being.
The
intent
in
the
chartered
language
is
widely
understood
and
accepted
and
interpreted,
as
was
the
intention
of
those
who
wrote
the
charter.
AM
What
I
would
consider
a
clear
definition
in
the
charter
of
passive
Recreation.
The
would
not
have
allowed
for
an
appropriate
recommendation
to
counsel.
AM
AM
Just
because
this
is
written
does
not
make
it
true.
The
actions
move
forward
with
e-bikes
on
open
space
appears
to
be
improper
and
ethical
and
unlawful,
as
administrative
regulations
must
comply
with
the
provisions
of
city
code.
They
were
adopted
to
implement
city
code
and
the
manner
in
which
it
was
adopted
must
comply
with
the
provisions
and
requirements
of
the
city.
Charter
and
the
city.
AM
In
addition
to
this,
I
have
concerns
for
ordinance
8483
any
appropriation,
ordinance
or
mou.
Excuse
me
any
appropriation
of
funds
related
to
an
ordinance
or
mou
when
it
deals
with
funds
designated
for
open
space.
AM
Our
packets
I've
been
seeing
new
language
stating
alternatives
to
disposal
land
use,
designation
changes
that
are
causing
concern
past
present
and
future
noticing
the
van
Fleet
parcel
for
disposal
in
the
local
paper.
AM
After
the
fact,
it
was
made
clear
that
three
of
the
five
trustees
had
no
knowledge
of
the
disposal
being
noticed
in
the
local
paper,
in
other
instances
where
it
appears,
the
rightful
authority
of
the
trustees
is
being
intentionally
subverted
along
with
violations
of
the
charter,
simply
because
those
involved
in
these
sections
did
not
do
not
agree
with
the
restrictions
that
are
real
or
perceived
so
as
far
as
the
grounds
that
my
chair
just
came
forward
with.
B
AM
Thank
you.
After
reviewing
the
complete
Sprout
board
by
my
fellow
ospg
trustees,
it's
clear
to
me
that
there
are
no
valid
or
sufficient
grounds
to
remove
me
from
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees,
the
boy
that
was
reflected
by
all
the
trustees
was
absences.
There
are
no
grounds
based
on
absences
to
Warrant.
My
removal.
AM
AM
There
are
multiple,
similar
examples
like
the
one
I
just
provided
that
took
place
throughout
that
meeting.
AM
An
entire
page
of
motion
language
was
presented
on
the
screen
at
the
end
of
the
meeting.
I
objected
to
the
written
statement
that
I
missed
the
November
9th
2022
meeting
as
I
was
in
fact
present
for
that
meeting,
and
that
is
a
date
that
we
have
been
discussing
here
a
lot
tonight,
but
that
is
one
of
the
three
absences
that
was
brought
forward.
AM
I
didn't
have
time
to
read
the
entire
motion
that
was
put
up
for
language.
I
asked
the
chair
prior
on
a
phone
call
if
I
could
have
access
to
written
materials
and
equal
time
to
speak.
AM
At
the
end
of
the
meeting,
the
chair
acknowledged
my
behavior
at
the
November
9th
ospt
meeting
was
spoken
more
than
the
grounds
presented
by
the
other
trustees,
as
is
the
case
again
tonight,
but
my
two
consecutive
absences
are
not
valid
grounds
for
my
removal
and
again
tonight
to
state
that
covert.
Mouthience
is
something
that
could
be
plausible,
but
then
it
would
not
be
brought
forward
for
grounds
seems
inconsistent
with
what
this
hearing
is
for.
AM
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank.
AN
Thank
you
for
for
being
here
this
evening
and
taking
this
opportunity
to
defend
yourself.
My
question,
Center
is
really
around.
You
know
having
a
functioning
board
and
you've
served
with
osbt
for
for
some
time
now,
and
you
know,
did
you
seek
any
opportunity
to
repair
what
was
clearly
as
communicated
by
your
colleagues,
the
sort
of
breach
of
trust
and
confidence
in
you
as
a
equal
colleague,
because
they've
certainly
expressed
that
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
sought
opportunity
to
repair
to
gain
back
that
trust
or
build
back
that
working
relationship?
AM
In
March,
that's
when
the
the
five-year
trustee
leaves
and
a
new
person
comes
in
and
during
that
that
one
month
time
frame,
I
got
a
phone
call
from
our
chair.
Asking
me
if
I
would
consider
being
co-chair
with
him
and
I
said
I'd
be
delighted.
That
would
be
fine.
AM
Maybe
three
weeks
later
he
said
that
that
was
not
going
to
be
supported.
That
I
did
not
have
the
votes
for
that.
I
was
out
of
the
state
for
that
meeting.
AM
So
it's
very
confusing
for
me:
I
haven't
received
any
written,
formal,
sorry,
I,
don't
have
the
right
words
I'm,
trying
to
keep
it
grounded
in
law
as
much
as
possible,
but
there
was
nothing
written.
There
was
no
formal
complaint.
Given
there
was
no
emails
from
my
other
trustees
expressing
concern.
AN
Okay,
I
appreciate
that
answer.
AM
But
I'm
so
sorry,
the
two
consecutive
meetings
I
was
out
of
state
for
both
I
was
not
in
that
time
frame.
I
was
not
in
Colorado
very
much
at
all.
So
any
efforts
to
find
out
why
the
movement
forward
with
me,
serving
as
co-chair,
that
that
was
my
first
understanding
that
there
was
a
problem.
AP
AO
I
just
wanted
to
hear
a
little
bit
more
I
think
along
the
same
line
because
I'm
trying
to
understand-
because
you
mentioned
that
it's
as
if
you
did
not
get
enough
notice
as
far
as
this
particular
issue
and
this
removal,
because
it
seems
to
me
there
is
a
breakdown.
But
again
you
mentioned
things
like
me,
I
you
know,
I
were
asking
questions
and
questions
that
were
not
already
pre-ordained
and
that
seems
to
conflict
with
how
things
work.
So
ultimately,
I
questioned
you
do
you
feel
like
this
is
more
of
a
surprise,
or
is
it
more?
AM
I
knew
November
9th
was
going
to
be
a
problem,
but
I
felt
that
you
know,
even
though
it
wasn't
really
very
well
thought
out
that
what
I
saw
approaching
was
something
that
could
cause
significant
harm
to
the
board
so
in
in
that
sense,
from
November
of
2022
I
knew
as
much
as
I
ignored
that
that
was
not
going
to
go
away,
but
moving
forward
until
March
when
the
five-year
trustee
left
there
did
not
appear
to
be
any
differences
in
the
board
and
how
we
act
and
communicate
with
each
other.
AM
None
of
that
seemed
to
change
until
a
couple
of
weeks
after
Dave
had
asked
me
to
be
co-chair,
and
then
he
informed
me
that
that
it
wouldn't
be
supported,
and
then
that
was
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
AO
C
So
Carolyn
I
noticed
that
you
spent
a
fair
amount
of
time
talking
about
e-bikes,
but
in
fact
you
know,
Dave
didn't
vote
for
the
e-bikes
either
so,
but
I
noticed
you
didn't
talk
about
some
of
the
remarks
you
made
about
Rachel
today,
which
I
agree
with
Mark
I
feel
like
I
wish
that
they
would
have
been
brought
up
on
public
record
personally,
but
I
see
that
they
weren't.
Do
you
have
anything
you
want
to
say
about
the
other
remarks
you
didn't
mention
and
why
you
said
them
or
yes,.
AM
I
do
have
something
written
for
that,
so
what
I
was
hoping
to
provide
the
board
would
be
a
I
would
try
to
do
something
a
little
bit
more
substantive
than
just
back
and
forth.
The
comments
that
I
quoted
by
council
member
friend.
AM
So
when
we
talk
about
Equity
or
access
to
open
space,
look
at
this
for
a
second,
so
I
can
see
if
I
can
shorten
any
of
it.
For
you,
I
believe
what
council
member
friends
concerns
were
is
how
high
the
barrier
to
entry
is,
and
it
is
tricky
because
it's
dominated
by
a
core
demographic.
It's
primarily.
C
AM
Yes,
so
in
2020
I
don't
have
the
month
off.
The
top
of
my
head,
I
received
a
phone
call
in
the
evening
from
a
fellow
trustee,
and
they
had
said
that
they
had
just
hung
up
the
phone
with
Sam
and
Rachel,
who
were
if
I'm
getting
this
right
subcommittee
members
for
cu
and
the
trustee
was
asked.
If
there
was
a
number.
The
word
was
multiplier.
If
there
was
a
multiplier
that
could
be
used
in
some
way
to
facilitate
a
disposal,
I
thought
that
that
was
improper
and
not
good.
AM
So
I
reported
it
to
my
chair
and
to
the
director
of
osmp
the
emails
percent
that
night
or
early
the
next
morning
it
had
just
been
established
that
we
were
going
to
redo
the
open
space
disposal
procedures
and
because
of
those
events,
that
item
agenda
was
shelved
for
months
and
I
believed
it
was
picked
back
up.
AL
I'm
happy
to
answer:
if
you
have
a
question
okay,
then
let
me
just
simply
say
that
I
obviously
have
a
very
different
impression
and
understanding
of
what
transpired,
both
the
previous
chair
and
myself
reached
out
several
times
to
Caroline,
to
suggest
that
she
needed
to
get
together
with
other
board
members
and
try
to
rectify
what
was
obviously
a
very
deep
concern,
and
it
was
very
frustrating
to
me
that
that
did
not
happen
and
that
was
kind
of
the
Genesis
of
you
know
the
tradition
in
the
open
space
board
every
year
that
the
the
senior
member
is
you
know
becomes
chair
for
that
final
year
and
the
next
senior
member
becomes
Vice
chair,
and
so
she
Caroline
was
the
next
senior
member.
AL
So
I
did
talk
to
her
about.
You
know
that
that
process,
but
it
became
clear
to
me
that
that
wasn't
going
to
happen,
and
so
I
did
advise
her.
You
know
closer
to
the
time
when
the
election
was
going
to
occur,
that
that
was
not
going
to
happen.
AL
Right
right-
and
this
is
a
difficult
I-
mean
I
I-
don't
mean
to
minimize
Caroline's
difficulties,
but
it
is
a
difficult
situation
for
all
of
us.
We
did
not
take
it
lightly.
There
is
considerable
frustration
in
the
board
and
I
I.
Think
that
in
this
sorry
maybe
an
answer
to
to
Mark's
question
as
well
is
that
I
felt
incumbent
when
I
became
chair
that
we
needed
the
board
needed
to
address
the
issues
and
come
up
with
some
kind
of
resolution
to
them
again.
I
will
say
the
the
November
9th
commentary
is.
AL
AL
We
talked
about
was
the
conduct
of
you
know
the
objective
conduct
as
it
relates
to
the
rules
and
regulations
for
board
members.
B
AG
So
the
Boulder
City
Charter,
section
173,
speaks
to
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
and
specifically
speaks
to
terms
of
office
that
provides
that
the
council,
five
members
of
the
council
May,
remove
any
board
member
for
cause,
and
so
that's
enshrined
in
our
Charter.
We
can
also
look
to
our
code
and
specifically
2-3-1.
AN
AN
Map
yeah
a
little
bit,
you
know
we
have
a
number
of
greatly
important
boards
in
our
community
and
osbt
is
right
up
there
at
the
top
in
terms
of
its
importance,
its
Duty
and
the
fact
that
we
have
a
separate
Charter
governing
the
work
of
our
Open
Spaces,
emblematic
of
how
critical
that
work
is
and
so
having
a
functional
board
where
everyone
can
work
cohesively,
even
though
they
may
disagree,
is
vital
to
the
Community
Trust
and
and
to
the
stewardship
that
we
have
towards
the
land
that
not
only
osbt,
but
we
as
a
council
are
stewards
of
and
our
caretakers
for
it.
AN
So
maintaining
that
is
critical
and
so
non-attendance
to
duty
and
causes
is
of
great
significance
when
we
want
to
maintain
that
cohesion
in
a
board,
so
I
think
it's
an
important
thing
for
us
to
maintain.
P
C
AI
Having
served
on
a
board
that
at
one
point
struggled
with
attendance,
I
can
just
speak
to
how
difficult
it
can
be
to
have
the
issues
of
you
know
when
you
only
have
five
members
and
one
unexpectedly
I'm
not
present,
that
can
cause
issues
with
reaching
a
quorum
and
being
able
to
have
the
discussions
in
a
timely
manner
that
the
Board
needs
to
have.
B
AO
Thank
you,
I
will
be
voting
yes
and
I've
supported
this
motion.
It's
just
unfortunate
and
I
think
also,
yes,
I
appreciate
the
comment
it's
made
by
Teresa
that
we
need
to
look
to
action,
but
I
think
there
must
have
been
a
breakdown
in
communication
somewhere
as
well
and
in
order
to
move
forward.
We
have
to
take
this
particular
action
to
ensure
that
the
board
works
constructively
to
the
purpose
that
it
is
created
before
But,
ultimately
from
throughout.
AO
I
AO
There
are
actions
that
are
part
of
the
process
as
well,
because
she
mentioned
in
November
9
that
she
knew
it
was
going
to
be
the
problem
and
I'm
sure
that
you
know
there
has
been
breakdowns
in
communication
or
any
inter
and
engagement.
So,
ultimately,
I
will
be
supporting
this
particular
motion.
It's
unfortunate
and
it
is
a
set,
it's
very
sad
I
would
have
to
say
for
me
to
have
to
go
along
with
this
Mr
emotion
and
thank
you
thanks.
G
G
However,
I
do
want
to
make
the
comment
that,
while
protected
under
Free
Speech
accusations
of
corruption
and
malfeasance
that
are
not
supported
by
anything
at
all
are
unfortunate,
hurtful
and
dangerous,
and
well
that's
not
the
basis
on
which
I'm
voting
I
just
want
to
make
note
of
them,
because
that's.
G
A
AQ
B
AO
B
B
F
You
Sarah
item
3H
is
the
consideration
of
a
motion
to
authorize
the
City
attorney
to
appoint
special
counsel
to
investigate
and,
if
necessary,
prosecute
a
complaint
related
to
an
alleged
code
of
conduct,
violation
filed
pursuant
to
subsection
2-7-8e
1-6
of
the
BRC
1981,
and
a
discussion
of
options
regarding
the
police.
Oversights
panels
vote
to
stop
work.
So
the
council
can
consider
passing
a
moratorium
on
the
panel's
acceptance
of
new
cases.
AG
AR
Good
evening
Council
Aaron
Poe
Deputy
City
attorney.
This
item
has
two
questions
for
council's
consideration.
The
first
is
the
appointment
of
special
counsel
for
an
investigation
of
a
code
of
conduct
complaint
that's
been
filed
against
the
police
oversight
panel
for
stopping
Work
official
duties.
The
second
item
is
Council
consideration
of
other
options
in
response
to
the
police
oversight.
Panel's
work
stoppage,
including
possible
moratorium
on
their
official
duties.
B
Thanks
for
that,
Aaron
so,
and
maybe
I'll
I'll
kick
this
off,
because
I
had
had
a
CAC
request
that
led
to
this
discussion
of
other
options.
So
just
wanted
to
introduce
that
for
council's
consideration.
Then
we
can
have
a
discussion.
So
the
the
thing
that
I
put
out
was
the
potential
for
a
motion
to
direct
the
City
attorney
to
draft
a
partial
moratorium.
B
Pausing
all
panel
work,
except
for
work
on
ordinance
revisions,
and
the
reason
why
I
put
this
forward
is
that
the
panel
has
perceived
a
need
for
changes
to
the
pop
enabling
ordinance
and
for
my
conversations,
I
think
they're
not
alone
in
that
I
share
their
concern
that
we
need
to
have
some
changes.
There
I
think
my
Council
colleagues
probably
do
as
well
and
so
they're,
taking
the
time
now
to
focus
on
revising
ordinances,
proposing
changes
to
the
ordinance.
B
So
their
desire
was
to
focus
on
those
changes
in
the
meantime,
while
they
fixed
the
process
and
I
know,
it's
been
a
difficult
time
for
the
pop
and
recent
months
with
some
of
the
challenges
they've
been
experiencing,
it's
been
a
challenging
time
for
the
community
as
well,
and
so
I
would
like
for
us
to
formalize
a
partial
moratorium
so
that
they
can
focus
on
making
those
changes,
and
then
we
can
come
back
at
a
date
certain
once
we
have
con,
hopefully
passed
some
ordinance
changes
and
then
they
can
resume
The
Taking
of
new
cases
and
and
if
I
could
just
ask
a
quick
clarifying
question
I
believe
that,
right
now
they
are
still
reviewing
cases
that
they
have.
AR
Mayor
you
do
currently,
they
have
five
cases
that
are
scheduled
for
review
through
August
8th.
Then
there
are
another
five
cases
that
they
will
schedule
for
review
and
the
independent
interim
monitor
expects
it
to
be
through
sometime
in
September.
So
there
are
a
total
of
10
cases
that
will
still
be
reviewed.
B
AQ
B
So
if
this
is
the
direction
council
is
willing
to
go,
I
would
actually
ask
City
staff
that,
while
they're
drafting
a
partial
or
a
term
that
they
also
work
with
all
the
parties
involved
in
propose
a
date
certain
for
us
to
consider.
When
we
consider
passing
that
partial
moratorium,
okay,
fair
enough
and.
AQ
Then
probably
process
question
for
Aaron.
AQ
Yeah
tonight
we
would
not
vote
on
the.
This
is
a
request
of
would
be
a
request
by
Council
to
ask
the
city
attorney's
office
prepare
a
motion
for
partial
moratorium.
We
would
not
be
voting
on
the
partial
moratorium
tonight,
and
so
what
would
we
do
since
we
don't
know
if
that's
going
to
pass
or
not?
What
would
we
do
with
the
recommendation
that
special
accounts
will
be
appointed
to
us
to
Dakota
conduct?
Would
that
simply
be
continued
and
then
we'd
have
binary
motions
next
week.
A
AQ
So
thanks
Aaron
just
kind
of
a
related
question.
Then,
is
there
a
certain
time
frame
in
which
we
must
I
understand
why
the
city
attorney's
office
can't
follow
up
on
the
complaint?
Is
there
certain
time
frame
in
which
we
must
appointed
special
counsel?
If
you
can't
do
it,
no.
AR
AR
AR
Good
question:
there
is
a
council
study
session
set
for
July
27th.
There
are
weekly
meetings
of
the
work
group,
that's
led
by
the
consultant,
Farah
muskadin
to
draft
Ordnance
revisions
So.
The
plan
is
to
come
back
to
Council
on
July
27th
with
a
plan.
Then
we
have
an
assessment
meeting
August
1st,
so
I
expect
that,
sometime
after
August
1st,
the
task
force
would
come
back
to
council
with
proposed
ordinances.
AR
J
If
I
could
just
clarify
too
I
I
think
Miss
muscadin
who's,
a
consultant
that
we've
hired
to
help
do.
This
will
be
working
with
a
variety
of
groups.
Certainly,
the
working
group
has
panel
members
on
it.
It
is
expected
some
community
members
will
be
on
it.
It
is
expected,
staff
will
be
on
it
and
we
are
in
the
midst
of
preparing
for
some
Community
engagement,
some
of
which
will
be
happening
very
soon
in
the
next
few
weeks.
J
That
study
session,
which
Deputy
City
attorney
Poe
spoke
to
is
indeed
happening
towards
the
end
of
the
summer.
We
believe
a
staff
that
we
are
slated
to
come
to
council
may
be
at
the
beginning
of
October.
It'll
depend
on
our
community
engagement
and
at
that
point
we
are
hopeful
that
Miss
muscadin
will
be
able
to
present
both
her
recommendations
to
council,
as
well
as
what
she
has
heard.
What
the
working
group
has
voted
forward
and
so
forth.
AQ
Well,
I'll
just
start
off
space,
saying
I'm
fine,
if
it's
the
will
of
council
to
instruct
the
City
attorney
to
to
draft
a
a
motion
for
us
to
look
at
next
week
for
a
partial
moratorium,
so
I'm
not
opposed
to
to
that
instruction.
I
am
struggling
a
little
bit
with
the
need
for
a
partial
moratorium
for
a
couple
reasons.
First
of
all,
as
we
heard
from
Aaron
just
a
few
minutes
ago,
it
sounds
like
the
the
police
oversight
panel
has
a
lot
of
work
to
do.
AQ
They're
working
on
it
and
that's
great
and
it
sounds
like
they've
got
work
to
fill
up
their
workloads
between
them
and
now
in
the
end
of
September.
We
just
heard
nerdia
say
that
that
she's
optimistic
that
changes
to
the
ordinance
can
occur
before
maybe
in
October
time
frame.
So
those
kind
of
coincide
pretty
nicely
I
heard
Aaron
say
that
there
is
no
downside
to
simply
not
a
plane.
AQ
A
special
counsel
at
this
moment
I
understand
that
if
we
were
to
have
a
partial
moratorium
that
might
moot
the
need
for
a
special
counsel
but
by
the
same
token
it
sounds
like
there's
no
rush
in
pointing
a
special
counsel
and
then
finally
I
have
yet
to
hear-
and
maybe
this
is
something
the
police
oversight
panel
or
their
chairs
could
provide
us
between
now
and
next
week.
What
what
changes
to
the
ordinance
are
needed
for
the
police
oversight
panel
to
do
its
work.
AQ
It
sounds
like
it's
going
to
do
its
work
on
the
pending
cases
through
the
end
of
September
anyway.
So
obviously,
there's
no
impediment
to
that.
I.
Do
think
that
we
all
agree
that
some
changes,
the
ordinance
aren't
necessarily
appropriate,
sounds
like
a
lot
of
them
relate
to
the
selection
process,
which
of
course,
would
not
go
into
effect
or
not
have
any
effect
until
there's
the
next
round
of
selections,
which
would
be
presumably
in
the
winter
time.
AQ
So
it
sounds
like
if
there
was
a
moratorium
between
now
and
call
it
September,
October
I'm,
not
sure
exactly
what
it
would
do,
because
there's
work
to
be
done
between
now
and
then
I
haven't
heard
a
list
of
things
that
are
impediments
to
that
work.
Either
current
work
or
any
new
work
that
might
come
along
in
the
next
few
weeks
and
it
sounds
like
we
don't
need
to
put
a
moratorium
in
place
to
avoid
pointing
a
special
counsel,
because
there's
no
rush
on
that.
AQ
D
Nicole
yeah
I
was
just
going
to
say
the
these
two
items
that
we're
talking
about
here
seem
like
they.
They
could
be
a
little
bit
contradictory,
removing
a
member
of
a
board
for
non-attendance
to
duty
and
cause,
while
suggesting
that
members
have
a
whole
panel
have
the
opportunity
to
pause
their
work,
and
so
I
just
want
to
say
you
know.
D
For
me,
the
common
thread
in
each
case
is
that
the
board
and
the
panel
are
the
ones
proposing
these
changes
and
if
any
board
or
commission
told
us
that
they
felt
unsafe
in
their
work,
and
they
needed
to
shift
temporarily
to
give
them
time
to
propose
improvements
to
their
working
conditions.
I
hope
we
would
honor
that
request
as
well.
So
I
will
support
drafting
a
partial
moratorium.
C
First
of
all
seems
that
many
at
least
the
people
that
I
talk
to
on
the
police
oversight
panel
and
I
have
some
great
discussions
this
week
really
want
this
more
to
partial
moratorium
and
I
feel
like
now
is
the
time
for
us
to
support
them.
It
has
been
a
very
stressful
six
months
for
me.
I
bet
you
for
a
lot
of
people
on
Council
for
staff
and
certainly
for
the
police
oversight
panel.
C
Both
those
that
just
chose
to
resign
and
those
that
are
staying
on
so
I
feel
this
would
be
for
me
what
I
would
want
to
do
to
support
them
and
to
show
them
that
we're
behind
them
and
we
are
behind
the
success
of
the
police
oversight
panel
back
in
December
I,
don't
think
it
was
November.
December
I
suggested
that
we
please
just
stop
this
panel,
put
it
on
a
short
pause,
so
we
can
figure
out
what
to
do
how
to
fix
this
ordinance
and
I
was.
C
You
know,
voted
down
at
the
time,
but
that
was
really
fine,
because
it
should
have
been
coming
from
the
police
oversight
panel.
That
suggested
not
really
me.
So
here
it
is
now-
and
here
we
are
at
that
time-
I
said
I.
Couldn't
you
know
the
difference
between
the
panel
selection
committee
interviews
and
the
more
and
the
ordinance
itself
was
so
what's
the
word
I
want
to
use
help
me
they
didn't
go
together.
They
didn't
sink
so
I
wanted
to
immediately.
C
For
that
reason,
stop
and
fix
the
ordinance,
but
I
didn't
think
it
would
work
out
and
there
here
we
are
today.
It
didn't
work
out.
So
I
think
that
we
should
take
this
opportunity
to
do
what
the
police
oversight
panel
asked
to
a
partial
moratorium
and
fix
the
ordinance.
I
will
say
for
those
that
don't
think
that
for
those
that
think
that
they're
going
to
stop
their
work,
they're,
certainly
not
going
to
stop
their
work.
They
have
to
work
on
fixing
the
audience
ordinance
with
the
rest
of
the
committee.
They
also
are
doing.
C
Long,
it's
not
long
so
one
of
the
police
oversight
panel
members
asked
me
to
announce
that
there
is
a
police
oversight
panel.
Welcomes
your
feedback
on
ordinance.
8430
join
us
for
feedback
session,
Wednesday
June,
21st
5
to
6
45
pm
at
the
canyon,
theater,
the
Boulder
Public
Library,
and
for
and
they
want
all
community
members
they
want
to
hear
from
everybody,
and
so
I
think
this
would
be
a
great
opportunity
for
the
whole
Community
come
together
and
support
each
other
and
try
to
go
past.
G
Yeah
I
concur
with
the
need
to
revise
the
ordinance
and
I'm
happy.
They
are
prepared
to
continue
to
work
on
that
and
if
we
do
not
need
to
initiate
a
moratorium
in
order
to
permit
that
work
to
proceed,
I
think
that
is
even
better
I
I
just
I
I
would
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
point
out
that
the
cessation
of
work
that
occurred
was
not
requested
of
counsel.
G
It
was
simply
determination
made
by
the
board
and
I
would
have
to
ask
what
would
we
do
in
an
analogous
situation
if
the
planning
board
said
we're
just
not
going
to
do
our
job
when
I
I
find
that
a
little
bit
perplexing,
but
then
perhaps
I'm
easily
perplexed
I'm
not
looking
to
punish
anybody,
but
I,
don't
know
that
I
if
there
is
a
way
for
the
work
to
continue
and
the
ordinance
revision
to
continue
without
putting
the
imprimatur
of
a
of
a
moratorium
on
it.
G
That
would
be
my
preference,
and
so
if
we
can
simply
let
it
lie
and
not
take
up
the
complaint
for
a
while,
we
can
always
discuss
a
moratorium
if
we
run
up
against
the
deadline
and
have
to
appoint
special
counsel
and
have
to
proceed,
and
we
can
make
that
determination
at
a
later
time.
Thank
you.
B
AQ
Want
to
understand
Aaron
if,
if
there
was
a
moratorium
put
in
place,
you
did
a
good
job
of
describing
the
the
10
cases
that
they're
going
to
still
handle
that
are
in
in
in
in
the
flight
between
now
and
the
end
of
September
I
assume
that
what
a
more
return
would
mean
is
if
a
new
case
came
along,
let's
say
in
July
or
August,
that
the
police
oversight
panel
would
not
take
that
up.
AQ
AR
Likely
it
would
move
forward
a
site
panel.
However,
cases
do
not
come
to
the
police
oversight
panel
until
after
the
Boulder
Police
finishes
its
investigation
So.
In
theory,
there
may
be
a
way
if
investigation
took
quite
a
long
time
that
it
would
still
queue
up
for
an
appropriate
length
of
time.
I.
AQ
Guess
yeah
I'm
sorry
I
was,
you
know,
articulate
my
question
if
if
a
investigation
was
concluded-
and
it
was
right
before
it
was
otherwise
right
for
the
police
oversight
panel
to
pick
it
up,
but
there
was
a
moratorium
in
place,
and
that
happened,
let's
say
in
July
or
August
or
September.
However
long
this
moratorium
would
last,
they
would
simply
not
take
it
up
and
the
the
matter
would
just
proceed
as
if
they
had
taken
a
pass
on.
Is
that
right,
correct?
Okay,
thanks.
B
It's
not
receiving
no
oversight,
it's
still
getting
the
police
officers
great
okay,
thanks
for
clarifying
that
so
I'll
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
which
is
a
motion
to
direct
the
City
attorney
to
draft
a
partial
moratorium,
pausing
all
penal
work,
except
for
work
on
ordinance
revisions
and
requesting
a
recommended
date
for
the
expiration
of
that
moratorium.
B
B
F
B
Thanks
everyone
for
your
consideration
and
then
Aaron,
maybe
if
I
could
turn
to
you,
do
we
need
to
continue
item
3H
until
after
we've
considered
this
moratorium?
Would
that
be
your
recommendation?
Yes.
Would
since
well
first
ask
a
time
in
question:
will
we
be
considering
able
to
consider
the
moratorium
at
the
special
meeting
next
week?
Yes,.
AR
AH
B
AQ
If
I
could
just
close
out
by
making
a
request,
which,
obviously
we
can't
ask
anybody
to
do
anything,
but
it
would
be
helpful
for
those
of
us
who
are
struggling
a
little
bit
with
the
moratorium,
if
perhaps
the
chairs
or
some
representative
of
the
police
oversight
panel
could
send
a
note
to
council
before
the
partial
moratorium
has
taken
up.
Maybe
setting
forth
the
the
things
changes
in
the
ordinance
or
other
things
that
the
police
oversight
panel
feels
needs
to
to
occur
and
which,
which
they
can't
do
on
new
cases.
AQ
J
You
so
much
council
members
I,
believe
they're
still
not
at
that
stage,
yet
they
are
working
with
our
consultant
and
really
hoping
to
get
feedback
from
Community
as
they
move
forward.
I
think
there
are
several
revisions
people
have
thought
of,
but
we're
not
quite
there
we're
just
kicking
off
that
working
group
to
really
think
about
what
those
changes
are.
As
we
move
forward.
P
AQ
Sorry
Mike,
thank
you
for
that
Nicole,
because
I
need
to
clarify
my
request.
It
wasn't
so
much
what
the
changes
are.
It
was
I
think
we
all
know
that
the
police
oversight
panel
voted
almost
unanimously
a
few
weeks
ago
to
stop
working,
so
they
must
have
had
a
reason
to
stop
working
and
I.
Just
wonder
if
they
could
share
that
reason
with
us.
Okay,
it.
J
Is
a
recording
I'm
happy
to
share
that
again?
It
is
the
May
10th
meeting
where
they
talk
extensively
about
the
reasons
in
which
they
want
to
decease
for
momentarily.
So
they
could
really
focus
on
the
ordinance
but
happy
to
share
that
great.
AQ
D
One
more
clarification,
so
is
that
sufficient
for
for
what
you're
asking.
B
We'll
look
at
those
recordings
for
clarifying
okay.
Well,
that
takes
us
to
the
rest
of
the
consent.
Agenda
3A
through
and
other
than
G
and
H
and
I
actually
might
ask
a
very
quick
request
of
the
council
employee
evaluation
committee
about
3M,
because
we're
considering
the
appointment
of
an
interim,
the
municipal
court
judge,
so
perhaps
Juni
and
or
Nicole.
You
might
just
highlight
that,
because
I
think
it's
worthy
of
no.
D
Okay,
so
thank
you
so
I,
you
know
I
think
as
as
was
outlined
in
the
memo
and
as
everyone
is
aware
of
now,
our
municipal
judge
will
be
stepping
down
as
of
June
30th
judge
Khan
has
worked
with
the
city
for
many
many
years
and
has
served
admirably
in
that
regard.
I
was
very
familiar
with
all
of
the
programs
that
the
court
is
currently
involved
in
and
we'll
be
able
to
step
in
pretty
seamlessly
is
also
very
well
known
and
I.
D
Think
one
of
the
other
known
within
the
within
our
Municipal
Court,
one
of
the
other
things
that
we
were
considering
is
that
there
is
a
lot
of
turnover
currently
going
on
in
some
of
the
upper
roles
in
the
municipal
court
right
now
with
court
administrator
and
a
couple
of
new
supervisor
roles,
and
so
trying
to
main
some
maintain.
Some
consistency
for
the
staff
seemed
like
a
really
good
idea
in
this
interim
appointment.
So
we
we
are
highly
recommending
judgecon
for
this
interim
appointment.
AQ
Just
two
things:
both
the
process-
one
is
I,
assume
I,
guess
I'm,
looking
to
probably
Teresa
on
this
one
I
assume
that,
in
addition
to
that
appointment
motion
thanks
for
that
there'll
be
a
process
discussion
at
some
point
in
time.
Maybe
this
summer
about
what
recommended
steps
are
to
identify
a
permanent
municipal
judge
is
that
right.
AG
AQ
B
AO
B
F
B
B
AI
B
B
F
F
Sir,
thank
you
5A
is
our
continued
public
hearing
for,
and
this
is
deliberations
only
no
public
testimony.
It's
for
the
consideration
consideration
of
a
motion
to
approve
the
landmark
alteration
certificate
to
rehabilitate
and
add
on
to
building
L
the
former
nurse's
dormitory
at
the
Academy
of
Mapleton
Hill
at
2543
4th
Street.
This
is
previously
addressed.
311
Mapleton
Avenue
is
a
pending
individual
Landmark
per
section
9-11-18
of
the
boulder
Revised
Code.
It
is
referenced
under
his
2023-00018.
B
B
B
We
have
this
Lac
in
front
of
us
so
and
I
know
the
so
all
right
nobody's
doing
it
I'll
do
it
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
approve
the
landmark
alteration
certificate
to
rehabilitate
and
add
on
to
building
L
the
former
nurse's
dormitory
at
the
Academy
of
Mapleton
Hill
at
2543
4th
Street
previously
addressed
311
Mapleton
Avenue,
pending
individual
Landmark,
first
section
911
18,
to
build
a
revised
code
and
I'll
note
that
the
the
applicant
expressed
a
desire
for
some
additional
conversation
about
some
window
treatments
and
I
feel
like
it's
worthy
of
further
consideration
anyway,
in
that
that
area
as
well.
B
Second,
any
further
discussion.
You've
been
real,
talkative
so
far,
none
okay!
Then
we
can
go
to
a
vote.
G
G
B
AH
So
it
would
be
conditionally
approved
and
then
those
conditions
are
worked
through
at
the
weekly
design
review
committee
meeting
with
the
applicant.
But
they
are
to
ensure
that
the
revised
designs
meet
the
conditions
that
that
have
been
passed.
B
AH
I
think
that
would
be
beneficial
I
think
the
discussion
at
the
landmarks
board
was
pretty
detailed
and
the
window
design
guidelines
are
very
specific
in
terms
of
the
importance
of
a
primary
secondary
and
tertiary
elevation,
and
so
the
conditions
that
the
landmarks
board
placed
and
recommended
to
you
all
were
to
maintain
the
window
openings
on
the
primary
elevations
and
allow
window
openings
on
the
tertiary.
So
I
do
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
have
clear
direction
for
the
landmarks
design,
Review
Committee,
about
consideration
of
additional
window
openings.
B
So
not
being
a
historic
preservation,
expert
I,
don't
really
have
I
think
the
ability
to
give
something
very
specific
other
than
just
to
have
a
continued
additional
conversations
about
it.
If
that's
too
vague,
then
I
can
withdraw
that
I
don't
know.
Could
anybody
on
Council
want
to
offer
a
different
opinion?
Mark
your
hands
still
up
and
Lauren,
of
course
has
spent
a
lot
of
time.
Mark
is
your
hand
still
up.
AI
AJ
B
AI
I
mean
when
I
read
sort
of
the
list
of
things
that
the
ldrc
brought
forward
in
particular.
I
also
feel,
like
the
revive
the
revised
design
of
the
balconies
to
minimize.
Their
visual
impact
seems
like
a
really
important
one
as
well.
Just
given
I
know
that
we
don't
want
to
make
new
things,
look
old,
but
it's
just
such
a
contrast.
It
seems
like
there
would
be
a
more
elegant
way
for
them
to
create
those
on
those
facades
more
in
line
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
AH
I
wonder:
Emily
has
the
slides.
If
you
could
pull
those
up,
we
could
go
through
the
conditions.
H
Well,
I,
just
like
I,
don't
know
if
you,
if
you
read
the
whole
suggested
staff
motion
language
because
it
does
include,
provided
the
condition
stated
by
The
Landmark
board
on
April,
12
2023
are
met
and
I
think
maybe
that
addresses
Lauren's
concern.
If
we
use
that
language
and
I
don't
know
if
Marcy
could
give
us
an
additional
five
words
to
add
to
the
staff
suggested
motion
language
that
incorporate
the
window
treatments
as
well,
then
maybe
we
could
make
that
motion
yeah.
B
Yeah
I've
got
that
revised
language.
I
can
revise
my
motion
if
people
and
I'll
see,
if
my
second
or
will
accept
it
so
I'm
going
to
restate
the
whole
thing
to
get
it
right.
Motion
to
continue
conditionally
approve
a
landmark
alteration:
certificate
to
rehabilitate
building
L,
the
former
nurse's
dormitory
at
the
Academy
Mapleton
Hill
at
2543
4th
Street,
previously
addressed
311
Mapleton
Avenue,
a
pending
individual
Landmark.
B
AH
B
AO
B
F
B
B
F
J
So
much
and
as
we
let
Carl
sort
of
get
his
bearings
I'll
say
that
the
issue
of
occupancy,
as
we
heard
not
just
in
today's
public
open
comment
but
through
the
emails
we
have
received
frankly
since
I've
been
in
the
city
two
years
ago
and.
L
J
From
beforehand
occupancy
is
an
issue
of
great
great
interest
in
our
community.
It
is
an
it
is
an
issue
where
there
have
been
many
opinions,
a
remind
Council
that
in
March
earlier
this
year
in
a
study
session,
they
asked
staff
to
think
about
and
analyze
two
options
to
bring
forward
those
options
for
whether
to
increase
occupancy
to
four
or
five,
and
there
are
some
additional
occupancy
and
Zoning
issues
that
staff
will
be
bringing
forward
today.
So
with
that
Carl,
hopefully,
I
have
bought
you
enough
time.
AS
Thank
you
neria
good
evening
Council,
so
tonight
we'll
be
talking
about
three
topics:
occupancy
reform,
Zoning
for
affordable
housing,
as
well
as
the
residential
growth
management
system.
So
I'll
conclude
with
that
one.
AS
AS
Community
engagement
bring
it
through
the
boards
for
comments,
so
we
wanted
to
report
back
to
the
Council
on
what
we've
been
hearing
from
the
public
as
the
boards
providing
some
statistics
that
were
requested
by
Council
previously,
as
well
as
further
analysis
of
the
options
we're
also
requesting
Direction
on
those
two
projects
and
also
Direction
on
the
residential
growth
management
system
that
we
have
right
now,
which
is
impacted
by
a
state
legislation
that
passed
in
May
related
to
such
growth,
Management
Systems.
So
we'll
talk
more
about
that
tonight.
AS
So
the
questions
that
we
have
for
Council
are
and
I'll
only
read
these
once
unless
you
need
me
to
read
them
again,
but
for
occupancy
reform,
it's
should
the
city
increase
the
occupancy
limit
to
four
or
to
five
people
Citywide
related
to
Zoning
for
affordable
housing.
The
question
is,
in
addition
to
the
changes
previously
supported
by
Council
in
March.
AS
And
then
the
last
question
is,
in
light
of
the
recently
adopted
State
legislation
that
prohibits
local
residential
growth
management.
Does
city
council
support
repealing
chapter
914
residential
growth
management
system
that
we
have
in
our
land
use
code
right
now,
so
we've
been
working
on
a
substantial
amount
of
community
engagement
since
we
last
spoke
a
number
of
ways
of
reaching
out
to
the
community,
so
we've
had
continued
engagement
with
neighborhood
groups
like
University
Hill,
Martin
Acres,
based
on
the
the
fact
that
a
lot
of
these
changes
would
impact
those
residential
neighborhoods.
AS
We
did
try
to
go
out
to
the
or
we
went
out
to
the
Aurora
East
neighborhood
for
a
block
party
where
we
were
able
to
talk
to
Residents
in
that
neighborhood
to
get
their
feedback.
We've
met
with
plan
Boulder
we've
met
with
the
hill
revitalization
working
group
to
get
the
word
out
to
students.
We've
been
talking
with
the
dean's
leadership
and
values
committee,
which
includes
representatives
of
student
government,
so
they
could
communicate
with
students
and
a
lot
of
renters
we've
presented
to
the
community
connectors
in
Residence.
AS
We've
had
conversations
with
Community
leaders,
which
is
basically
a
mixture
of
some
of
the
organizations
we've
reached
out
to
as
well
as
some
neighborhood
Representatives
we've
had
office
hours
virtually
and
in
person
to
answer
questions.
We've
also
heard
feedback
at
housing,
Advisory,
Board
and
planning
board
meetings,
and
we
also
did
the
be
heard
Boulder
questionnaire,
which
I'll
talk
about.
There's
a
lot
of
detail
in
the
packet
related
to
engagement.
It
was
a
big
part
of
the
last
few
months,
so
attachment
B
contains
kind
of
an
overall
summary
of
what
we've
heard
and
attachment.
AS
So,
on
the
be
heard,
Boulder
questionnaire,
I
think
a
lot
of
council
members
are
familiar
with
with
B
herd
Boulder.
It's
not
intended
to
be
a
statistically
valid
representation
or
some
sort
of
type
of
survey.
That's
done!
It's
really
one
of
the
tools
that
we
use
to
hear
feedback
from
the
community
to
understand
what
the
sentiments
are
out
in
the
community
to
to
hear
the
themes.
AS
It
is
a
good
tool
to
kind
of
cultivate
that
all
together
we've
promoted
the
questionnaire
to
different
key
stakeholders
throughout
the
community,
multiple
organizations,
neighborhood
groups,
we
use
use
next
door
and
other
social
media
platforms
to
get
this
out
to
the
public.
So
it
was
open
for
about
a
month
between
April
27th
and
May
26th.
AS
We
received
over
2
000
responses
and
over
1
000
written
responses.
So
you've
probably
heard
that
there
are
multiple
submissions
that
we
can
tell
from
looking
at
the
data
we
take
that
into
account
account.
Obviously
it's
not
with
the
same
weight
that
a
survey
would
have,
but
again
it's
a.
It
is
a
useful
way
of
of
hearing
from
the
community.
AS
So
again,
attachment
C
goes
into
a
lot
more
detail
on
what
those
responses
are
also
wanted
to
touch
on
and
counsel
is
certainly
familiar
with
this,
but
the
Senate
bill
23-213
that
related
to
land
use.
There
was
a
bill
that
proposed
to
potentially
prohibit
occupancy
occupancy,
as
we
have
it
in
our
code
today
to
liberalize
restrictions
on
adus
and
also
increase
density
along
Transit
corridors
and
allow
more
middle
housing
in
the
Community
Middle
housing,
meaning
duplexes
triplexes
quad
plexes
Townhomes.
AS
That
bill
ultimately
was
not
passed
by
the
state,
but
we
were
watching
it
closely.
We've
also,
at
the
request
of
council,
been
looking
at
a
number
of
different
studies,
commentaries
and
articles
Nationwide,
because
the
housing
crisis
is
obviously
touching
a
lot
of
communities
throughout
the
country.
So
there's
different
perspectives
and
we've
tried
to
show
both
those
perspectives
in
the
packet
with
the
links
we've
provided.
I.
Think
the
majority
of
of
the
studies
that
we
looked
at
showed
that
you
know.
AS
Obviously,
for
70
years
zoning
has
been
used
to
restrict
what
kind
of
housing
or
how
much
housing
can
be
in
certain
areas,
and
that's
you
know
kind
of
unique
to
you
know
North
America
largely
to
have
single-family
homes,
though
the
way
we
do
here.
If
you
go
to
other
countries,
you
see
a
lot
more
of
a
mixture
of
housing.
So
I
think
there
are
studies
that
show
that
those
restrictions
over
that
long
term
have
had
an
impact
on
Supply
and
whether
it's
demand
that's
high.
It
does
have
a
huge
impact
on
housing
prices.
AS
So
there
are
a
lot
of
studies
that
do
speak
to
you
have
to
have
a
multi-pronged
Approach
at
trying
to
create
more
affordability
in
communities
and
part
of
that
is
adding
to
the
inventory
of
Housing
and
loosening
up
zoning
barriers
so
that
more
housing
can
be
added.
There
are
some
studies
that
do
say
the
opposite
or
some
articles
that
that
speak
to
it
in
elastic
markets
and
that
if
the
demand
is
so
high
in
a
community,
it
is
very
difficult,
so
I
think
what
we
learned
is
that
you
know,
particularly
in
in
communities
like
Boulder.
AS
We
looked
at
like
the
barrier
where
there's
constrained
land
and
high
demand
for
a
number
of
reasons
that
does
make
it
very
even
more
challenging
for
communities
like
Boulder
to
try
to
bring
down
those
prices,
but
most
of
the
recommendations
we
saw
is
that
you
have
to
kind
of
do
a
multi-pronged
approach.
Do
a
lot
of
different
things
to
affect
that,
because
doing
nothing
is
not
going
to
help
the
problem.
AS
Some
bold
moves
have
been
made
on
the
west
coast
and
we
alluded
to
this
in
March,
particularly
in
Washington
and
Oregon,
so
I've
actually
been
reaching
out
to
different
communities
out
there
to
to
hear
what
their
experience
has
been.
We
talked
to
a
number
of
different
communities
in
Oregon
and
Washington,
like
Corvallis,
Portland
and
then
Walla,
Walla
and
Seattle,
just
to
kind
of
hear
and
the
states
out
there
have
actually
just
recently
passed
state
laws
like
the
bill.
AS
We
saw
here
in
Colorado
it
actually
passed,
so
it
does
require
middle
housing.
It
does
prohibit
occupancy.
So
some
of
these
communities
have
made
these
changes.
Some
are
still
in
the
process
of
making
the
changes,
so
I
think
the
feedback
we've
heard
largely
is
that
they
haven't
really
seen
what
the
outcomes
are,
because
there
hasn't
really
been
a
lot
of
time
since
they've
made
the
changes,
so
I
think
they
are
kind
of
Shifting
more
to
enforcement
base
approaches
rather
than
linking
it
with
occupancy.
AS
So
they've
they've
tried
to
put
more
resources
into
enforcement
to
affect
those
areas.
There
was
one
Community,
I
talked
to
I.
Think
it
was
Redmond
did
notice
that,
after
they
had
liberalized
some
of
the
code
related
to
housing
that
it
did
start
to
impact
their
housing
prices
and
lowering
prices.
So
that
was
the
one
example
I
I
heard
that
was
was
fairly
positive
about
affordability.
AS
I
normally
put
this
slide
at
the
end
of
the
presentation,
but
because
we're
talking
about
three
different
topics,
it
seemed
appropriate
just
to
kind
of
alert
people
to
The
Next
Step.
So
after
we
get
direction
from
Council
tonight,
we're
going
to
begin
ordinance,
preparation,
we'll,
probably
set
up
some
office
hours
or
some
sorts
of
ways
of
getting
people.
AS
The
ability
to
comment
on
on
the
ordinances
as
we
prepare
them,
but
these
are
the
dates
they're
tentative
as
of
now,
but
these
are
the
dates
that
we're
working
towards
so
we're
looking
at
July
25th
for
bringing
in
occupancy
ordinance
to
planning
board
to
make
a
recommendation.
I
think
the
housing
Advisory
Board
I,
think
is
July
26th
on
that
topic
and
then
the
Zoning
for
affordable
housing,
ordinance
at
planning
board
is
is
set
for
August
22nd
I
think
the
have
meeting
is
roughly
around
there.
AS
I
don't
have
the
date
in
my
head
at
the
moment,
but
we
do
have
it
tentatively
scheduled
to
come
back
to
council
occupancy
on
August
17th
and
then
Zoning
for
affordable
housing
on
September
21st.
AS
So
I'm
going
to
jump
first
into
occupancy
reform,
just
reminding
the
council
that
this
is
a
council
initiated
project
where
the
retreat
Endeavor
was
basically
set
up
as
performing
a
comparative
analysis
from
other
communities,
develop
a
model
occupancy
approach
and
solicit
Community
input
for
ordinance
revisions.
Oh.
B
AS
The
next
one
yeah
thank
you
for
asking
that,
yes,
that
was
the
intent
was
to
go
over,
go
through
this
one
particular
project
and
then
pause
at
the
at
the
key
issue.
Question
right
to
get.
AS
So,
just
just
to
be
clear,
with
Council
on
with
the
public.
What
is
occupancy,
there
are
kind
of
two
different
ways:
occupancy
is:
is
regulated.
There's
the
building
code
occupancy,
which
is
really
about
life
safety.
It
just
wants
to
make
sure
that
there's
not
an
a
situation
where
a
building
allows
like
overcrowding
of
people
that
could
be
dangerous
if
there's
an
emergency,
so
everyone's
fairly
familiar
with
these
types
of
signs
that
you
see
up
in
in
certain
buildings
that
limit
how
many
people
can
be
in
them.
AS
It's
there's
no
limit
on
the
number
of
family
members
and
I'll
talk
about
the
the
definition
on
the
next
slide,
but
it's
it's
one
or
two
or
three
or
four,
so
it's
an
or
between
all
of
these.
So
it's
members
of
a
family
plus
up
to
two
additional
persons
or
three
unrelated
persons
in
what
is
a
generally
low
density
residential
zone,
so
in
the
r
r
e
and
RL,
or
up
to
four
unrelated
persons
in
all
other
zones
or
two.
A
AS
In
any
of
their
children
by
Blood
marriage
guardianship,
including
foster
children
and
and
those
of
adoption,
we
do
have
slightly
different
regulations
for
adu's,
co-ops
and
group
living
uses.
We're
not
looking
at
changing
those
but
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
on
those.
If
there
are
any
so
I
know
the
the
topic
of
family
came
up
last
time.
We
believe
that
we
have
a
very
broad
definition
of
family,
so
we
haven't
been
recommending
changes
to
it.
AS
It
does
include
same-sex
marriage
or
domestic
Partnerships
and
a
lot
of
relatives
up
all
the
way
to
great
great
grandparents,
Grand
nieces,
Grand
necesses.
So
it's
very
broad,
so
we've
not
really
we've
we
have
alerted
Council,
had
asked
us
to
kind
of
include
this
as
part
of
our
Outreach
and
we've
included
that,
and
we
haven't
really
heard
any
comments
that
speak
to
changing
the
family
definition,
but
we
just
wanted
to
make
Council
aware
that
we
have
been
making
people
aware
of
what
we
have
in
the
code
relative
to
family.
AS
AS
In
the
zones,
and
then
the
four
unrelated
limit
is
in
those
green
areas,
you
can
see
the
majority
of
the
city
in
terms
of
land
area
is
under
that
three
unrelated
person
limit
I
won't
talk
about
all
the
options
that
we
talked
about
last
time,
but
the
focus
per
Council
has
been
to
be
on
option
b,
which
is
looking
at
a
simple
solution
which
is
really
increasing
the
occupancy
limit
to
four
or
to
five
unrelated
city-wide.
So
that's
what
we've
focused
on
in
response
to
requests
from
Council
on
statistics.
AS
AS
But
when
you
look
at
a
number
of
rental
units
per
occupancy
Zone,
you
can
see
that
in
the
three-person
zone
over
80
percent
of
the
units
in
the
three-person
zone
are
owner
occupied
and
then,
when
you
go
to
the
the
four-person
Zone
it
go,
it
drops
down
to
about.
40
percent
of
the
units
are
owner
occupied
and
you
can
see
there's
a
breakdown
by
neighborhood.
You
can
see.
There's
High
percentages
of
rentals,
particularly
in
the
University
adjacent
neighborhoods
of
Aurora
East,
Goss,
Grove,
Martin,
Acres,
Whittier
and
University
Hill.
AS
There
was
also
a
request
to
just
clarify
how
the
building
code
relates
to
occupancy
I'm,
not
an
expert
on
the
on
the
building
code.
In
this
case,
it's
actually
the
international
property
maintenance
code,
but
zoning
or
building
occupancy
really
kind
of
focuses
more
on
commercial
buildings,
but
it
does
have
generally
minimum
land
areas
based
on
clearances
that
you
have
to
have
based
on
number
of
people
so
generally
like
a
two.
A
minimum
size
of
a
unit
based
on
clearance
requirements
is
about
320
square
feet
and
I.
AS
Think
that's
for
like
two
people
and
then
the
minimum
size
for
an
efficiency
living
unit
in
the
ipmc
is
220
square
feet
and
there's
a
cap
of
elus
to
add
three
people.
I
know
there's
been
some
concerns
expressed
from
the
public
about
you
know.
If
the
city
were
to
go
to
Five
what
you
know
that
could
permit
five
people
in
an
elu
and
actually
the
building
code
would
then
step
in
be
like
the
cap
is
going
to
be
three.
AS
AS
These
are
a
lot
of
issues
that
come
up
in
a
lot
of
other
communities,
increased
activity
on
sites,
trash
and
weeds,
we've
heard
about
House
parties
and
then
noise,
and
obviously
we
do
acknowledge
that
the
hill
has
a
a
large
number
of
non-conformities
in
terms
of
dwelling
units,
so
there's
a
higher
percentage
of
a
higher
occupancy
in
those
areas,
even
though
those
the
zoning
in
those
areas
has
changed
over
time.
AS
So
it's
really
a
policy
issue
before
the
council
about
whether
the
impacts
of
these
types
of
things
is
really
linked
to
occupancy
or
not
a
lot
of
the
communities
that
we've
talked
to
that
have
decided
to
loosen
up
their
occupancy,
regs
or
repeal
them
have
really
decoupled
the
issues
and
really
just
kind
of
focused
more
on
enforcement,
rather
than
just
occupancy
alone.
So
it
is
something
we'd
want
to
hear
from
Council
about.
As
far
as
enforcement
police
does
handle
noise
and
parking
in
the
right-of-way.
AS
In
conjunction
with
Community,
Vitality
planning
and
development
services
handles
any
complaints
related
to
occupancy
or
illegal
dwelling
units
or
property
maintenance
issues.
Active
enforcement
on
occupancy
has
been
largely
paused
in
recent
years
due
to
the
pandemic
and
due
to
staff
constraints,
but
we
do
move
forward
on
any
complaints
that
we
receive
to
address
them
generally.
If
there's
instances
of
over
occupancy
discovered
in
a
complaint,
it's
something
that
has
to
be
addressed
at
the
next
leasing
cycle,
so
that
people
aren't
being
kicked
out
while
they're
living
in
the
unit.
AS
So
I'm
going
to
jump
into
Community
engagement
specific
to
occupancy.
So
again,
we've
had
a
conversations
with
a
number
of
different
groups,
I'm
going
to
try
to
summarize
this.
The
best
I
can,
but
in
talking
with
University
adjacent
neighbors
and
you've
heard
some
of
these
concerns
and
during
public
comment
as
well.
There's
a
concern
that
loosening
up
occupancy
rules
will
drive
out
families.
It
will
benefit
only
landlords
in
terms
of
it
won't
bring
down.
Prices
and
landlords
will
want
to
make
more
money
off
it.
AS
We
got
kind
of
both
perspectives
that
we've
we
heard
from
students
that
were
struggling
with
the
cost
of
housing
in
the
community
and
that
they
were
very
open
to
loosening
up
the
regs
homeowners
in
that
area
were
not
necessarily
against
more
people,
but
they
they
did
Express
a
lot
of
concerns
about
parking
just
because
Aurora
East
is
in
an
area
where
there's
some
overflow
from
students
that
live
at
Williams
Village
that
Park
their
cars
in
the
neighborhood,
so
they're
directly
impacted
for
from
parking.
We've
heard
similar
parking
concerns
in
Martin
acres
and
on
the
hill.
AS
We
talked
to
the
hill
revitalization
working
group,
which
is
composed
of
property
owners
as
well
as
students,
so
that
a
lot
of
the
perspectives
from
the
students
was
that
they
would
like
to
see
things
be
made
easier
for
students,
because
they're
struggling
to
be
in
in
Boulder
and
go
to
school,
and
then
a
lot
of
them
have
to
choose
to
live
outside
Boulder
and
commute
in
to
go
to
go
to
class,
and
then
we've
also
heard
that
concerns
about
just
increasing
occupancy,
without
having
it
being
tied
to
affordability
that
that's
not
going
to
specifically
address
affordability.
AS
When
we
talk
to
the
dean's
leadership
and
values
committee,
it's
mostly
Student
Government,
so
we
one
quote
from
that
was
that
Boulder
is
crazy
unaffordable.
We
there
needs
to
be
more
housing
security
for
students,
so
that
they
were
aware
of
a
lot
of
students
that
knew
they
were
living
in
over
occupied
situations
where
they
could
be
potentially
evicted
and
that
and
then
we
also
heard
that
students
have
a
lot
of
strong
opinions
about
this.
But
you
may
not
see
them
at
these
meetings.
AS
We
talked
to
the
community
connectors
in
Residence.
There
wasn't
a
lot
of
discussion
on
this
particular
topic
other
than
there
was
support
for
for
getting
rid
of
occupancy
regulations.
You
know
based
on
the
discriminatory
routes
of
occupancy
regulations,
so
we
heard
that
it
kind
of
we
spent
really
more
time
on
Zoning
for
affordable
housing,
which
I'll
talk
about
later
in
the
community
leaders,
conversation
kind
of
heard,
both
sides
of
it.
AS
We
heard
a
firsthand
account
of
an
eviction,
someone
that
was
going
through
an
eviction
and
the
trouble
that
that
was,
you
know,
causing
them
and
that
they
knew
of
other
accounts.
Of
that
we
heard
support
for
five
unrelated
as
a
city-wide
limit,
but
we
also
heard
the
other
side
of
the
story
were
of
the
University
adjacent
neighborhoods
felt
very
strongly
about
it
being
Exempted
out
still
from
any
increase
in
occupancy.
AS
Relative
to
the
be
heard
Boulder
again,
these
are
more.
What
we
look
at
is
observations,
but
we
saw
in
general
that
there
was
more
support
for
for
unrelated
than
five
unrelated,
with
more
strongly
support
or
somewhat
support
when
it
got
to
five
unrelated.
It
was
with
a
lesser
amount
of
support
and
we
saw
more
a
higher
level
of
definitely
do
not
support
with
the
five.
AS
A
majority
of
the
respondents
did
not
show
support
for
removing
occupancy
requirements
entirely,
which
we
pose
that
question
to
them.
Most
of
the
respondents
indicated
that
they
were
homeowners,
but
about
a
third
indicated
that
they
were
renters.
AS
So
we
talked
to
housing
Advisory
board
about
this
on
April
26th,
all
members,
except
for
one
felt
that
the
occupancy
rules
should
be
changed.
The
opposing
member
was
more
skeptical
of
the
change
and
felt
that
it
wouldn't
necessarily
guarantee
affordability
and
that
the
focus
should
be
more
on
allowing
more
co-ops
per
year.
Most
acknowledged
that
loosening
the
rules
was
the
right
trajectory
for
the
city.
AS
The
issue
about
investors
coming
in
and
buying
properties
was
was
raised,
and
we've
heard
that
in
in
public
comment
as
well,
they
they
felt
like
that
is
a
legitimate
concern,
but
they
didn't
feel
like
it
should
be
handled
through
zoning.
It
should
be
handled
through
licensing
or
some
other
mechanism.
AS
Planning
board
to
discussed
this
on
April
18th.
It
was
a
more
mixed
response.
There
were
three
members
of
planning
board
that
expressed
support
for
loosening
up
occupancy,
that
it
was
the
right
solution
to
address
the
housing
crisis
that
there'd
be
more
housing
security
by
loosening
it
up.
We've
heard
quotes
of
like
gentle
infill
or
a
better
use
of
land.
AS
They
felt
that
it
was
a
better
solution
than
the
veterans
are
for
people
ballot
measure
which
raised
concerns
related
to
people
or
basically
encouraging
Property
Owners
by
cramming
in
bedrooms
to
get
more
people,
and
that
this
was
a
better
way
of
of
getting
at
the
solution,
and
then
we
heard
one
in
a
board
member,
noting
that
occupancy
should
not
be
regulating
the
you
know
the
relation
between
individuals
within
a
unit.
There
were
two
members
that
were
firmly
against
increasing
occupancy
limits.
AS
They
were
concerned
about
the
negative
impacts
that
could
happen
to
the
two
neighborhoods
from
it
that
landlords
would
get
more
money
and
that
families
would
be
driven
out
that
there
we
heard
similar
sentiments
about
there's
no
mechanism
to
guarantee
affordability
with
increasing
occupancy,
and
we
heard
the
discomfort
related
to
overriding
the
public
vote
from
the
ballot
measure.
There
were
two
members
that
expressed
that
they
were
in
the
middle
on
the
issue.
AS
They
wanted
to
see
more
data,
they
did
have
concerns
about
parking,
and
one
of
the
members
did
say
that
if
it's,
if
it
were
to
be
increased,
that
they
would
be
more
comfortable
with
a
conservative
moving
to
four
rather
than
five.
AS
B
D
Thanks
so
much
Carl
I
really
appreciate
your
just
kind
of
taking
the
work
that
we
asked
you
to
do
and
carrying
it
forward
like
this.
So
thank
you.
I
was
just
wondering
about
thinking
about
a
mid-august
implementation.
D
Do
you
anticipate
any
impacts
on
students
in
the
middle
of
moving
in
with
that
date?
So,
for
example,
would
people
be
able
to
add
additional
people
to
their
leases,
especially
if
they
were
intending
to
live
over
occupied
and
will
there
do
you
anticipate?
There
would
be
any
flexibility
from
landlords
and
letting
people
change
their
leases.
AS
We
did
hear
that
concern
when
we
talked
to
students,
because
you
know
the
timing
isn't
optimal,
because,
obviously,
if
Council
were
to
approve
an
ordinance
in
August,
it
would
go
into
effect.
You
know
pretty
much
around
the
time
that
students
are
coming
back,
so
the
leases
are
already
written
up.
In
that
case,
I
I
don't
know
that
I
can
speak
to
whether
landlords
would
have
the
flexibility
to
change
it
post.
You
know
any
ordinance.
We
we
expect
that
you
know
obviously
in
the
next
leasing
cycle.
They
would
start
to
adapt
to
that.
D
D
AS
D
AS
D
Thank
you,
yeah
I,
think,
just
as
a
you
know,
a
point
of
curiosity
for
the
people
who
are
already
there
just
so
that
there
is
Clarity
in
in
what
is
available
to
them.
If
an
ordinance
were
to
pass,
then
my
my
colleagues
can
chime
in
there
as
well
and
then
so.
One
of
the
things
that
some
folks
have
mentioned
is
exempting
some
neighborhoods
from
these
changes.
D
Did
we
hear
anything
about
that
from
any
of
the
renters?
Just
because
it
feels
like
it's
a
really
complicated
thing
for
renters
who
do
tend
to
move
around
the
city
a
little
more
anyway
and
I
didn't
as
at
least
as
I
was
reading
through
I,
didn't
really
hear
anything
about
exemptions
for
certain
areas
from
the
renters
and
students.
AS
G
It
seems
clear
that
the
community
is
is
pretty
much
all
over
the
lot
with
respect
to
this
proposal.
So
I'm
going
to
ask
you
a
couple
of
questions
that
I
I'd
kind
of
like
the
professional
Viewpoint,
you
know
Based
on
data
as
opposed
to
Simply.
What
polls
have
told
us
or
what
Outreach
groups
have
told
us?
G
Do
you
think
that
increasing
density
will
increase
the
tendency
to
monetize
housing
stock
and
have
an
adverse
impact
on
family's
ability
to
buy
those
houses?
If
not,
why
just
tell
me
about
why.
G
AS
AS
I
would
say,
I
think
it's
a
legitimate
observation
or
or
a
conclusion
about
how
zoning
has
had
a
an
impact
on
what
housing
prices
are
because
of
you
know
the
limited
amount
of
land
and
that
a
lot
of
land
is,
you
know,
zoned
for
a
single
family
and
if
there's
additional
zoning
restrictions
that
puts
more
of
a
premium
on
each
housing
unit,
so
I
think
on
the
flip
side,
I
think
adding
housing
I
think
we've
been
adding
housing
for
for
many
years
and
it
does
have
an
impact
but
I
think
they're,
PR
I,
think
all
the
studies
say
you
have
to
do
more
to
try
to
affect
that
change
and
it
in
a
sense
it
is
trying
to
mitigate
for
decades
of
a
certain
type
of
planning,
so
I
think
I,
see
I,
see
the
the
merits
of
both
sides,
but
not
doing
anything
I
think
could
really
impact
housing
prices.
AS
G
Was
not
suggesting
that
that
nothing
be
done.
I'm
I'm,
trying
to
inquire
as
to
whether
this
particular
action
is
actually
going
to
result
in
what
we
desire,
which
is
more
affordable,
housing
and
more
accessible
housing
to
a
greater
range
of
people,
including
families.
I
mean
I'm
hard-pressed
to
see
how
this
is
going
to
give
us
that
result
other
than
being
able
to
accommodate
more
students
when
I
don't
discount.
G
But
this
is
this
is
not
going
to
provide
housing
for
families
of
any
kind
and
point
of
fact,
I
think
it's
going
to
result
in
families
who
are
now
renting
a
lesser
homes
from
continuing
to
rent
them,
because
the
landlords
are
going
to
have
an
opportunity
to
increase
their
rent
roll,
so
I'm
not
sure
we're
getting
the
result
that
we
would
like
to
get.
This
is
not
about
not
addressing
affordable
housing.
This
is.
Are
we
addressing
it
in
a
way
that
that
actually
is
going
to
produce
a
result?
That
is
beneficial
to
the.
B
G
My
question
is:
is
you
know
what
what's
the
basis
for
the
point
of
view.
B
AS
Yeah
I
mean
the
only
thing
I'll
add
is
that
you
know
cities
changing
occupancy
regulations
is
still
relatively
new
and
I
I
will
admit
that
I
struggled
to
find
a
definitive
study.
That
shows
you
do
this.
It
reduces
the
price,
I
mean,
but
I
also
think
there's
a
lot
of
studies
that
that
say
that
doing
this,
along
with
you
know,
allowing
more
adus
allowing
more
housing
can
affect
the
housing,
but
it
has
to
all
be
done
together
that
that's
my
view.
AS
AT
Members,
this
is
Brad
Mueller,
director
planning
and
development
services.
If
I
may,
maybe
I
can
intersect
with
some
other
ideas.
There
I
think
it's
safe
to
say
and
I'm
going
to
ask
Carl
to
can
be
honest
here.
AT
We
did
not
find
in
the
literature
and
in
the
examples,
definitive
answers
about
whether
ultimately
increasing
the
housing
stock,
or,
in
this
case,
occupancy
being
a
form
of
of
how
to
adding
to
the
housing
stock,
ultimately
is
a
main
driver
for
reducing
prices
or
whether
that
gets
counteracted
in
in
its
entirety
through
the
potential
of
increased
housing
stock
or,
in
this
case
again
occupancy
allowing
for
the
possibility
of
of
increasing
rents,
and
this
I
would
say
in
observing
the
debate
and
discussions
and
input.
AT
Throughout
this
item,
there
have
been
assertions
on
both
sides
on
there
and
and
we've
just
simply
not
found
definitive
answers
out
either
in
in
other
communities
or
in
the
literature
and
in
fact,
I
would
even
go
so
far
as
to
say
that
this
exact
conversation
was
very
much
at
the
heart
of
the
state
discussion
about
whether
simply
increasing
the
amount
of
housing
stock
in
the
state
would
lower
prices
or
not,
and
so
I
think
not
to
put
words
in
Carl's
mouth
but
I
think
the
answer
is
it's
just
not
absolutely
definitive,
but
we
do
know
that
zoning
and
providing
land
use
tools
is
a
toolbox.
AT
This
is
one
tool
that
we've
explored
over
as
I
understand
it.
Many
many
years
well
before
my
tenure
and
and
that's
why
we're
bringing
it
Forward
at
this
time,
at
council's
request.
AN
I
got
a
couple
questions.
One
start
with
a
little
levity.
Can
we
change
away
from
residential
estate
just
a
little
this
day
and
age?
The
word
estate
sort.
V
AN
But
I
digress,
but
we'll
just
log
that
one
away
a
couple
things
I
mean
I'll.
Just
sort
of
touch.
AN
I'll
ask
a
question
about:
maybe
code
enforcement
parking
are
all
part
of
those
things,
but
I
want
to
start
with
what
we
started
to
hear
about
a
bit
about
in
emails
and
some
of
the
commentary
tonight
was
regarding
not
just
necessarily
overlays
but
specifically
like
non-conforming
and
and
how
that
maybe
impacts
the
hill
and
in
particular
what
I
found
was
interesting
is
then
I
know
Bob,
sent
a
hotline
on
that
and
maybe
he'll
be
able
to
address
that
point
as
well,
but
a
Community
member
brought
up
a
very
interesting
part
within
our
code
that
I
thought
I
wanted
to
get
your
thoughts
on
with
regards
to.
AN
Does
it
provide
an
actual
cap
with
regards
to
occupancy
in
those
non-conforming
areas
and
that's
sort
of
like
not
I,
think
it's
a
9-8-5,
but
it
basically
just
says
units
with
an
occupancy
greater
than
four
unrelated
persons
shall
not
exceed
a
total
occupancy
of
the
dwelling
unit
of
one
person
per
bedroom,
and
so
I'm
wondering
is
that
an
upper
end
sort
of
threshold?
That's
there,
and
so
when
you
have
non-conforming
that
might
have
already
a
stated
occupancy
of
six
or
seven,
but
maybe
only
have
three
bedrooms.
AN
Are
they
already
thus
captain
at
their
Max,
because
I
think
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
with
the
non-conforming
part?
Are
we
looking
at
this
massive
increase
of
of
occupancy
or
are
they
really
already
capped
out,
in
which
case
changing
to
five
becomes
irrelevant?
And
it's
really
at
that
point,
a
function
of?
Do
they
just
build
more
bedrooms,
not
where
their
non-conforming
status
gives
them
a
leg
up
to
sort
of
just
have
boosted
occupancy
of
upwards
of
50
or
100?
In
some
cases,
yeah.
AS
AS
I
think
in
our
analysis
of
that,
if
Council
were
to
increase
the
occupancy
above
three,
for
instance,
to
four
or
five
we'd
have
to
like
revisit
that
section,
to
see
whether
that
four
would
have
to
change
to
be
consistent
with
the
first
part
that
caps
it
in
the
zone
but
with
the
non-conformities.
Our
thinking
was
that
it
would
increase
the
amount
potentially
in
certain
news
of
how
many
people
could
be
in
there
in
each
unit.
AS
But
in
looking
at
it
further
and
discussing
it
further,
those
units
are
non-conforming
and
are
we
already
have
a
definition
in
the
code
called
expansion
of
a
non-conforming
use
which
includes
occupancy.
So
if
someone
were
to
go
from
what
the
occupancy
is
today
and
wanted
to
increase
it
to
whatever
the
the
main
occupancy
is
per
unit
for
a
conforming
unit,
it
would
trigger
a
non-conforming
use
review
application.
AS
So
that's
something
that
we
would
want
to
hear
from
Council
tonight
about
is
whether
that's
something
that
should
be
done
or
whether
that
should
be
capped
or
should
be
avoided,
because
it
could
be
avoided.
There
could
be
new
language.
That's
added
that
says
that
the
non-conforming
occupancy
is
what
it
is
before
this
increase
and
therefore
they're
not
granted
an
increase
to
avoid
those
the
potential
impacts
of
that.
So
it's
something
we
would
like
to
hear
from
Council
on
okay,.
AN
I
appreciate
that
Carl,
maybe
I
guess
so
as
I
can
understand
effectively
if
we
just
increase
occupancy
to
five
across
the
city.
It
wouldn't
just
be
this
massive
unregulated
increase
for
the
non-conforming,
Properties
or
dwellings.
Some
would
be
capped
based
on
the
number
of
bedrooms.
Others
might
be
capped
because
of
that
transition
that
would
trigger
a
use
review,
so
there's
clearly
controls
that
would
either
slow,
stymie
or
outright
limit
that
sort
of
unregulated,
just
boost
of
of
occupancy.
That
some
are
concerned
may
happen
so.
AN
It
it
might
be
a
more
gentle
or
or
intentional
increase
as
a
matter
of
speak
because
of
those
controls.
AS
Yeah,
our
analysis
is
that
you
know
an
increase
for
the
whole
city.
It
might
still
fall
below
what
the
non-conformity
is,
so
they
just
carry
on
with
their
non-conformity
or
it
might
be
higher.
But
in
the
cases
where
it's
higher,
that's,
where
it
would,
it
wouldn't
be
automatic,
it
would
be
they'd
have
to
do
a
a
non-conforming
use
review.
AS
So
you
know
that
does
lead
us
down
a
road
of.
Do
we
want
to
start
seeing
landlords
coming
in
with
these
non-conforming
use
reviews
to
increase
occupancy.
We
may
not,
but
that's
or
so
there
could
be
a
remedy
for
that
or
we
might
just
look
at
it
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
Just
like
we
do
other
non-conforming
use
reviews.
AN
AQ
AS
We
we
don't
normally
see
that
because
see
right
now
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
ask
for
that.
If
the
occupancy
were
to
be
increased
and
the
code
says
this,
they
could
ask
for
that.
So
we
don't
really
see
that
we
usually
see
what
we
normally
see
particularly
on
the
hill,
is
a
building
that
has
non-conforming
density.
AS
AQ
How
would
you
if,
if
we
relied
on
the
use
review
that
landlords,
if
they
were,
let's
say
that
the
the
there
was
a
increase
in
occupancy
authorized
by
Council,
and
let's
say
the
landlord
would
then
would
have
some
Headroom
there,
but
it
was
would
be
required
to
go
through
use
review.
How
would
you
let
landwards,
because
we're
talking
about
hundreds
of
properties?
AS
That's
a
good
question,
I'm,
not
sure
I
think
just
like
we
do
today
like
they
a
lot.
Most
of
them
know
that
their
property
is
non-conforming.
F
AS
Know
so
they'll
come
in
for
a
non-conforming
use
review,
but
it
hasn't
really
been
linked
to
occupancy
explicitly
so
I
think
part
of
its
messaging.
You
know
as
much
as
we
can.
If
it
does
change
you
know,
and
then
we'd
have
to
look
at
them.
Just
like
we
do
any
other
user
view.
Are
they
improving
the
appearance
right
in
the
building?
Are
they
are
they
demonstrating
to
us
that
they're
not
going
to
generate
more
parking,
because
if
they
do,
then,
if
they
increase
impacts,
usually
the
use
review
can't
be
approved.
AI
AI
AS
I
mean
it's
it's
years
and
years
of
zoning
changing
that
has
created
that
condition.
So
it's
all
across
the
board.
It's
like
you,
said,
there's
actual
apartment
buildings
that
you
couldn't
build
today
and
and
there's
some
that
are
single-family
homes
that
were
built.
You
know
turn
turn
of
the
last
century
that
some
were
built
with
additional
units
like
almost
like
adus
in
them,
some
were
just
regular
but
had
more
of
an
occupancy,
and
if,
if
there
was
an
inspection
done
back
in
the
70s,
it
said
this
is
the
occupancy
and
the
rules
change.
AI
AS
AN
And
so
one
of
the
questions
I
have
and
I
know
that
Brad
and
Carl
just
got
back
to
me
a
little
bit
today
on
this
one,
so
I
appreciate
it
so
I'll
just
tee
it
up
for
everybody
else.
In
that
sense,
he's
really
talking
about
that.
You
know
one
of
the
things
we're
trying
to
focus
on
instead
of
legislating
where
legislating
people,
we
would
focus
on
legislating
the
impacts
right.
So
that's
where
we
have.
AN
You
know
thinking
about
trash,
other
things
like
that
parking
and
so
I
wanted
to
get
a
sense
of
just.
We
keep
coming
back
to
parking
on
a
bunch
of
different
areas
of
late,
and
so
you
know
whether
it
be
different
developments
and
parking,
minimums
and
or
the
spillover
into
neighborhoods
npps,
and
that
sort
of
thing
I
just
want
to
get
a
sense
of.
Where
are
we
at
in
a
place
to
start
really
tackling
this
head-on,
because
it's
important
I
think
for
a
bunch
of
us
that
have
been
thinking
about
it?
AN
AT
Yeah
happy
to
answer
that
Brad
Mueller
with
planning
and
development
services
still
Chris
Jones
actually
is
here
yes
to
speak
to
this
a
little
bit
too,
but
to
the
general
question
of
parking.
We
have
just
very
recently
internally
had
discussions
about
that
very
likely
being
a
candidate
for
further
study
and
and
maybe
a
work
plan
item.
AT
The
city
did
undertake
a
review
of
zoning
parking
requirements,
eight
seven
six
years
ago,
kind
of
ramped
up
and
stalled
ramped
up
and
installed,
but
we
probably
are
ripe
for
re-looking
at
those
just
across
the
board,
and
it
would
certainly
make
sense
to
start
to
look
at
some
operational
elements
as
well.
AT
I
do
want
to
take
just
a
real,
quick
commitment
to
introduce
you
to
Jen
Ross
to
who's
here
as
well.
Gin
is
our
new
manager
for
Code,
Compliance
I
know
you
all
are
familiar
with
the
fact
that
Code
Compliance,
which
is
Building
Life
Safety
kind
of
things,
sits
within
our
department,
code
enforcement
and
police.
So
to
your
broader
point,
if
I
was
is,
if
I
was
following,
you
councilman
is
the
broader
question
of
enforcement
as
well
here
to
the
city
manager's
office.
AT
Nuri
has
really
initiated
a
multi-pronged
approach
towards
ramping
that
up
both
with
the
focus
on
the
hill
but
also
city-wide
and
I,
know.
Council
is
familiar
with
the
number
of
those
initiatives,
so
I
won't
go
into
detail
about
that,
but
suffice
it
to
say
that
there's
a
multi-pronged
and
multi-year
effort
underway
to
increase
both
our
capacity
and
our
approach
towards
code
enforcement
and
Code
Compliance
and
in
fact,
enforcement
across
the
board.
AT
As
a
relatively
newcomer
to
the
the
city
organization,
others
have
made
the
observation
to
me
that
Boulder
for
years
has
been
great
at
innovating
things
and
innovating
and
innovating,
and
we've
got
a
pretty
big
pile
of
innovation
now
and
we
need
to
be
able
to
make
sure
we're
enforcing
and
all
those
things
as
well.
Thanks.
AN
C
Are
you
saying
that
we
are
going
to
be
working
on
enforcing
our
ordinances
like
noise,
trash
and
parking,
or
are
you
just
referring
to
parking?
Do
you
have?
Are
you
talking
about
working
on
a
parking
plan,
neighborhood
parking
program,
or
do
you
not
want
to
get
so
detailed
and
you
just
saying
we're
thinking
about
parking.
AT
To
your
first
question,
I
was
talking
about
a
general
increasing
of
the
robustness
of
enforcement
overall,
and
certainly
I'll
defer
to
Murray
to
speak
to
that
more.
If
you
like,
as
to
parking
specifically
I,
was
talking
about
looking
at
the
Planning
Development
code
relative
to
parking,
but
recognizing
this
idea.
That's
come
up
in
the
last
two
days
of
integrating
some
of
that
review,
with
neighborhood
parking
planning,
very
good
and
Innovative
idea
and
I.
AT
H
H
So
I
know
we
we
looked
at
the
the
neighborhood
parking
program
thoroughly
during
my
maybe
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
two
yeah
two
and
a
half
years
ago,
previous
Council
I
think
wrapped
that
up
and
it
does
feel
like
it
keeps
coming
up,
and
maybe
we
haven't
quite
gotten
where
we
want
to
get
to
with
that
and
I
I.
Remember
like
five
years
ago,
when
I
was
out
in
the
audience,
Evan
rabbit
said
something
like
people
don't
hate
their
neighbors.
H
Why
can't
just
everybody
have
to
have
a
parking
like
two
parking
permits
for
a
house
and
like
sort
of
equitably
spread
that
across
the
city
so
that
it's
not
just
the
neighborhoods
that
are
feeling
impinged
on
and
I
I
guess
I,
just
wonder
how
big
can
we
go
and
and
what
stops
us
from
going
there
and
assuming
that
we,
you
know
the
program
about
a
quota
based
system
by
any
stretch,
but
like
somewhat
pays
for
itself
by
the
you
know,
writing
tickets.
I
assume
would
would
cover
the
cost
of
of
staff
to
do
that.
H
AU
Good
evening
Council
thank
you,
council,
member
friend
for
the
question:
I'm
Chris
Jones,
the
director
of
community
vitality
and
among
our
broad
portfolio
of
things
that
we
work
on
WE
administer
parking
management
strategies
throughout
the
city,
including
the
neighborhood
parking
permit
program,
and
so
yes,
as
you
recall,
we've
done
a
significant
amount
of
work
on
that
program
over
the
years.
The
program
and
it's
in
its
beginning
was
really
focused
on
a
specific
type
of
cars
that
we
hate
and
those
are
not
even
our
neighbor's
cars.
AU
Those
are
folks
who
are
commuting
in
visitors,
hikers
folks,
who
don't
even
belong
in
the
neighborhood
and
that's
really
what
the
program
in
its
origination
focused
on,
and
so
we
are
very
open
to
exploring
another
NPP
strategy
that
would
be
focusing
on
our
neighbor's
cars.
But
it's
not
the
program
that
we
have
right
now.
AU
So,
as
Brad
suggested
as
we
are
looking
at
parking
code
changes
for
the
land
uses
throughout
the
city,
we
would
want
to
work
in
tandem
with
the
planning
department,
understanding
the
implications
of
those
changes,
especially
if
we're
talking
about
eliminating
parking
minimums
for
new
developments.
How
do
we
want
to
translate
that
into
how
are
we
going
to
manage
vehicles
that
are
going
to
have
to
find
some
place
to
park
if
they
still
exist?
So
really
look
forward
to
that
conversation?
Oh.
H
It's
also
my
own
car
right
and
and
if
I've
got
kids
like
I,
think
it
does
fit
with
some
TDM
goals
right
like
if,
if
there's
a
way
that
the
city's
saying
sort
of
you
know,
a
household
is
going
to
have
fewer
cars
total
than
we've
got
fewer
people,
ideally
driving
in
the
city,
let
alone
coming
into
the
city,
because
we're
already
kind
of
looking
like
that,
if
I'm
hearing
you
correctly
we're
looking
at
or
have
some
strategies
on
that
one.
So
it's
more
like
one.
AU
Thing
we'll
want
to
be
really
careful
about.
Is
the
equity
component
to
it,
because
this
is
not
a
problem
that
exists
in
all
parts
of
the
city
in
residential
zones?
It's
primarily
in
areas
that
developed
prior
to
the
vehicle
being
a
primary
mode
of
transportation,
and
so
it's
not
necessarily
a
blanket
solution,
and
we
need
to
be
really
thoughtful
and
careful
on
that
Equity
approach.
B
AU
Is
very
fair,
yes,
okay
or
they
would
like
the
the
vehicle
associated
with
that
welcome,
visitor
to
maybe
not
necessarily
be
parked
in
front.
B
AI
This
this
is
for
Carl.
So
at
one
point
during
the
presentation
you
talked
about
higher
occupancy
on
the
hill
and
I'm
that
that's
related
to
those
non-conforming
use
the
non-conforming
occupancies
right.
Yes,
because
there
are
places
where
we
have
more
dwelling
units
per
acre
than
we
have
on
the
hill
I'm
thinking
like
tbap,
one
has
to
have
significantly
more
a
higher
number
of
dwelling
units,
so
there's
more
intensity
in
other
areas
of
the
city,
but
there's
just
because
of
those
non-conforming
occupancies
higher
occupancy
there
correct
that's
correct.
Thank
you.
AS
So
I
will
I
will
maybe
read
a
little
excerpt
from
this
memo.
It's
a
lot
of
numbers,
but
it
says
there
this
was
sent
to
Council
in
2021.
B
B
I
wonder
if
we
can
move
to
giving
direction
and
I'll
just
say,
I'll
put
out
there.
We
we
have
talked
about
this
issue
a
number
of
times
that
are
retreated
a
previous
study
session.
If
we
move
forward
with
some
changes,
we'll
have
a
public
hearing
we'll
talk
about
it
again.
So
I
wonder
if
we
can
do
straw
polls
to
give
direction
to
staff
on
the
next
steps,
rather
than
having
a
long
discussion
about
it.
Is
that
all
right
with
folks.
B
B
So
I
got
I,
get
seven
okay.
So
so,
if
we're
taking
some
form
of
occupancy
change
earlier,
we
put
four
or
five
on
the
table,
so
I'm
just
going
to
go
and
order
how
many
people
would
prefer
a
number
of
four
God?
That's
one
wait
Junior
you're
giving
fingers
here.
What
can
you
explain
what.
AO
Yes,
I
wanted
to
add,
based
on
exactly
what
Tara
said.
My
understanding
is
that,
based
on
prior
conversation,
it
was
four
so
seeing
in
the
memo
that
we've
talked
about
five
more
often
and
I
was
a
little
bit
confused
by
that
as
well
in
that
direction.
So
would
that
be
a
council
executive
order
or
decision,
as
opposed
to
following
the
rule
of
community,
based
on
all
the
prior
conversation
and
then
feedback
that
we've
gotten?
Thank.
B
You
so
Junior
I
believe
I'll
look
to
Carl
here,
but
we
had
a
study
session
on
this
some
months
ago,
where
we
said
we
would
like.
We
had
a
menu
of
options
of
what
to
proceed
with
occupancy
and
we
left
two
options
on
the
table,
which
was
increase
it
to
four
or
increase
it
to
five.
Do
I!
Remember
that
correct,
that's
correct!
So
so
Judy
we
did
at
that
study
session
say
we
either
want
to
go
with
consider
four
or
consider
five.
So
this
is
not
I
think
that
that
was
the
basis
for
that.
AO
B
I
think
we
left
that
open
last
time
and
so
I
think
tonight
is
the
time
when
we're
giving
direction
about
whether
we
would
rather
pursue
four
or
pursue
five.
So
right
now,
I'm
asking
how
many
people
prefer
four
and
then,
if
that's
the
majority,
that's
the
majority
and
then
I
would
say
how
many
people
prefer
father
could.
AQ
B
Okay,
yeah
good
good
point.
So
let
me
let
me
rephrase
then,
instead
of
a
for,
let's
say:
let's
have
a
strapple
of
other
people
would
prefer
four
or
prefer
five.
If
we
must
change
if
we
yeah,
we
already
said
we're
going
to
pursue
something.
So
how
so
I'll
ask
for
the
choices
of
four
or
five,
so
how
many
people
would
prefer
four,
as
the
number
to
Center
on
I
got
three
hands
and
how
many
people
would
prefer
five,
that
I
got
five
hands
and
Genie
six?
B
AQ
I
suggest
two
other
drop
holes
just
so
we
give
staff
some
really
good
directions.
Sure
I
know
we
I
think
we
had
a
straw
poll
on
this
before,
but
I
just
want
to
maybe
close
the
loop.
So
staff
has
a
good
direction
and
I
have
two
scrollful
suggestions.
The
first
one
is:
is
there
a
majority
on
Council
who
would
favor
a
different,
lower
occupancy
limit
in
areas
near
the
university
to
be
defined.
AQ
AQ
That's
great
and
then
the
other
questions
I'd
like
to
suggest
is,
would
Council
like
to
instruct
staff
as
they're
preparing
these
materials
for
the
August
17
public
hearing
to
look
into
the
possibility
and
I.
Don't
know
what
the
outcome
would
be:
the
possibility
of
maintaining
the
occupancy
limits
in
areas
where
there
are
non-conforming
use
or
for
structures
where
there's
nothing
from
these
not
areas
the
structures
can.
AQ
I
guess
I'm
struggling
a
little
bit
with
whether
it
really
would
be.
In
other
words,
if
the
headline
in
the
newspaper
on
August
18th
is
occupancy,
change
to
five
I
think
it's
probably
a
fair
assumption
that
landlords,
even
those
that
have
non-conforming
used
properties,
many
of
which
probably
don't
really
realize.
AQ
As
a
matter
of
Law
and
so
I'd
like
to
at
least
hear
what
Steph
has
to
say
in
their
memo
for
August
17th
about
recommendations
on
how
we
would
deal
with
that
I
don't
know
the
answer
is
it
sounds
like
there's
three
or
four
different
ways:
I'm,
not
even
suggesting
a
straw,
one
we're
going
to
maintain
the
the
non-conforming
useful
numbers.
Maybe
that's
what
where
Council
ends
up,
but
it
seems
like
it's
really
kind
of
confusing
right
now
and
I'm.
AQ
Sorry
I
only
brought
it
up
today,
so
I
really
haven't
given
staff
a
fair
shot
at
looking
at
that
so
I'd
just
like
to
to
suggest
the
council
that
we
at
least
have
staff
go
through
the
process
on
non-confirming
uses
and
then
maybe
even
a
recommendation
to
us
I'm,
just
looking
for
really
information
more
than
just
a
decision
on
that.
One.
B
D
Before
staff,
because
I
feel
like
something
that
can
be
done
and
kind
of
come
back
to
us
in
August
and
and
I
think
the
other
question
I
have
is
I.
I
expect
that
as
a
city,
we
would
do
some
education
around
the
changes
and
what
they
mean
for
different
property,
and
things
like
that.
So
is
this
just
something
that
would
be
part
of
our
typical
process
of
educating
affected
groups
in
the
community
about
a
policy
change,
yeah.
AS
You
know
and
I,
don't
know
that
we
have
the
Nuance
of
how
it
would
read,
but
I
think
the
intent
would
be
to
avoid
situations
where
non-conforming
units
that
are
all
that,
where
it
might
increase
above
what
the
non-conformity
is
that
that
gets
locked
in
so
I
think
we
could
prepare
language
to
that
effect
and
then
in
August
council
could
then
decide
whether
they
want
to
keep
it
or
strike
it.
You
know
something
like
that:
potato
chips.
P
C
Although
I
know
that
I'm
in
the
minority
I'm
just
going
to
take
a
minute
to
ask
the
rest
of
council
to
reconsider
anyway,
even
though
I'm
sure
you
might
not
but
and
that's
fine
I'm,
just
gonna
bring
up
a
few
things.
First
of
all,
you
noticed
in
the
packet
that
more
people
wanted
four
than
five,
so
I
feel
like.
C
For
that
reason,
four
is
a
compromise
that
most
people
would
not
be
upset
with,
whereas
five
would
get
a
lot
of
people
more
upset,
especially
in
light
of
the
fact
that
we
did
you
know,
vote
bedrooms
are
for
people
lost
and
I'm,
not
saying
that
in
a
way
that
you
don't
know
that
I'm
just
saying
four
just
seems
to
be
just
a
better
compromise.
That's
first
of
all.
Secondly,
I
know
we
said
no
to
carve
outs.
C
We
voted
no
to
carve
outs,
but
for
the
sake
of
the
University
neighborhoods,
especially
the
hill,
which
is
one
of
the
few
affordable
family
neighborhoods
left.
There
is
a
great
incentive
for
families
to
move
out
because
of
noise,
trash
parking
and
also
the
cost
of
rent,
and
that
was
discussed
in
all
the
letters
that
we
got
but
I
think
it's
really
valid
to
consider.
Even
though
a
Corvette
would
be
a
lot
of
work
for
the
city,
it's
also
would
be
a
compromise
that
I
think
the
university
neighborhoods
would
appreciate.
C
Then
I'm
going
to
talk
about
the
last
thing
I
want
to
say
is
when
it
comes
to
noise
and
trash
and
parking
first
of
all,
noise
and
trash
I.
Remember
that
when
we
passed
that
ordinance,
we
were
going
to
wait
a
year
and
we
were
going
to
come
back
and
we
were
going
to
say:
hey
University
Hill.
Is
it
working?
Is
it
not
working?
So
we
don't
even
know
actually
the
feedback
that
I've
gotten
is.
C
People
are
calling
the
police
about
noise
and
trash
and
I
guess
it's
code
enforcement
in
the
police
there's
now
only
two
code
enforcement
police
officers
left
because
the
rest
quit
so
we
only
have
two
code
enforcement
police
officers
for
the
entire
city,
so
you
can
bet
when
people
from
the
hill
call,
they
don't
exactly
say
we're
coming
right.
Now
we're
going
to
do
something
about
that
noise.
B
B
Okay,
I
heard
reconsider
but
you're
just
making
a
speech.
That's!
Okay!
Okay!
Fine!
That's
fine!
That's
why
I
had
Nicole
and
then
Lauren.
D
Yeah
and
thanks
Tara
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
a
couple
of
things
there
that
for
the
the
not
wanting
the
more
people
wanting
four
than
five
that
came
from
the
be
heard,
Boulder
survey
is
that
right
and
so
I
just
the
behold
Boulder
survey.
It
was
one
method,
but
it
wasn't
statistically
valid.
So
I
don't
think
it's
an
accurate
thing
to
say
that
more
people
wanted
in
general,
more
people
in
our
community
wanted
four
than
five,
because
it
wasn't
a
statistically
valid
survey
and
just
one
thing
that
I
I
think.
AU
D
This
before
and
I
I
kind
of
hope
that
we
can
continue
to
avoid
doing
this,
but
just
this
this
implication
that
we're
overturning
the
will
of
Voters
in
looking
at
occupancy
reform,
because
voters
voted
on
a
very
specific
implementation
of
occupancy
reform,
not
the
general
question
of
whether
we
want
it
and
I
think,
especially
in
this
political
context,
that
feels
a
little
bit
dangerous
and
divisive.
Anything
that
kind
of
touches
back
on
this
idea
of
overturning
the
will
of
Voters
just
feels
a
little
bit
dangerous
yeah.
C
I
did
play
did
not
say
overturning
the
will,
but
we
got
an
awful
lot
of
letters.
You
know
you
read
them.
We
all
read
them
and
so
I
think
people
you
know,
feel
a
certain
way
and
what
I
do
understand
that
it's
a
Visionary,
Council
and
so
people
see
five
as
the
vision
and
I
tend
to
be,
maybe
less
Visionary
and
more
like.
C
But
what
about
all
the
people
that
are,
you
know,
upset
or
complaining
so
I
understand
the
point
of
five,
but
I'm
also
I
also
think
that
people
do
have
that
impression
that
I'm,
not
that
we're
overturning
the
will,
but
they
they
feel
like
their
voices,
were
heard
in
that
vote
and
I
totally
understand
what
you're
saying
I
am
in
no
way
saying
we're
trying
to
overturn
the
will
of
the
people
no
way
I'm.
Just
asking
for
us
to
consider
how
people
feel.
As
you
read
all
the
many
letters.
B
I
I
earlier
I
asked
if
we
could
not
have
a
big
argument
about
the
substances
and
now
we're
getting
right
into
the
to
the
weeds
in
the
we're
having
a
debate
now,
and
so,
if
we,
if
Council
wants,
we
can
talk
through
all
the
particulars
but
I'm
trying
to
give
more
clear
Direction.
Rather
than
do
that,
so
I
got
a
couple
of
hands
raised.
Maybe
people
can
be
concise
with
the
next
comments.
H
B
H
AI
I
had
a
clarification
on
Bob's
stoppable,
so
just
because
I
couldn't
tell
if
you
said,
units
or
use
and
so
you're
looking
for
us
looking
for
staff
to
give
some
recommendations
on
non-conforming
occupancy
right,
not
non-conforming
use
yeah.
AQ
No
thank
you
so
much
for
that
is
absolutely
right.
I,
just
I
I'd
like
to
staff
a
little
bit
of
time
to
come
back
and
give
us
some
recommendations
as
part
of
the
overall
package
about
how
they
would
suggest
we
deal
with
non-conforming
occupancy
numbers,
because
we've
got
numbers
that
are
all
over
the
place.
We're
having
this
overlay.
It
sounds
like
a
five.
How
does
that
interplay
with
the
occupancy
and
I?
AN
Can
I
ask
a
clarifier
p.m?
The
timing,
so
if
we
were
to
just
sort
of
give
direction,
hey
go
forth,
have
at
it
we've
sort
of
set
a
timing
of
when
you'd
be
coming
back
kind
of
in
August
on
this
Frame.
If
we
were
to
sort
of
embark
on
this
straw
poll
to
do
added
research
and
investigation
to
all
the
non-conforming
that
you
come
back
to
with
that
thus
delay
when
we
ultimately
get
to
vote
on
this
total
package.
AT
So
Carl
can't
quite
kick
me
under
the
table
because
there's
a
wall
there
but
I
I,
think
what
we're
expressing
is
it's
a
matter
of
just
sorting
out
the
current
law
and
seeing
how
the
five,
if
it
turns
out
to
be
five,
would
apply
to
that
and
I
think
it's
a
fairly
straightforward
answer:
we'd
be
able
to
bring
forward
to
in
August,
which.
AQ
AQ
G
Things
yeah,
okay,
I'll,
try
to
be
pretty
very
brief.
One
response
to
Nicole
I
I
think
that
vote
in
2021
was
was
a
fairly
statistically
valid
survey
of
where
people
felt
and
I
don't
think.
The
methodology
of
how
we
were
increasing
occupancy
have
anything
to
do,
and
we
ought
to
take
note
of
that.
G
G
There
are
so
many
off-ramps
here
where
we
can
craft
reasonable
compromises
to
address
some
of
those
concerns.
Those
concerns
are
real
and
they're,
impassioned
and
I
think
we
represent
those
people
as
well
as
the
people
who
want
to
see
greater
occupancy,
and
you
know
we
we
did
this
with
adus,
we
started
small,
we
had
a
limited
rollout
of
adus,
we
looked
at
it
a
couple
years
later
and
voila.
There
was
no
big
deal,
okay
and,
and
so
we're
now
rolling
it
out
in
Greater
quantity.
G
The
ability
to
do
that
is
something
that
would
really
help
us
with
the
community
and
not
create
the
kinds
of
hostility
we're
seeing
with
with
so
many
voters.
You
know
on
this
one.
These
people
hate
us
and
some
other
issue.
Other
people
hate
us
and
it
comes
from
from
being
not
responsive
to
as
many
needs
as
we
can
and
simply
steamrolling
those
who
are
in
the
minority.
G
So
that's
that's
my
view
on
this
I
think
we're
missing
an
opportunity
to
craft
something
that
would
actually
bring
the
community
a
little
more
together,
as
opposed
to
fracturing
it
and
driving
this
neighborhood.
Apart
from
that
neighborhood,
there
are
different
needs
in
university.
Health,
different
needs
of
Martin
acres,
and
it
really
would
not
be
inappropriate
for
us
to
try
to
address
some
of
that,
maybe
not
all
of
it,
but
some
of
it
give
people
a
break
I'm.
B
Well,
thanks
thanks
for
coming
I'm
trying
to
get
to
Bob
a
straw
poll
on
Bob's
suggestion
here,
so
I'm
just
going
to
call
on
myself
and
say
that
the
the
issue
of
the
occupancy
non-conforming
seems
complex
enough.
That
I'd
be
interested
in
hearing
some
more
more
data.
So
I'll
support
this
drop
poll
because
it
sounds
like
it's
a
fairly
straightforward
thing
that
sets
out
so
who
is
in
favor
of
Bob's
suggestion
of
looking
into
this
more
and
I
got
and
sorry
I
Judy.
You
had
your
hand
raised,
do
you,
but
if.
AO
B
Unanimous
on
that,
okay
and
then
I'm,
going
to
come
back
to
myself
and
I
apologize.
I
should
have
asked
a
question
earlier
on
the
in
terms
of
all
the
all
the
definitions
of
of
occupancy
in
the
the
one
or
two
or
three
or
four
kind
of
a
thing.
It
includes
two
single
individuals
in
their
their
children,
but
but
if
you
had
like
two
couples
or
a
couple
in
a
single
who
each
had
kids,
that's
is
that
not
included.
AS
I
mean
right
now:
one
of
the
options
is
two
two
unrelated
and
any
of
their
children.
It
could
be
the
children
of
one
and
the
other,
but
it
wouldn't
necessarily
allow
two
separate
couples
in
the
current
language.
B
D
So
I
mean
seems
like
the
likelihood
of
five
unrelated
adults
each
with
their
own
children
living
in
a
home
is
probably
not
something
that
would
happen
very
often
to
me.
It
feels
like
a
cleaner
way
to
do
that.
Change
is,
to
just
say
five
plus
dependence.
AT
Probably
like
subscribe
again,
this
question
had
come
up
fairly
early
on
in
the
discussion.
If
I
it
followed,
you
I
may
have
missed
your
comment
council
member
spear,
but
if,
if
we
get
into
a
situation
of
changing
either
four
or
five,
you
know
regardless
which
number
we're
talking
about
unoccupied
and
change
that
to
families.
AT
That's
a
dramatic
increase
in
terms
of
things
in
terms
of
overall
occupancy
I,
don't
know
if
that's
been
on
the
table
at
any
point
leading
up
to
this,
and
it
is
well
beyond
the
scope
of
what
we've
really
examined
at
this
point.
AO
Thank
you.
I
was
trying
to
understand
your
definition
of
families,
because
I
know
that
part
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
not
make
the
term
family
as
constraining
as
well.
So
when
I
hear
you
saying,
is
it
one
or
two
families
and
I
I
just
didn't
get
the
math
on
that
very
well,
and
it
was
a
bit
confusing
for
me
and
I'm
wondering
if
that's
taking
us
back
to
a
more
constraining
definition
as
well.
B
So
it
would
not
be
changing
the
definition
of
family
at
all
that
we
have
that
very
broad
definition
of
family
and
there
would
be
no
changes
to
that
Mark.
Is
that
a
fresh
hand?
B
Okay,
it's
Rachel.
H
Well,
when
I
had
my
hand
up
before
it
was
just
for
questions
and
now
it's
feedback
and
it's
trying
to
get
us
back
to
Bob,
so
I
think
I'm,
not
double
dipping
here,
but
my
feedback
would
be.
I
am
I
think
that
it
is
asinine
if
we
don't
lean
in
quickly
to
the
enforcement
piece
and
the
parking
piece
and
I'm
I'm
pretty
uncomfortable
with
like
the
complaints
falling
on
deaf
ears
and
I,
think
that
there
is
I
mean
I.
H
H
We
can
say,
there's
a
difference
probably,
and
we
can
understand
why
neighbors
are
sometimes
concerned
when
there
are
three
versus
five
young
people
living
there
and
and
I
think
it's
it's
silly
of
us
to
to
not
listen
to
that
and
and
I
do
believe.
We
want
to
pass
this
in
a
way
that
sticks
and
not
have
another
Council
come
in
in
November
and
immediately
undo.
What
we've
done
so
part
of
that
to
me
is
the
enforcement
piece
and
I'm
unclear
on
how
how
to
effectively
ensure
that
it
does.
H
H
What
the
the
things
that
we
have
on
the
books
in
a
couple
different
areas
and
I
think
that's
percolating
up
in
a
couple
different
areas
to
this
Council,
so
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
how
we
can
quickly
get
to
the
next
phase,
with
with
enforcing
the
recent
laws
that
we
have
passed
as
a
result
of
the
Hill,
revitalization
work
group
and
the
parking
stuff,
but
I
think
that's
critical,
and
it
should
be
at
around
the
same
time
that
this
comes
into
effect,
because
otherwise
I
think
we
are
not
being
sensitive
to
everyone's
right
to
to
have.
H
You
know
a
Peaceable
place
to
live,
and
then
I
also
wonder
you
know.
We
hear
a
lot
about
the
affordability
piece
and
I.
This
is
an
out
of
turn.
Question
I
am
sorry,
but
is
there
any
hope
that
we're
going
to
have
like
a
rent
control
option
coming
down
the
pike
that
might
address
that
and
it
can
come
in
as
an
overlay
in
a
year
or
two
with
all
of
these
bedrooms
being
rented
out?
Is
there
hope
there
now.
H
I
guess
I
just
put
that
out
there
that
you
know,
maybe
not
everything
happens
right
at
the
same
time
on
that,
but
but
our
hands
are
a
bit
tied
in
terms
of
of
that
piece
of
affordability
and
I
do
hope
that
it
comes
into
play
and
that
it
can
be
ideally
somewhat
retroactive
to
the
steps
that
we're
taking
tonight
but
I'm
not
sure
so.
AH
J
Council
I
want
to
be
as
candid
as
I
can
be
about
the
request
and
I
cannot
say
that
enforcement
is
going
to
be
happening
if
you
pass
this
and
it
and
it
moves
forward
in
2023
that
we
will
be
at
a
state
that
we
can
promise
you
that
we
will
have
the
enforcement
that
you
expect
the
work
that
we
are
doing
right
now
with
that
started
with
the
hill,
revitalization
group
and,
frankly,
I
think
it
benefits
the
entire
city
as
we're
moving
forward.
J
Part
of
that
is
to
continue
to
look
at
where
do
the
areas
and
if
you'll
remember
from
our
well,
it's
been
a
while.
But
if
you
remember
from
our
previous
updates,
we
are
both
looking
to
update
some
ordinances
and
we're
hoping
to
come
with
that
in
the
fall
in
Q3.
J
We
have
also
been
looking
at
enforcement
generally
around
the
city
and
looking
to
align
that
better
and
as
we
look
for
better
alignment,
because
there
are
a
variety
of
folks
that
do
different
kinds
of
enforcement
across
the
city,
and
certainly
we
have
been
talking
a
lot
with
pnds
and
with
our
Police
Department
as
well.
There
will
be
some
gaps.
J
I
do
not
believe
we
are
sufficiently
staffed
up
to
do
the
kind
of
enforcement
that
Community
is
expecting
and
I
think
it
is
something
that
we
need
to
really
be
thinking
about
and
before
we
put
numbers
and
try
to
think
about
what
that
looks
like.
We
need
to
study
this
really
directly
so
that
we
can
actually
get
the
Staffing
that
we
need
and
that
will
require
us
to
both
analyze
it.
J
J
AN
A
AG
A
AJ
AG
AL
H
I
would
like
to
say
that
this
is
the
second
time
this
week
that
Matt
Benjamin
has
like
leapt
into
action
to
Save
a
Life.
He
also
helped
to
evacuate
some
people
from
the
creek,
so
anyone
watching
on
on
live
TV
know
this.
This
man's
a
hero
he's.
AP
A
AQ
B
H
E
H
My
question
is:
would
staff
like
to
recommend
maybe
that
we,
you
know,
don't
don't
throw
stones
at
me,
but
that
we
maybe
have
our
implementation
date
for
this
ordinance
change
pushed
back
by
two
months
or
something
if
that
would
allow
the
enforcement
piece
to
come
into
place?
At
the
same
time,.
T
AT
I'll
try
to
answer
that
council
member
friend,
I
I
think
the
the
the
best.
A
AT
Is
that
the
enforcement
piece
is
not
a
discreet
thing?
That's
just
gonna
happen
happen
on
a
specific
date
and
cause
a
lot
of
change
in
Behavior
or
action.
It's
a
comprehensive
plan
that
is
involving
ordinance
changes
that
have
already
happened,
some
that
are
that
are
teed
up.
It's
about
Staffing,
it's
about
programming.
It's
about
coordination
throughout
the
city,
I
think
we
would
highly
advise
that
we
move
forward
on
on
the
timeline
that
was
envisioned
by
Council,
because
we
really
can't
offer
any
concrete
picture.
What
that
enforcement
piece
would
look
like
afterwards,
I'm.
B
At
the
floor,
but
thank
you
for
that
answer
that
was
very
helpful,
okay
and
then
I'm
going
to
try
to
wrap
up.
If
what
I'll
put
out
there
is
is
ask
if
there
is
some
light
touch
way
of
allowing
a
couple
of
fan
like
a
couple
of
maybe
it's
just
like.
Instead
of
two
persons,
it's
three
or
four
persons
and
their
children
without
cracking
something
too
wide
open,
it
I.
B
B
Yeah
or
or
four
potentially
so,
if
I
could
just
drop
all
this
or
people
interested
in
in
broadening
that
forward
to
allow
for
more
people
with
kids,
so
item
four
says
two
persons
and
any
of
their
children
by
Blood
marriage
guardianship,
including
foster
children
or
adoption,
are
allowed,
and
so
the
possibility
of
saying
that
could
be
three
or
four
persons
and
their
children
Etc.
To
allow,
for
you
know
two
parents
and
or
two
sets
of
parents
in
their
kids
to
live
together,
and
this
is
not
a
commitment.
AI
B
AI
B
I'd
heard
definitely
negative
feedback
from
Brad
on
that,
but
so
I
don't
know
Junior
you
held
up
a
couple
fingers.
What
did
you
wanna?
No
okay,.
B
B
So
I
guess:
I'll
I'll
give
us
three
Alternatives
here:
a
no
change,
a
change
to
two
families
or
or
a
change
to
additional
people,
so
three
or
four
persons
and
their
children
and
I'm
going
to
say
I'm
fine
with
either
the
last
two,
but
so
I'm
going
to
go.
Who
would
prefer
to
not
change
that
section?
B
I
don't
have
any
who'd
prefer
to
go
with
two
families
at
least
consider
it.
How.
B
B
AK
B
Great,
that's
it
for
so
Carl,
so
we've
suggested
a
few
changes
and
also
some
additional
rodents
yeah,
nothing
about
rooms.
Good
enough
can
we
move
on.
AS
Yeah
ready
to
move
on
so
the
next
project
is
zoning
for
affordable
housing.
This
was
also
initiated
by
Council
in
2022
at
The
Retreat.
So
the
the
purpose
of
this
project
was
to
evaluate
the
land
use
code
with
the
intent
of
removing
zoning
barriers
to
more
affordable
units
and
more
smaller
modest
size
units.
AS
So,
again,
I'll
try
to
move
through
some
of
these
fairly
quickly.
Since
we've
talked
about
a
lot
a
lot
of
this.
But
what
what
do
we
mean
by
affordable
housing?
We're
really
talking
about
three
different
types
here,
so
we
mean
deed,
restricted,
permanently,
affordable
housing.
We
also
mean
attainable
housing,
which
is
existing
market
rate
housing
that
is
Affordable
to
Folks
at
30
percent
of
their
income
or
just
modest
size,
market
rate
housing,
which
is
inherently
more
cheap
than
the
larger
units
that
we've
been
getting
in
the
city.
AS
And
what
we
talked
about
last
time
in
depth
is
just
that
if
zoning
barriers
or
zoning
restrictions
can
be
loosened
such
that
it
can
enable
more
units,
more
units
on
a
site
means
more
deed,
restricted
units
because
we
already
have
the
25
of
the
total
units
are
going
to
be
deed,
restricted.
So,
by
loosening
up
some
of
the
restrictions,
you
can
increase
that
number
of
deed,
restricted
units.
AS
I
won't
go
into
a
lot
of
depth
about
what
we
talked
about
last
time
at
March
23rd
study
session,
but
city
council
supported
all
the
options
moving
forward.
We
did
touch
on
option
b,
which
related
to
allowing
duplexes
and
triplexes
in
the
low
density
residential
zones.
We
did
not
recommend
that
at
that
time,
but
there
there
was
some
sentiments
on
Council
that
we
look
into
that
further.
So
we've
done
that
so
I'll
talk
about
that
tonight
and
then
attachment
e
has
all
of
the
options
that
we
presented
to
council
last
time.
AS
So
just
jumping
into
statistics,
real
quick,
so
there's
over
forty
seven
thousand
housing
units
in
the
city,
58
of
the
residential
lots
are
are
only
permitting
single-family
dwellings.
At
this
time.
That's
75
percent
of
the
residential
land
area
only
permits
single-family
dwellings.
AS
You've
probably
seen
this
statistic
before,
but
there's
a
relatively
even
split
between
rentals
and
owner
occupied
units
in
the
city,
but
you
can
see
that
we
have
a
a
relatively
lower
number
of
middle
housing.
It's
at
nine
percent,
so
obviously,
we've
been
looking
at
ways
to
try
to
get
more
middle
housing
again,
meaning
duplexes
triplexes,
quad,
plexes
Townhomes,
so
touching
on
the
duplexes
and
triplexes
discussion
in
the
low
density
areas.
Obviously,
we've
heard
a
lot
of
public
comments
on
this
when
we
discuss
this
with
Council
last
time.
AS
The
number
that
we
put
out
before
Council
was
that
we
didn't
really
recommend
it,
because
there
was
only
a
yield
of
about
a
hundred
extra
units,
but
that
number
really
focused
on
the
RR
and
re
zones
that
were
the
topics
of
large
homes
and
lots
and
most
of
those
units.
AS
The
one
question
that
we
posed
to
council
back
in
2018
was
whether
what
kind
of
things
could
we
do
without
having
to
to
update
the
the
bvcp,
and
one
of
the
things
we
found
is
that
the
re
Zone
actually
is
the
same
land
use
designation
as
RL,
which
is
two
to
six
dual
units
per
acre
so
because
of
the
larger
lot
sizes
in
re,
there
actually
could
be
more
units
in
that
zone.
AS
So
what
we
presented
to
council
at
that
that
time
was
that,
if
Council
agreed,
we
could
have
changed
the
zoning
to
allow
two
units
per
lot
in
that
zone
without
having
to
like
change
any
of
the
land
use
designations
and
that
actually
would
bring
the
potential
for
over
700
units
additional
units
over
time.
So
we
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear.
That
was
something
that
council
did
not
want
to
do
back
in
2018.
So
here
we
are.
AS
We've
also
looked
at
the
low
density
residential
Zone,
which,
based
on
the
lot
sizes
in
that
zone,
there's
actually
over
800
Lots
in
that
zone.
That
could
potentially
be
subdivided
today
and
a
new
single
family
detached
unit
added.
The
reasons
why
they
haven't
been
subdivided
I
think
range
from
either
a
property
owner
just
has
elected
to
not
subdivide
their
property
or
there
might
be
some
environmental
constraints
that
make
it
harder
to
get
another
building
site
on
that
site.
AS
But
what
we
are
presenting
the
council
tonight
is
based
on
the
re
Zone
and
the
RL
Zone,
there's
well
over
a
thousand
units
that
could
be
possible
like
potentially
over
time.
If
we
were
to
move
forward
with
these
changes,
so
we
did
want
to
get
some
feedback
from
Council.
What
we're
proposing
is,
if
we
did
move
forward
with
this
change,
it
would
remove
the
prohibition
of
other
housing
types
in
the
re
and
RL
zone
are
all
one
zone
and
we
could
also
apply
the
compatible
development
regulations
to
those.
AS
AS
Council
had
asked
us
last
time
to,
in
addition
to
the
zones
that
we
looked
at,
to
look
at
additional
high
density
residential
zones
to
see,
if
there's
some
barriers
to
additional
units
that
we
could
remove.
So
we
have
looked
at
all
the
high
density
residential
zones,
so
this
shows
a
map
of
all
the
different
zones
in
the
city.
I'll
try
to
go
over
this
as
quickly
as
possible,
but
rh1
and
rh2
are
like
the
East
Goss
Grove
and
south
of
Arapahoe
Goss
Grove
area
near
the
university.
AS
There
are
two
different
zoning
districts,
but
they
have
like
pretty
different
zoning
requirements.
Their
context
and
appearance
is
really
close,
so
we
just
thought
that
there
could
be
a
simplification
in
The
Code
by
putting
them
lumping
them
into
the
same
intensity,
module
getting
rid
of
the
27
dwelling
units
per
acre
proposal
and
get
rid
of
the
the
kind
of
unique
ways
that
they
dictate
density
they're
by
lot
area
by
dwelling
unit
or
open
space
by
dwelling
unit
and
basically
changing
that
to
a
0.67.
AS
Rh1,
rh2
and
rh3
also
have
this
mechanism
in
the
code
where,
if
there's
any
requests
for
additional
units
on
a
site
by
reducing
open
space,
it
automatically
triggers
planning
Board
review,
so
we're
proposing
that
we
we
remove
that
from
the
code
to
encourage
more
units
and
basically
just
making
rh3,
for
instance,
a
base
30
open
space
requirement
per
lot,
which
is
what's
in
there
today.
But
the
difference
would
be
that
there's
60
percent
buy
right
and
then
to
go
to
30.
You
have
to
get
planning
board
approval.
We'd
be
taking
that
part
out.
AS
Rh5
is
the
proposal
is
a
1.5
far
with
a
15
open
space
requirement
per
lot
and
also
making
it
clear
that
any
proposals
to
add
generally
a
fourth
or
a
fifth
Story
above
45
feet
would
automatically
go
to
the
20
open
space
requirement
that
we
already
have
in
the
code
for
those
taller
buildings
and
again
we're
we're
trying
to
show
like
a
gradient
of
density.
That's
generally
consistent
with
the
character.
AS
AS
Without
the
complexity,
that's
currently
in
the
code,
some
of
these
would
be
a
little
more
restrictive
than
than
we've
seen,
but
we
think
that
that
might
make
sense
in
terms
of
the
size
of
buildings
we've
seen
in
some
of
these
zones
and
then,
lastly,
we're
also
looking
at
changing
the
threshold
in
these
zones
to
be
instead
of
the
the
two
acre
requirement
or
the
20
acre
requirement
that,
if
there's
any
projects
that
are
that
are
100
metal
housing
that
they
would
be
exempt
from
site
review
again,
they
might
ask
for
modifications
or
height
modifications,
and
that
would
put
them
in
site
review.
AS
But
this
would
encourage
people
to
look
at,
buy
right
solutions
to
get
middle
housing
without
having
to
go
through
site
reviews.
So
we
wanted
to
get
feedback
from
Council
on
that.
The
other
thing
I
was
just
going
to
mention
here
is
that
we
did
not
decide
to
recommend
any
changes
to
rh6
or
rh7,
largely
because
rh6
is
a
very
small
area
in
Boulder.
Junction,
that's
already
built
out
with
town
homes
and
rh7
is
a
very
small
area.
That's
in
Alpine
Balsam,
that's
in
the
process
of
actually
getting
designed.
AS
We
didn't
want
to
throw
in
a
last
minute
change
to
that.
So
that's
why
we
didn't
include
that
so
Community
engagement
on
these
topics
we
have
heard
from
you
know:
University
adjacent
neighborhoods
and
single
family
neighborhoods
that
are
very
concerned
about
the
the
prospect
of
any
duplexes
or
triplexes
in
those
neighborhoods.
We've
we've
seen
that
across
the
board
plan
Boulder
expressed
concerns
about
these
changes
and
that
they
feel
that
the
single-family
neighborhoods
are
going
to
be
disproportionately
impacted
without
getting
actual
affordability.
AS
They
feed
that
they
feel
that
the
deed
restrictions
should
be
part
of
this
enforcement
has
not
been
effective
and
we've
heard
quotes
that
the
city
can't
build
itself
out
of
the
housing
crisis.
We
got
interesting
feedback
from
the
community
connectors
and
residents.
There
wasn't
as
much
support
for
smaller,
concentrated
units.
They
were
concerned
that
it
might
create.
You
know,
future
ghettos
if
there's
a
concentration
of
particularly
low
quality
type
housing
and
that
they
felt
that
from
a
cultural
perspective,
it
may
not
be
preferable
to
get
more
smaller
units.
AS
So
there
was
some
resistance
to
that
idea.
That
we
heard
from
their
discussion
in
talking
to
the
community
leaders
there
we've
heard
the
concerns
about
adding
duplexes
and
triplexes
and
that
families
are
being
driven
out
and
that
a
lot
of
concerns
about
parking
impacts.
AS
When
we
shift
to
the
be
heard
Boulder
responses,
we
we
heard
more
feedback
that
was
supportive
of
duplexes
and
triplexes.
AS
If
you
look
in
the
packet
and
attachment
C
it
comes
to
about
60
percent
and
then
that
that's
for
adding
housing
in
the
commercial
area,
so
in
like
RH
zones
and
BC
zones
and
BR
zones,
when
we
talk
about
the
duplexes
triplexes,
there's
a
little
bit
less
support
for
that,
but
more
than
half
and
it
shows
it
showed
45
against.
AS
It
was
more
mixed
when
it
came
down
to
the
parking
requirements.
Even
the
community
connectors
in
Residence
was
more
dubious
of
lowering
parking
requirements
for
deed
restricted,
affordable.
They
felt
that
that
was
not
necessarily
fair
and
that
should
be
an
amenity.
So
there
was
some
concern
expressed
on
parking
on
that
front,
so
we
went
to
housing.
Advisory
board
on
March
22nd
have
supported
all
the
staff
recommended
options.
They
expressed
some
disappointment
that
we
could
not
increase
densities
in
the
single-family
zones
at
this
time,
but
they
did
show
support
that.
AS
We
should
be
looking
at
that
in
the
future.
If
there's
going
to
be
a
bvcp
update
to
kind
of
kind
of
change,
the
vision
for
certain
areas
to
get
different
housing,
they
showed
support
for
that.
They
felt
that
there
should
be
more
aggressive
parking
reduction
changes
than
what
we
were
proposing
when
we
talked
to
planting
Bart
on
April
18th,
most
of
the
board
supported
the
staff
recommended
options,
including
the
the
parking
changes.
There
were
three
board
members
that
expressed
support
for
allowing
duplexes
and
triplexes
in
single-family
areas.
AS
There
was
one
board
member
that
felt
that
we
didn't
go
far
enough
on
that
front.
There
were
two
board
members
that
were
more
cautious
of
the
changes
and
they
cited
a
number
of
different
concerns
that
there
was
no
data
supporting
how
these
changes
would
help
in
commuters
that
there
should
be,
if
there's
our,
if
there
are
any
far
increases
that
that
should
be
tied
to
missing
middle
housing.
AS
There
were
concerns
about
increasing
the
number
of
renters
in
the
community.
The
driving
out
of
families
and
that
there
should
be
a
focus
of
the
city
to
get
more
homeowners.
There
was
a
lot
of
concern
about
open
space
requirements
being
reduced
and
then
a
lot
of
concern
related
to
the
duplexes
and
triplexes
in
single-family
neighborhoods,
citing
that
you
know,
Property
Owners
bought
their
homes
with
the
expectation
that
they're
the
character
of
their
neighbors
would
not
change,
and
this
would
be
a
substantial
change
to
those
neighborhoods.
AT
I'm
sorry
can
I
just
intercheck
something
too
if,
if
I
may,
piggyback
on
Carl's
presentation,
Mr
Mayor,
yes
go
ahead.
I
I
think
because
this
was
at
the
very
beginning
of
the
of
the
presentation
and
we've
gone
through
a
lot
of
detail.
It
might
be
useful
to
kind
of
scale
back
again
to
why
we're
here
and
I'll
remind
you
that
this
initiative
that
was
undertaken,
a
council's
direction,
was
Zoning
for
affordability
and
really
that's
translated
as
you've
seen
tonight
to
Zoning
for
higher
density
as
I.
AS
AT
Earlier
reasonable
people
can
debate
about
that
relationship
between
affordability
and
density,
but
I
do
want
to
just
highlight
the
fact
that
what
we
have
taken
is
an
example
from
a
couple
years
ago
in
diagonal
Plaza
and
tried
to
pull
out
simple
quote:
unquote,
simple,
at
least
in
our
world
tweaks
that
can
make
be
made
to
the
zoning
code
that
would
achieve
council's
goals
in
that
regard.
AT
These
are,
admittedly,
modest
and
incremental
goals
and
and
by
Design
they're,
not
so
broad
that
they
would
have
a
dramatic
impact
either
on
neighboring
uses
or
on
the
properties
themselves.
And
that's
because
we,
we
really
undertook
a
process
of
more
informing
folks
or
anticipating,
informing
folks,
rather
than
a
broad
engagement,
that
a
wholesale
set
of
zoning
changes
would
need
to
take.
AT
B
You,
okay,
very
good,
Brad
I'd
like
to
break
this
into
two
chunks.
If
I
could
the,
which
is
about
the
high
density,
residential
Zone
measurement
changes
and
then
the
duplex
Triplex
thing,
so
if
we
could
do
the
the
high
density
residential
ones
first
so
I
wanted
to.
Maybe
we
can
take
this
first
and
then
look
at
the
duplex
triflex.
Do
people
have
any
questions
about
these
RH
sound
changes,
yeah
I
got
Tara,
then
Bob.
C
AS
I,
don't
know
that
they
spoke
specifically
to
each
of
the
zones.
I
think
there
was
just
a
a
concern
about
moving
in
the
direction
of
of
cramming
units
in
in
a
way,
that's
not
done
well,
they
said
they
they
didn't
support.
We
were
trying
to
represent
it
like
affordable
housing,
but
they
they
didn't,
want
cheap
housing.
You
know-
and
there
was
a
strong
reaction
to
that.
AS
So
as
long
as
it's
done
well,
I
think
maybe
there
might
have
been
more
support,
but
I
think
I
sense
that
a
lot
of
them
you
know,
wanted
people
to
have
the
American
dream
and
that
they
felt
like
they
were
excluded
from
that
historically
and
Brenda.
M
Weigh
in
tell
me
the
support,
yeah
so
I,
if
you
could
identify
Brenda
right
now,
our
community
engagement
manager,
I
worked
with
Carl
on
community
engagement
for
this
project,
so
I
was
sitting
by
his
side
for
many
of
these
conversations
he's
doing
a
great
job
representing
I.
Just
also
wanted
to
make
sure
we
got
in
a
point
that
we
heard
very
vehemently
and
eloquently
about
how
families
like
to
gather
and
it
being
sort
of
specific
to
ethnic
and
racial
cultures
that
they
gather
in
large
groups
and
families.
M
So
they
want
to
bring
their
Elders
together.
They
want
to
bring
their
their
blood
and
adopted
families
together
on
a
regular
basis
to
spend
time,
and
they
can't
do
that
in
small
dwellings
and-
and
he
really
spoke
about
how
that,
how
it
seeds,
mental
health
issues
to
not
be
able
to
do
that.
And
so,
while
there
is
more
opportunity
for
housing
that
can
be
afforded
by
different
types
of
people,
it's
not
the
kind
of
housing
that
they
want
to
live
in.
H
The
follow-up
question
part
of
the
the
kind
of
magic
that
I
see
potentially
in
duplexes,
is
that,
like
my
parents
or
kids
could
live
on,
one
side
and
I
could
live
on.
The
other
was
that
discussed
at
all,
not
specifically.
AS
No
I
think
it's
appropriate
to
say
it
now.
I
I
think
we've
heard
nationally
and
in
a
lot
of
analogs
that
there's
a
push
to
reduce
parking,
especially
for
affordable
units,
but
but
I
think
they
reacted
to.
You
know
what
what
if
that
means
I
don't
have
any
parking
or
why
do
I
not
get
a
parking
space
and
I
think
there
was
a
concern
about
that
concept.
That
parking
you
know
already.
AS
B
Bob
and
then
Mark
yeah
doing
RH
first
Martin.
G
Sorry
about
that,
just
a
question:
can
you
define
you
use
the
term
middle
housing
in
in
the
staff
materials?
Can
you
define
what
middle
housing
that's
different
from
little
income,
housing.
AS
AS
There's
a
a
graphic
I
wish
I
could
pull
up
at
the
moment,
but
it
basically
shows
different
housing
types,
ranging
from
a
single
family
house
up
to
a
multi-story,
building
and
I
think
throughout
the
country
we
have
a
prevalence
of
single-family
homes
and
we
also
are
now
seeing
a
prevalence
of
attached,
stacked
apartment
buildings
and
condos
multi-level
buildings,
we're
not
getting
so
much
of
of
what's
in
between
which
is
duplexes,
triplexes,
quad,
plexes
and
Townhomes
or
row
homes.
AS
We
did
get
those
you
know
very
far
in
the
past,
but
I
think
a
lot
of
American
communities
are
having
trouble
encouraging
that
housing
type,
so
I
think
looking
at
creative
ways
of
trying
to
get
more
of
that,
and
it
tends
to
be
more
smaller
sized
units
kind
of
done
at
a
scale
that
may
be
more
appropriate
for
single
family
areas.
So
that's
why
it's
been
looked
at
as
a
solution
to
you
know
some
of
the
housing
crisis
issues.
G
B
A
H
Just
one
question
on,
and
you
may
have
defined
this
earlier-
I'm
sorry,
but
when
you
say
community
leaders,
feedback
who
was
who
are
Community
leaders,
Community.
AS
Leaders
is
just
a
A
variation
of
either
neighborhood,
Representatives
or
organizations
related
to
a
lot
of
suggested
organizations
that
were
suggested
by
council
members
to
reach
out
to
we
get.
There
were
groups
that
didn't
fit
into
the
just
University
or
just
single
family,
but
it
was
a
number
of
different
organizations
that
we
reached
out
to
and
just
to
have
a
a
conversation.
H
Okay,
because
some
orgs,
some
organizations
got
like
identified,
but
then
there
were
just
some
that
are
grouped
in
under
Community
leaders
and
I.
Just
also
wanted
to
say
this
is
a
hard
topic
this
and
occupancy,
and
I
think
that
you
are
getting
the
the
alliance
share
of
email
and
feedback
on
it.
So
I.
Just
this
isn't
a
question.
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
for
for
standing
into
that
line
of
fire
for
us.
H
I
know
that
you're
doing
what
we
have
asked
you
to
do,
and
it's
not
like
you're
going
rogue
or
something
so
I
would
also
just
remind
the
community
when
this
comes
up
in
August
again
and
in
between.
A
AN
Just
saying
myself,
and
maybe
my
colleagues
will
always
take
the
ire
of
the
community
versus
it
going
to
staff
for
sure
so
that.
T
Q
AI
Thank
you,
I
had
a
question
so
in
the
BRC
9-8-2
we
have
a
table
eight
two
that
is
about
far
editions
and
in
that
almost
all
of
our
current
zones
have
exemptions
for
underground
area
and
parking
area.
AI
AS
K
AI
Okay,
so
in
other
zones,
where
we
decide
where
we,
the
Restriction
it
for
building
size,
is
based
on
floor
area
ratio,
there
is
a
table
in
our
code
that
lists
exemptions
that
don't
count
towards
the
floor
area
ratio.
AS
Yeah,
it's
enclosed
parking
areas,
so
the
the
thinking
behind
it
is
that
if
you
don't
penalize
a
designer
of
a
building
or
developer,
it
encourages
them
to
enclose
the
parking.
So
it's
not
visible
on
the
site.
It
does.
It
can
at
time
you
can
add
to
the
mass,
but
it's
preferred
that
the
parking
be
within
the
building
rather
than
in
front
of
the
building
or
visible.
AI
AI
Yeah,
basically,
that
would
be
true
of
with
the
floor
area
numbers
that
we're
looking
at
for
the
majority,
for
basically
all
of
the
zones
that
we're
talking
about
both
tonight
and
that
we've
talked
about
in
previous
meetings.
If
those
exemptions
aren't
maintained,
the
far
numbers
that
we're
talking
about
could
be
down
zones.
B
AS
I
might
add
that
in
the
thinking
of
this
rh1
and
rh2
are
thinking
is
a
little
bit
different
just
because
the
the
context
of
of
the
Goss
Grove
area
is
different
than
some
of
the
other
areas.
So
I
think
my
thinking
was
that
we
would.
Q
AS
AI
AE
AK
B
And
if
we're,
if
we're
done
with
questions
on
these,
we
can
go
to
comments
I'll,
just
throw
out
that
I
I
asked
for
some
of
this
and
I
really
appreciate
how
you
carried
this
out.
This
was
exactly
the
kind
of
thoughtful
Zone
specific
kind
of
suggested
change.
That
I
was
hoping
for
so
I
think
you
did
an
amazing
job
here.
Really
grateful
and
I
think
this
is
a
good
way
of
moving
forward.
Anybody
want
to
disagree.
B
L
B
AQ
Just
clarifying
question:
Carl
thanks
for
the
calculation
on
on
the
potential
for
a
thousand
units
over
time,
just
roughly
I,
don't
know
you
probably
don't
know
this
precisely,
but
roughly
of
these
thousand
potentially
new
units.
How
many
of
them
would
be
could
be
added
to
vacant
Lots.
In
other
words,
how
many
of
these
are
just
lots
that
you
say:
oh
geez,
there's
a
vacant
lot
there,
a
duplex
or
Triplex
to
go
in
there.
AS
AS
So
the
the
guess
is
that
you
know
some
of
these
might
be
environmentally
constrained
with
slope,
and
that
might
be
the
reason
why
they
have
not
subdivided
so,
for
instance,
if
you
have
a
lot,
that's
double
the
lot
size
and
there's
like
slope
in
the
back,
because
you
can't
get
another
building
site.
If
these
changes
were
to
move
forward,
it
would
enable
that
house
to
be
modified
to
become
a
duplex
or
they
might
rebuild
it
as
a
duplex.
AT
B
AK
AQ
Second
of
my
two
questions
is
we
already
allow
this
in
a
lot
of
we're
just
expanding?
What's
an
existing
rule
into
the
RH
and
RLS
and
res?
Is
that
right.
AS
Right
now
in
the
r
r
e
and
RL
one
zone,
it's
only
single
family
that
are
allowed,
rl2
does
permit
townhomes
and
attached.
So
that's
the
outlier.
This
change
would
kind
of
bring
those
in
line
with
rl2.
Well.
AQ
AQ
AS
AQ
B
AS
It
would
basically
be
removing
the
prohibition
on
duplexes
and
triplexes,
but
you
would
have
to
have
a
certain
land
area
the
same
as
the
current
regulations,
so,
for
instance,
in
RL
it's
a
7
000
square
foot
per
lot
per
per
unit
requirement.
So
if
there's
a
lot
that
today
has
14
000
square
feet,
they
could
legally
subdivide
and
add
a
new
single-family
house.
The
change
that's
proposed
here
would
be
that
in
lieu
of
that
you
don't
have
to
subdivide.
You
could
just
convert
that
house
to
a
duplex
or
build
a
duplex.
A
AS
B
Can
I
show
this
Lauren?
Has
this
amazing
spreadsheet
here?
Let's
check
this
out.
This
is
a
is
a
high
level
of
land
use
nerdery
over
here,
so
she
was
able
to
give
me
the
the
answer
pretty
quickly
here
Okay,
so
so
it
would
be
in
kind
of
limited
circumstances,
on
larger
Lots
and.
AS
AK
AS
B
And
and
I
guess,
then,
that
that
leads
me
to
not
a
technical
question
but
a
messaging
question
about
the
like.
If
we
say
okay,
if
the
the
code
changes
allow
duplexes
in
RR
what
you
know,
there's
certain
land
area
in
that,
but
the
number
of
places
you
could
actually
do.
One
is
like
seven:
how
do
we
get
a
message
that,
because
sometimes
people
in
the
community
get
sensitive
about
these
things,
I
don't
know,
do
you
would?
AS
B
I
mean
it
is
kind
of
a
silly
question
and
so
yeah
point
taken.
We
would
try
to
communicate
it
to
people
like
we
always
do.
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
It's
getting
late,
any
other
questions.
Yeah
Rachel.
E
H
AS
The
the
point
that
I
that
I've
been
trying
to
make
is
like
with
re
the
thing
about
RR
is
it
has
a
land
use
designation
of
no
more
than
two
dwelling
units
per
acre
r
e
and
RL
allow
up
to
six
dwelling
units
per
acre.
It's
just
that
the
way
re
has
been
developed.
It
has
a
minimum
lot
size
of
15
000
square
feet.
AS
B
AS
Thousand,
but
what
I'm
saying
is
that
the
the
land
use?
Does
it
what
we're
trying
to
propose
things
that
are
consistent
with
the
land
use,
designation
and
the
BV
CP?
So
because
re
has
the
same
land
use
designation
as
RL
you,
you
could
actually
technically
change
the
zoning
to
enable
two
units
on
a
15,
000
Square.
B
Foot
Locker
well
the
I
guess
I
misunderstood
the
answer
to
my
earlier
question,
because
I
had
thought
that
you
were
talking
about
like
making
duplexes
in
allowed
use,
but
that
it
would
still
be
subject
to
the
same
minimum
lot
area
per
dwelling
unit
as
it
is
currently.
Is
that
not
what
you're
saying.
E
B
C
We
have
this
really
interesting
email
from
somebody
in
the
community
who
strongly
supports
duplexes
but
said
that
he
has
one
suggests
that
might
assuage
many
of
the
conservatives
of
the
residents
require
that
one
of
the
units
be
occupied
by
the
authentic
owner
of
any
property
converted
from
single
to
multi-family
housing.
This
requirement
could
sense
it
after
five
years
or
ten
of
occupation
of
that
property.
The
purpose
is
to
prevent
real
estate
speculation
of
well-funded
corporate
real
estate
funds,
who
would
otherwise
Sue
about
properties
and
build
rental
properties
of
low
quality.
P
C
Excellent
yeah
is:
is
there
some
of
the
community
members
in
their
letters,
said
that
they
were
concerned
that
duplexes
would
not
be
affordable.
So
of
course
they
would
be
more
affordable
than
single-family
homes.
But
let's
say
in
that
one
of
the
expensive
neighborhoods
by
Chautauqua,
maybe
they'd,
be
1.5
to
2
million
for
just
a
duplex
right.
So
is
there
a
way
to?
Is
there
any
guardrails
we
can
have
on
the
duplex
situation
where
we
could
make
sure,
maybe
that
their
owner
occupied
and
then
Rachel
could
have
her.
C
H
So
if
this
is
a
question,
I
don't
know
how
to
colloquy
a
question
on
that,
but
I
guess
yeah
is
that
a
would
staff
consider
that
a
feasible
route
for
us
to
look
at
yeah
for
and
I
don't
know
that
it's
specific
to
the
rrre
and
RL
conversation,
though,
because
I
think
that
one
maybe
gets
to
move
forward
and
then
separately
as
we
look
at
perhaps
a
broader
swath
I.
AS
Think
when
we
get
into
like
requirements
about
owner
occupancy
or
deed
restriction,
it
gets
really
complex.
So
there
would
have
to
be
a
review
process
for
that.
So
then
we're
starting
to
go
down
the
road
of
it.
It's
not
really,
you
know
incentivizing
it,
and
it
also
adds
to
kind
of
the
number
of
applications
that
we
have
to
review
and
they
have
to
be
like
monitored
over
time.
AS
B
AS
AT
AP
AP
It
also
can't
be
a
rental
in
and
of
itself
you
can
rent
one
one
part
of
the
property,
but
not
the
the
owner
occupied
unit,
and
then
the
way
that
we
have
that
written
in
the
code
is
is
that
it
has
to
be
on
or
occupied,
and
then
we
follow
that
up
with
a
dou
which
is
a
declaration
of
use
at
the
time
of
granting
the
Adu
to
the
property
and
then
that
Declaration
of
use
just
continues
on
with
the
property
it
used
to
be
that
it
was
specific
to
the
owner
and
they
had
to
transfer
that
over.
H
Add
one
more
thing
to
that
which
is
I,
don't
know
that
it's
only
helpful
at
preventing
it
from
becoming
a
rental,
but
I
think
it
also
may
help
the
situation
where
you
know
you've
got
developers
coming
in
buying
up
properties,
which
is
another
concern
that
people
have
and
then
flipping
them
like.
If
you
are
redeveloping
your
own
property
lit
to
live
in
half
of
it
chances
are
it's
it's
going
to
be
more
middle
income
to
to
Mark,
Wallace
or-
or
you
know,
probably
a
a
less
fancy
unit,
perhaps
like.
H
G
Yeah
no
have
we
again,
the
goal
is
affordability.
Have
we
done
much
analysis
as
to
what
a
duplex
or
even
a
Triplex
will
look
like
in
in
terms
of
cost
to
a
buyer?
G
Lauren
may
have
better
information
than
I
do
in
terms
of
current.
You
know
hard
construction
costs,
but
I
know
BHP
does
it.
You
know
uses
400,
plus
per
square
foot
and
if
you're
buying
a
house
for
a
million
two
or
a
million
four
and
you're,
you
know
creating
a
duplex
of
two
15
or
1700
square
foot
units
I
mean
you're,
not
getting
anything.
That's
going
to
be
less
than
you
know.
G
One
point
three:
four:
five
million
dollars:
I
I'm,
not
quite
sure
what
what
advantage
we're
getting
unless
we
have
some
sort
of
requirement
for
affordability-
or
you
know
we're
doing
what
you
know-
accommodating
Rachel
and
her
family,
which
I
think
is
a
different
circumstance,
but
have
we
done
any
analysis?
You
know
what
kind
of
product
are
we
going
to
get
here?
We're
certainly
not
going
to
get
650
000
duplexes.
AS
G
Yeah
again,
you
know
my
history
look
at.
It
is
you're
going
to
get
a
thousand
dollar
per
square
foot
properties
which
is
like
condos
and
I
I.
That's
fine!
It's
a
product
type,
but
I,
don't
know
that
we're
achieving
the
basic
objective
and
it
would
be
nice
if
somebody
could
look
at
it
and
say
oh
say
that
I'm
wrong
and
you
don't
know
we're
going
to
get
really
affordable.
Seven.
G
Eight,
even
nine
hundred
thousand
dollar
duplexes
I
I,
see
no
indication
that
that's
going
to
be
the
case
now
not
at
the
numbers
we're
looking
at
and
again,
I
would
defer
to
Lauren
if
she's
got
a
different
sense
of
you
know
what
the
numbers
are
for
a
hard
cost
of
construction
and
soft
costs
and
by
the
time
you're
done.
You
might
even
want
to
make
a
little
money.
AI
You
know
largely
when
we're
talking
about
duplexes
with
the
exemption
of
the
re
Zone.
These
are
all
Lots.
AI
That
could
be
subdivided
so
I
think
that
the
the
like
developer
risk
of
creating
a
lot
of
duplexes
is
not
very
common.
In
my
experience,
these
larger
Lots
typically
have
a
premium
associated
with
them,
just
because
there
aren't
that
many
large
Lots
in
Boulder
and
I
think
that,
because
they
could
currently
be
subdivided
and
have
two
units-
and
they
haven't
been
there's
reasons
for
that-
the
people
who
own
them
don't
want
to
do
that,
they're,
not
in
locations
that
make
sense
for
that.
AI
If
the
economy
changes
and
it
makes
sense
to
develop
these
as
duplexes,
you
won't
have
people,
because,
typically
the
house
is
going
to
be
sort
of
in
the
middle
of
the
lot,
and
you
won't
have
people
tearing
down
the
existing
house
and
subdividing
the
property
to
do
two
new
houses.
You
know
there's
actually
some.
It
allows
a
little
bit
more
flexibility,
flexibility,
but
I
would
say
that
I
don't
see
this
having
a
really
strong
uptake
very
quickly
because
of
some
of
the
other
Market
factors
at
Play.
AI
That
might
be
a
little
bit
different
in
Ari,
because
we
would
be
changing
what
the
minimum
lot
size
requirement
is,
but
I,
don't
I
still,
don't
anticipate
that
it
would
be
probably
a
large
shift.
D
D
What
I
was
kind
of
getting
from
the
the
research
papers
was
that
adding
more
homes
is
never
going
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
lowest
income
members
of
our
community
and
basically
suggesting
it
would
be
foolish
for
us
to
think
that
it
will
so
as
I
read
the
papers,
it's
more
we're
working
on
creating
more
affordability
for
20
30
years
from
now
with
some
of
these
zoning
changes
and
that,
if
we're
interested
in
affordability
for
now,
we
need
to
look
at
something
like
a
different
mechanism,
because
that's
not
what
this
is
targeted
to
do.
AS
AN
My
question
is,
you
know
it's
probably
intentional,
but
it
seems
like
the
comp
plan
is
what
is
holding
us
back
from
meeting
the
needs
of
our
community.
AN
I
know
it's
a
guiding
document,
but
is
it
centered
in
Absolute,
Concrete
and
so
I'm
kind
of
curious
about?
Is
there
flexibility
where
we
know
where
we're
headed
and
we
can
just
start
marching
there,
knowing
where
we're
headed
with
the
comp
plan
conversation
where
we
want
to
take
our
community
and
so
I'm
just
worried
about
this
sort
of
like
we're
held
up
held
up,
we
have
to
do
it
and
then
we
launch
forward
and
we're
just
missing
time
to
make
the
changes
that
the
community
is
craving.
AN
AT
Sure,
okay,
you
know
I
think
it's
important
to
to
recognize
that
the
comprehensive
plan
is
is
so
named
because
it
does
tie
pieces
together
that
are
integral
and
and
when
we
look
at
just
one
element
like
density
without
respect
to
Service
delivery
infrastructure
delivery,
those
types
of
things,
then
we
start
to
get
out
ahead
of
ourselves
and
so
I
think
we've
been
very
careful
in
in
making
sure
that
the
types
of
things
we're
bringing
forward
under
the
current
known
circumstances
that
were
defined
under
the
the
latest
update
to
the
comprehensive
plan
are,
are
doable
and
within
the
span
of
that
so
I
I.
AT
Don't
know
that
the
comp
I
would
agree
quite
with
the
characterization
that
the
comprehensive
plan
is
holding
us
back.
So
much
as
it
is
the
vision
that
it's
intended
to
be
moving
forward,
but
that
vision
is
comprehensive
in
doing
analysis
of
things
like
Stewart
and
storm
water
and
school
and
fire
capacity
and
all
the
things
that
we
look
at
so
I.
Don't
know
if
that
helps
kind
of
frame
the
issue
a
little
bit
differently.
I.
Q
AN
I
say
it
and
it's
maybe
partially
rhetorical
I
guess
it's
just
because
you
know
something
like
just
saying:
let's
just
allow
duplexes
on
Corner
Lots
can't
even
like
make
like
the
initial
step
right
and
that's
the
thing
is
we
can't
they
increment
ability
to
do
that
is
sort
of
Almost
Dead
on
Arrival
because
of
the
nature
of
the
complaint,
so
I'm
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
get
to
is
I
like
what
this
is
headed
and
the
question
is
this:
is
a
I
mean
this
is
a
good
phase
one,
but
can
we
start
to
Define
what
phase
two
is
and
building
to
that
and
I
guess
there
just
seems
to
be
something
left
here
that
that
is,
and
it
kind
of
goes
to
Lauren's
point
of
there's
a
there's
Association
for
the
next
and
and
there's
an
this
is
good,
but
it
still
feels
inadequate
to
the
goals
that
we
set
up
at
our
Retreat.
AT
I
do
want
to
assure
counsel
that,
through
all
of
these
conversations
you
know
we
we
put
these
in
a
a
box,
so
to
speak,
recognizing
that
this
is
the
next
generation
of
discussion
we
are.
We
are
working
with
the
admittedly
limited
scope
that
was
defined
and
and
and
and
and
doable
with
what
we
have,
but
that
certainly
doesn't
preclude
the
reality
that
we're
thinking
about
these
things
and
teeing
them
up
as
expectations
for
how
we
lead
into
say
the
next
comprehensive,
Plan
update
and
I
I
don't
know.
AN
AK
A
B
No
I
got
a
motion
on
the
table.
You
know
there's
potential
potential
potential.
All
in
favor
of
continuing
the
meeting
raise
your
hand
right.
I
got
I,
got
nine,
so
continue,
yeah
yeah.
So
all.
AT
That
to
say
is:
please
be
assured
that
this
isn't
falling
on
tough
years,
we're
trying
to
frame
those
things
for
future
discussions
and
future
capacity
and
future
analysis.
A
AT
C
C
Within
the
future
talks
that
we
do
have,
what
are
what
do
you
think
about
decreasing
the
lot
size,
let's
say
to
in
the
ro1,
for
example,
to
six
thousand
so
that
we
I
just
think
a
lot
of
people
like
the
fam,
the
single
family.
Zone.
Look!
So
maybe,
if
we
decrease
the
lot
sizes,
we
can
get
more
houses
into
those
it.
You
know
what
I'm
saying
colically
for.
AT
J
AT
B
So,
thank
you
for
that.
So
if
we
can
move
to
discussion
now,
if
we
could
about
whether
people
are
interested
in
pursuing
this
change
about
allowing
duplexes
and
triplexes
and
some
of
these
zones
on
larger
Lots,
but
yeah
yeah.
AN
I
think
you're
hearing
there's
a
clamoring
for
more
and
and
not
just
a
little
bit,
and
so
you
said
we,
you
said
that
it's
been
heard
and
I
just
I
think
just
putting
it
out
in
The
Ether
I
like
where
this
is
at,
but
really
need
to
think
next
steps.
Bold
next
steps,
and
hopefully
that
really
sets
up
really
big
visioning
for
what
we
can
do
in
the
comp
plan.
As
that
ball
starts
to
roll,
so
I
know
that's
going
to
be
what
it
unfurls
the
bottleneck
here.
So,
but
thank
you
guys
for.
H
Couple
things
I
I
really
like
feel
the
love
for
my
parents
all
night.
There's
a
lot
of
references
to
Ruth
and
George
I
I
am
not
actually
eligible
for
for
duplexing
under
the
current
plan
for
the
record.
But
yes,
I
support
I
want
to
just
reiterate,
like
just
part
of
why
I
support,
duplexing
and
triplexing,
not
just
here
but
in
general
I,
think
it
is
awesome
potential
for
flexibility
for
multi-generational
living,
which
is
I,
am
at
that
age,
where
I
guess
I'm.
H
In
a
sandwich
situation
where
both
my
parents
and
my
kids
I
would
like
to
have
closer
and
be
able
to
I
guess,
pool
Resources
with
I
also
have
heard
from
people
who
have
kids
with
like
developmental
disabilities
and
caretakers
that
it
would
be
awesome
to
be
able
to
build
a
unit
where
their
kid
could
live
on
one
side
and
they
with
a
caretaker
and
they
can
live
on.
H
The
other,
so
I
know,
there's
fear
about
it,
but
the
the
situation
that
I
really
like
and
I
would
be
fine
with
us,
focusing
and
and
humming
in
on
on.
You
know
a
situation
where
it's
not
for
developers,
but
it
really
is
for
two
couples
who
are
friends
who,
who
you
know
want
to
be
able
to
live
in
Boulder
in
their
own
space,
would
make
something
into
a
duplex.
H
The
other
thing
that
I
just
wanna
reiterate
is
that
a
lot
of
houses,
including
a
lot
in
my
neighborhood,
are
at
the
end
of
their
useful
lifespan
and
they
are
going
to
turn
over
I.
Think
the
question
is
not
you
know:
do
we
want
duplexes
in
general?
It's
when
those
houses
do
do
turn
over?
H
Do
we
want
a
single
family
home
there,
or
do
we
want
something
that
is
going
to
Nicole's
point
be
more
affordable,
30
years
from
now
and
and
I'm
an
enthusiastic
yes
on
building
in
future
affordability
that
we
failed
to
do
50
years
ago
and
not
letting
more
time
pass
before
we
get
to
that?
And
yes,
it
might
be
a
million
dollars,
but
it's
not
a
2.5
million.
That's
still
better.
D
I'm
just
going
to
say
yes
and
amen
to
what
Rachel
just
said
and
I
just
also
wanted
to
take
this
opportunity
to
just
thank
you.
Carl
and
Brenda,
for
the
engagement
I
had
asked
to
you
know,
get
some
feedback
from
renters
students,
people
who
struggle
with
housing
costs,
and
you
really
hit
it
out
of
the
park
and
got
us
some
really
valuable
feedback
that
I'm
going
to
be
carrying
forward
as
we
continue
these
discussions.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you.
D
AI
Thank
you,
and
by
this
point,
you're,
probably
regretting
that
you
brought
this
option
forward
to
us,
but
no
I
I
do
appreciate
it.
B
Just
call
myself
and
say
agree
with
the
colleagues
who've
spoken
so
far
and
Rachel
is
particularly
well
put,
and
this
would
be
an
incremental
step
and
I
just
wanted
to
real
quickly
from
the
history
very
quickly,
but
when
we
took
this
up
before
it
was
about
because
of
scrapes
on
some
of
these
large
lots
and
these
absolutely
enormous
homes
that
are
getting
built
mostly
in
North
Boulder,
you
know
four
and
a
half
five
million
dollar
homes
and
about
providing
alternatives
to
those
enormous
extremely
expensive
homes
and
I
was
sad
that
we
dropped
it
back
in
2018,
and
so
it's
worth
picking
back
up
again
all
right.
B
We
can
do
a
straw
poll
if
nobody
else
wants
to
raise
their
hand
and
say
who's
who's
interested
in
carrying
this
forward
in
favor
we've
got,
we
got
eight.
We
got
eight
in
favor
of
carrying
this
forward,
so
Carl's
at
good
enough
feedback.
Yes,
thank
you.
Okay,
very.
AQ
AS
Okay,
so
we
passed
the
residential
growth
management
back
in
the
70s,
based
on
the
Danish
plan.
It's
a
chapter
in
our
land
use
code
right
now.
It
basically
limits
the
number
of
residential
units
per
one
percent
of
the
existing
housing
stock
per
year.
You
can
see
the
purpose
there.
It's
one
thing
that
we
have
to
look
at
with
every
building
permit
a
growth
allocation
has
to
be
approved
with
every
residential
building
permit.
That
comes
in.
AS
So
it's
a
procedural
thing
that
we
do
and
then,
in
May
of
this
year
the
Colorado
legislature
passed
House,
Bill,
23
1255,
which
basically
prohibits
such
a
program.
So
the
law
is
intended
just
like
we're
talking
about
removing
zoning
and
land
use
barriers
to
new
housing,
so
it
actually
goes
into
effect
on
August
6th.
So
before
the
council
is,
should
we
move
forward
with
an
ordinance
to
repeal
that
chapter
of
the
code
and
the
one
thing
we
wanted
to
make
clear
to
the
council?
AS
Is
that
there's
a
one
percent
cap,
but
there
are
a
number
of
types
of
units
that
are
exempt
from
included
in
that
one
percent,
so
affordable
units
mixed
use,
units
units
that
are
on
commercial
or
industrial
sites
are
exempt
from
being
included
in
that.
But
the
other
thing
we
wanted
to
point
out
is
that,
even
if
you
did
include
all
of
those
units
which
are
the
majority
of
the
units,
it
still
averages
under
one
percent
anyway.
AS
B
So
clarifying
question:
you
said
not
much
impact
I
mean
I.
Think.
Is
it
a
true
statement
to
say
that
it's
had
zero
impact
in
the
last
10
or
maybe
even
20
years?
That's
right!
Yeah!
Okay,
are
people
comfortable?
We
were
required
to
remove
this.
Are
people
comfortable
this
taking
the
step
to
remove
it?
B
J
No,
not
that
I've
noticed
I,
just
wanna
foreign
like
we
I,
want
to
say
this
right.
We
hear
where
you
want
to
go.
We
hear
the
sense
of
urgency
to
change
what
has
been
Decades
of
a
particular
direction.
J
Yes,
we've
accomplished
this
incremental
step
and
we
are
continuing
to
hear
from
Council
where
you'd
like
us
to
go
next,
and
so
it
is
not.
It
is
not
falling
on
deaf
ears,
as
we
continue
to
do
that
work
and
just
wanted
to
lift
all
of
that
up
and.
B
And
that
work
has
been
heroic,
I
mean
like
this
is
really
detailed.
You
did
a
lot
of
community
engagement.
You
came
up
with
these
various
specific
detailed
proposals,
so
Carl
you're,
a
rock
star,
as
is
the
rest
of
the
team
who's
been
working
on
this,
so
I
really
appreciate
that,
but
we
have
a
troublemaker
in
the
room
which
is
learn
folkward.
Who
has
something
else
to
say.
AI
AI
AI
If
we're
entirely
basing
this
off
of
far
and
like
100
residential
would
be
allowed,
you
might
see
a
loss
of
commercial
and
industrial
space,
and
so
I
was
wondering
if
we
might
be
able
to
look
at
as
you
go
forward,
maybe
a
bonus
for
residential
or
sorry
for
commercial
or
industrial
space
within
that,
for
instance,
if
it
had
a
base
far
of
1.25,
we
could
do
like
a
0.25
bonus
for
particular
kinds
of
use
to
help
ensure
that
those
uses
continue
to
exist
in
that
zone.
AI
Then
I
had
one
other,
which
was
in
the
bc1
bc2
zone
because
all
of
this
sort
of
started
by
talking
about
diagonal
Plaza
and
what
was
allowed
there
so
diagonal
Plaza
is
a
is
actually
what's
currently
proposed.
Is
a
1.7
far
and
I
think
what
we're
looking
for
that
area
is
a
1.5
I
know
that
there
are
some
bc1
bc2
zones
that
are
a
little
bit
more
residential
in
character,
but
there
was
a
thought
about.