►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Meeting 8-17-23
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
C
A
E
F
A
G
Thanks,
my
name
is
David
Gross
and
I
serve
on
the
Boulder
City
Council
audit
subcommittee.
My
PhD
is
in
financial
economics
and
I'm.
A
teaching
Professor
I
have
a
finance
at
CU,
Boulder
and
I
separate
from
my
academic
activities.
I've
done
this
type
of
accounting,
audit
and
financial
oversight
for
many
years
and
for
many
local
organizations-
and
this
is
my
fifth
year
on
the
city's
audit
committee.
G
The
committee
consists
of
council
members,
Joseph
Wallach
and
myself
I'm,
the
outside
expert
and
our
job
is
to
assess
and
interpret
the
audit
of
the
city's
2022
fiscal
year
and
the
financial
statements.
It
is
not
the
job
of
this
Committee
in
any
way
to
assess
the
stability
or
health
of
the
city's
financial
position
or
to
assess
the
priorities
or
efficacy
of
exponential
activities.
That,
of
course,
is
the
job
of
the
council
and
all
Boulder
residents,
but
without
the
work
done
by
the
city's
Auditors
and
this
committee,
people
could
not
perform
these
assessments.
G
So
the
motion
on
the
consent
agenda
for
later
this
evening
is
to
approve
and
accept
the
city
of
Boulder,
2022,
annual,
comprehensive
financial
report,
the
akfer
and
the
audit
of
the
2022
act
firm
and
so
I'll
give
a
brief
description
of
the
four-part
process
that
led
us
to
this
point.
First,
the
City
Records
the
city
staff
records
all
Financial
transactions
as
they
occur.
G
G
There
are
three
types
of
financial
statements
for
each
of
these
45
entities
and
then
an
aggregate
statement
like
a
p
l
or
an
income
statement,
the
statement
of
Revenue
expenses
and
change
in
that
position.
All
revenue
transactions
are
summarized
and
categorized
by
Source.
All
expense
transactions
are
summarized
and
categorized
by
type
and
from
these,
the
staff
computes,
the
resulting
net
change
in
fund
balance
like
a
balance
sheet,
the
statement
of
net
position
lists
what
the
city
owns
and
what
the
city
owes
and
the
resulting
net
position.
G
Next
is
the
statement
of
cash
flows,
this
documents,
the
sources
and
uses
of
all
cash
over
the
year
if
an
entity
has
lots
of
non-cash
revenues
or
lots
of
non-cash
expenses,
in
other
words,
a
lot
of
transactions
on
credit,
an
entity
that
appears
to
be
financially
healthy
can
run
out
of
money
waiting
to
get
paid.
That
is
not
the
case
with
the
city
of
Boulder,
the
city
has
very
few
credit
transactions.
G
These
financial
statements
are
public.
They
can
be
used
by
anyone
to
understand
how
the
city
operates.
Among
questions
that
can
be
answered
is
from.
Where
does
the
city
receive
its
funds?
Where
does
the
city
spend
its
funds?
How
stable,
healthy
and
sustainable
is
the
city
of
Boulder
and
what
are
the
city's
priorities
and
how
effective
are
its
Financial
activities?
G
Other
questions
can
only
be
answered
if
the
city
accurately
records
its
transactions
and
produces
correct
financial
statements,
and
that,
of
course,
is
the
purpose.
Excuse
me
of
the
audit,
so
third,
a
record
of
these
transactions
and
the
financial
statements
are
given
to
the
auditor
Clifton
Larson
Allen.
G
In
addition,
the
auditor
works
with
the
city
staff
to
gain
an
understanding
of
the
process
used
to
record
the
transactions
and
prepare
the
financial
statements,
and
the
auditor
ensures
that
the
recording
and
preparation
are
done
in
accordance
with
the
rules
set
by
the
government,
Accounting
Standards,
Board,
and
so
the
results
of
the
audit.
The
Auditors
gave
a
clean
opinion.
G
This
is
the
best
possible
result
for
the
city
so
summarizing
the
opinion
on
page
17
of
the
312
page
akfer,
the
auditor
wrote,
in
our
opinion,
the
financial
statements
referred
to
above
present
fairly
and,
in
all
material
respects,
the
respective
Financial
positions
of
the
government
activities,
business
activities
of
each
major
fund
and
the
aggregate
remaining
fund,
information
of
the
city,
the
Auditors
look
for
deficiencies,
significant
deficiencies
and
material
weaknesses,
and
they
found
none
so
again,
an
overall
clean
opinion.
G
This
is
the
33rd
consecutive
year
and
40
years
total
that
the
city
was
awarded
a
certificate
of
achievement
for
excellence
in
financial
reporting
by
the
government,
financial
Officers
Association
that
certifies
that
the
city
went
beyond
the
minimum
requirements
and
prepared
reports
that
evidence
the
spirit
and
transparency
of
full
disclosure.
This
is
a
strong
Testament
to
the
to
the
skill
and
hard
work
of
the
city
staff.
G
So
the
final
steps,
the
audit
committee
interprets
an
accident
any
recommendations
from
the
auditor.
Again
there
were
none
for
2022.
The
audit
committee
considers
any
audit
findings
and
makes
recommendations
to
the
Council
on
whether
to
accept
the
aqua
and
the
audit
of
the
ACT
firm,
and
it
is
the
unanimous
recommendation
of
the
audit
committee
that
the
council
approve
and
accept
the
report
and
the
audit
of
the
report.
F
David
thanks
for
doing
this
for
five
years
in
a
hope,
you're
around
for
many
many
more
years,
thanks
I,
seem
to
recall
from
a
few
years
ago.
I
know
this
is
a
very,
very
clean
opinion.
This
year,
a
few
years
ago,
maybe
two
or
three
years
ago,
there
were
a
few
minor
deficiencies
that
the
auditor
found
and
I
think
they
were
primarily
related
to
I.T
correct
those
have
either
didn't
reoccur
or
they've
been
corrected.
Is
that.
G
Correct
those
were
corrected
two
years
ago
and
were
not
part
of
even
last
year's
audit
right
last
year
there
was
one
single
issue
that
had
to
do
with
a
money
that
Federal
money
that
had
been
spent,
and
there
was
a
small.
There
was
a
record
that
should
have
been
kept
that
wasn't
kept.
But
again
this
was
a
minor
thing
and
no
money
was
misspent
and
I.
A
You
dude
thank
you
good,
well,
David,
thanks,
so
much
for
your
work
on
the
audit
committee,
as
well
as
to
council
members,
Joseph
and
wallet
for
your
work
on
that
and
to
our
outstanding
Financial
staff,
a
clean
opinion,
that's
an
extraordinary
accomplishment,
so
thanks
very
much
for
getting
us
to
that
point.
Okay,
that
closes
that
out.
So
we
will
now
go
to
item
two
on
our
agenda,
which
is
open
comment
and
we
will
have
Ryan
henchen
go
over
the
public
participation
guidelines.
B
H
And
thank
you
for
being
here
this
evening
to
share
your
perspectives
and
your
thoughts
I
want
to
make
sure
that
everyone
is
aware
that
the
city
has
engaged
with
community
members
to
co-create
a
vision
for
productive,
meaningful
and
inclusive
conversations,
and
know
that
this
Vision
supports
physical
and
emotional
safety
for
community
members
staff
and
Council,
as
well
as
democracy
for
people
of
all
ages.
Identities
lived
experience
and
political
perspectives.
H
Please
find
more
on
this
vision
and
this
work
at
the
website
listed
on
your
screen
and
as
we
move
to
the
next
slide.
Please
know
that
the
following
are
examples
of
rules
of
Quorum
that
we
will
follow
this
evening
that
aligned
with
this
vision,
first
off
all
remarks
and
testimony
shall
be
limited
to
matters
related
to
City
business.
H
Participants
are
required
to
sign
up
speaking.
The
name
they
are
commonly
known
by
individuals
must
display
their
whole
name
before
being
allowed
to
speak
online,
currently
on
the
audio
testimony.
As
permitted
online,
and
we
ask
that
in-person
participants
are
asked
to
refrain
from
expressing
support
or
disagreement
verbally
or
with
Applause,
with
the
exception
of
support
for
declarations
and
support,
is
shown
traditionally
silently
through
American
Sign,
Language,
Applause
or
jazz
hands.
Thank
you.
H
I
B
I
Name
is
Jade
Kelly
and
for
the
past
two
years,
I
have
proudly
served
as
president
of
CWA
local
7799,
your
favorite
Union's
favorite
Union.
We
are
worker-led
labor
union
of
six
public
sector
unions,
including
ucw
Colorado,
a
wall-to-wall
union
for
faculty
students
and
staff
at
CU,
UC,
Health,
Workers,
United,
Denver,
Health,
Workers,
United,
Denver,
Public,
Library,
Workers,
United,
Pikes,
Peak,
Library,
Workers,
United
and.
I
Union
of
Colorado
for
workers
in
the
state
public
defender
system
I'm,
here,
testifying
on
behalf
of
all
of
our
union
members,
to
demand
that
this
Council
fall
through
with
your
commitment
to
support
the
working
people
of
Boulder
and
raise
the
minimum
wage.
I
know
it
will
be
the
gas
lit
once
again
tonight
by
folks
from
the
chamber
and
CML
who
have
been
waging
a
war,
a
well-funded
war
on
workers
who
will
undoubtedly
say
that,
despite
the
years
of
record-breaking
profits,
despite
the
dozens
of
delays,
we've
already
had
to
raising
the
local
minimum
wage.
I
The
green
light
from
previously
past
State
legislation
and
the
countless
studies
done
by
experts
in
civil
servants
in
the
cdle
sitting
very
clearly
with
concrete
evidence
from
Denver
in
similar
cities
throughout
the
country
that
increasing
the
minimum
wage
would
stimulate
our
local
economy.
Help
businesses
significantly
reduce
evictions
and
help
families
out
of
poverty.
That,
despite
all
of
these
painfully
obvious
facts,
that
we
have
been
forced
to
prove
on
repeats
that
all
of
you
should
abandon
your
Oaths.
Your
campaign
promises,
and
you
should
ignore
the
facts
and
silence
your
constituents,
who
are
demanding
a
fair
wage.
I
Take
my
testimony
seriously
and
as
an
emergency
appeal
from
the
workers
themselves.
This
cannot
wait
until
2025..
We
have
paramedics
at
UC,
help
making
18
bucks
an
hour
struggling
to
survive.
They
don't
need
a
parade,
they
don't
need
praise,
they
need
a
raise.
We
have
dining
staff
at
CU
who
are
the
primary
Breadwinners
for
their
families
to
become
dependent
on
campus
food,
pantries
them
and
their
children
need
a
raise
in
the
minimum
wage.
I
There
are
48
000
jobs
and
workers
in
Boulder
County
that
pay
less
than
19
bucks
an
hour,
and
you
can
help
them
out
by
voting
to
raise
the
minimum
wage
voting
to
reduce
homelessness
and
hunger
voting
to
decrease
the
wage
Gap
and
keeping
your
promise
to
serve
the
public
good
of
your
constituents.
Thank
you.
J
My
name
is
Mary
Ingham,
I,
live
and
work
on
our
farm
in
unincorporated,
Boulder,
growing,
vegetables,
flowers
and
annuals.
Our
house
predates
the
boulder
airport
built
in
1870s.
It
has
been
an
operating
Farm
since
then
we
are
part
of
an
important
community
of
farmers,
providing
local
food
I
accept
that
growth
is
inevitable
and
that
challenges
come
with
it.
That
must
be
navigated
to
make
the
community
better
for
all,
but
that
should
include
the
Airport
Aviation
businesses
and
Pilots.
J
The
airplane
noise
has
exponentially
increased
over
the
last
six
years,
because
I
work
long
hours
outside
every
day,
along
with
my
farm
help,
we
are
subjected
to
non-stop
airplanes,
flying
low
and
directly
above
us.
Most
days
most
days,
we
wear
earplugs
because
the
noise
is
so
bad
when
I
leave
work,
I
am
still
home
and
the
noise
rarely
stops.
J
K
Good
evening
Council,
it's
my
pleasure
to
see
you
all
again.
It's
been
a
few
weeks
months,
I'm
sad
and
upset
today,
I,
don't
pierceo,
but
today
I'm
full
of
grief,
I'm
I'm,
calling
on
the
word
kyudatsu
Japanese
word
for
despair
and
exhaustion
in
equal
measure.
I
stand
for
the
people
of
Lahaina
in
their
recent
tragedy,
the
fires
that
took
place
mimicked
the
fires
that
we
experienced
in
the
Marshall
fire-
and
it
is
incredibly
it's
a
word.
K
I
can't
find
to
say
how
well
we
survived
as
opposed
to
how
Lahaina
did
contaminated
lands
will
be
the
first
to
burn.
That's
really
all
I
have
to
say
so.
I've
got
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff
to
talk
about,
but
but
these
contaminated
lands
are
going
to
go
first,
and
so
we
need
to
have
a
find
a
way.
We
have
to
find
a
way
to
investigate
these
contaminated
fires,
because
contamination
fires
come
buried.
K
So
we
can
always
look
at
what's
happening
at
the
surface,
but
until
we
get
a
detailed
examination
of
the
heavy
chemicals
that
happen
around
that
are
in
the
Earth
around
Marshall
fire,
we
can't
be
conclusive
about
the
nature
of
the
fire.
These
are
buried,
fires
that
may
have
come
from
below
and
within.
We
cannot
excuse
any
element,
not
the
coal
fires,
nor
Marshall
landfill,
nor
Rocky
Flats
from
having
an
a
negative
impact
on
the
superior
fires.
K
I
say:
I
say
that
to
council,
knowing
that
this
may
not
be
the
right
dios
to
speak
with
on
the
subject
and
David.
Abelson
tells
me
that
he
is
not
the
right
place
for
me
to
come
with.
My
first
concerns,
I'm
I'm
being
given
a
run
around
about
where
and
is
that
a
human
voice
and
my
political
potential
as
a
citizen
is
supposed
to
play
the
right
part
and
I'm
going
to
have
to
start
from
scratch.
L
So
I
wanted
to
utilize
my
mission
of
whole
systems.
Integration
to
raise
the
understanding
of
bringing
indigenous
voices
into
Political
spaces
such
as
these,
since
I've,
been
stepping
into
city
council
and
observing
witnessing
I've
noticed
how
few
indigenous
people
are,
on
the
one
hand
showing
up
and,
on
the
other
hand,
having
the
encouragement
to
speak
and
I
say
that,
from
a
completely
neutral
space
of
my
interest,
stemming
from
my
own
multi-ethnic
background
and
recognition
that
so
much
of
this
planet
is
shifting
into
a
multi-ethnic
multi-racial
world.
In
reality
and
I.
L
Think
that
as
we
move
forward,
I
took
an
indigenous
environmental
class
through
naropa.
My
school
and
highly
recommend
that
to
anybody
who
is
speaking
tonight
and
who
may
speak
in
the
future
or
is
listening
now
that
informing
yourself
of
the
land
that
you're
inhabiting
as
human
beings
and
as
stewards
of
this
planet
is
what
is
going
to
pay
our
respects
to
the
people.
Who
once
were
here
and
the
things
that
have
happened
to
them.
L
And
so,
instead
of
seeing
ourselves
so
much
as
indigenous
and
colonizer
I'm
wondering
how
we
can
bridge
the
gap
between
the
two
and
find
the
space
to
just
be
human,
and
so
the
question
I
wanted
to
bring
tonight
was
what
I
wrote
in
my
final
paper
was:
how
do
we
replace
what
was
taken
without
displacing
more
people,
and
so
I
feel
like?
That
was
something
that
I
just
wanted
to
share.
Thank
you.
M
Hi
guys
I
know
you
don't
find
me
speechless
too
often
and
Miss
weiner
didn't
show
up,
I
wanted
to
say
she's.
M
Hey
all
right,
well,
I
can't
see
her
but
I
wanted
to
say
happy
belated
birthday
when
she
caught.
She
got
me
off
guard
last
last
week
when
she
said
she
was
celebrating
her
65th
and
I
sat
there
in
silence,
but
I
wanted
to
say
that
and
I
wanted
to
congratulate
you.
Nicole
on
your
your
bed
for
mayor
I,
wasn't
I
was
lost
in
my
own
thoughts
and
didn't
think
of
that.
M
I
wanted
to
come
comment
on
Mr
cauley's
comments
about
the
fires
and
and
when
he
mentioned
Hawaii
it's
it's
total
devastation
over
there
and
I
can't
even
imagine
it
I
wanted
to
say:
I've
got
my
own
birthday
anniversary
coming
up
and
it's
holding
a
five-year
anniversary
of.
If
you
know
you
know
for
me,
and
the
biggest
thing
I'm
going
to
be
celebrating
this
year
is
our
ongoing
efforts
with
reform
in
the
police
department.
I
want
to
give
Commendation
to
the
work.
M
That's
been
done
to
change
things
so
that
we
can
all
live
in
a
better
place
and
for
the
cleanups
and
the
the
efforts
that
are
going
forth.
I'm
going
to
miss
some
people
tremendously,
when
you
guys
move
on
I
hope
you
stay
with
us
in
one
capacity
or
another
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
continue
to
change
your
progress.
A
N
As
you
already
know,
immigrants
are
among
the
lowest
paying
workers
in
Boulder
we
Are
Witnesses
to
how
much
many
of
the
families
we
serve
struggle
to
stay
afloat,
to
pay
rent
and
to
pay
their
bills,
and
we
often
have
to
they
come
to
us
for
resources
that
we
don't
have,
and
we
have
to
refer
them
to
organizations
like
EFA
most
of
the
working
adults
and
the
families
must
keep
multiple
jobs
to
make
ends
meet
and
we
see
every
day
how
these
families
or
Families
my
neighbors.
N
O
Good
evening
my
name
is
Ann
Tapp
I'm,
the
executive
director
at
safehouse,
Progressive
Alliance
for
non-violence
and
sure
that
I've
been
with
our
Organization
for
more
than
30
years.
O
I
shared
that
in
part,
to
provide
some
historical
perspective
to
the
consent
agenda
that
you
will
will
be
reflecting
on
this
evening.
The
0.15
sales
in
use
tax
in
the
mid
1990s.
This
city
boldly
asked
its
voters
to
fund
the
critical
Human
Services
that
dozens
of
organizations
at
the
time
provided
to
support
our
community
and
the
voters
said
yes
fast
forward
to
when
that
tax
extension
was
voted
on
again
in
the
early
2000s.
O
The
voters
again
agreed
to
extend
it
for
another
20
years
and
broaden
it
Beyond,
just
Human
Services
to
include
Public
Safety
in
a
broad
range
of
General
general
fund
items
tonight
fast
forward
to
tonight.
We're
looking
at
the
future
use
of
that
0.15
and
our
friends
in
the
art
community
successfully
petitioned
to
to
provide
a
hundred
percent
of
that
0.15
fund
to
support
the
Arts.
They
were,
as
you
know,
negotiations
in
this
in
conversations
and
the
agreement
was
to
look
at
50.
O
That's
great,
but
50
percent
of
a
pie
is
still
just
50
percent
and
as
we
move
forward
over
the
next
20
years,
what
we
can
expect
as
a
community
is
that
the
needs
of
our
most
vulnerable
community
members
will
continue
to
increase.
P
O
Know,
I,
don't
get
a
sense
of
yeah
I
think
it's
honestly
I
think
it's
it.
It's
a
difficult
decision.
I,
don't
know
that
there's
a
better
option.
I
do
I,
do
anticipate
that
Human
Service
organizations
are
going
to
be
facing
cuts
and
that
will
come
back
to
city
council,
future
city
councils
to
to
the
staff
and
to
our
friends
in
the
Arts
Community,
who
have
who
have
come
forward
to
support
the
work
that
we
do.
So
it's
a
difficult
decision,
but
I'm
not
sure
what
a
better
option
would
be.
Thank
you.
Q
Q
Thank
you
all
180
VP
for
Boulder
area,
labor
Council,
which
supports
about
20
000
members
and
families,
some
of
whom
work
in
this
area,
some
of
who
live
in
this
area,
and
some
of
them
would
like
to
like
to
live
in
this
area
if
they
could
afford
it,
but
they
can't
and
that
specifically
I
want
to
talk
about
minimum
wage.
Q
We
urge
the
council
to
consider
following
the
county
commissioner
process
and
looking
at
raise
the
minimum
wage
by
this
year.
2024.,
it's
super
important.
We
get
started.
We
have
a
long
ways
to
go
to
get
to
a
livable
wage
which
we
estimate
to
be
25.
So,
currently,
1365
just
doesn't
cut
it,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
our
members
that
are
suffering
and
having
a
hard
time
paying
bills.
They
can't
wait
a
year,
they'll
get
evicted
long
before
we'd
get
wages
increase
for
them.
Q
We
also
think
that
the
council
has
the
ability
to
support
Working
Families,
now
we're
struggling
we're
struggling
to
keep
up
with
the
rising
costs.
You've.
R
Q
A
lot
about
housing
is
that
the
the
meeting
the
other
day
when
we
talked
about
trying
to
improve,
affordable
housing.
These
are
all
important
things
that
really
must
get
done
right
away,
but
again
increasing
the
wages
is
going
to
make
a
difference,
but
we
need
to
do
it
by
this
year.
So
please
follow
along
with
the
Commissioners
and
start
that
process
I.
Think
this
city
of
Consortium
has
got
a
great
process
for
making
this
a
solid
plan
that
will
still
support
local
businesses
and
but
by
2025,
isn't
going
to
work.
Q
I
also
wanted
to
share
with
you
all
of
you.
A
few
quotes
in
the
30
seconds
that
I
have
left
on
October
7th
2021,
which
is
almost
two
years
to
date.
Council
member
weiner.
You
shared
that
you
would
definitely
support
raising
minimum
wage
to
15
an
hour
because
it
is
necessary
to
have
a
livable
wage
so
that
people
don't
have
to
work
two
jobs,
so
you
can
just
work
regular
hours,
take
care
of
their
families
and
take
care
of
their
children
same
day.
B
S
Good
evening,
everyone,
my
name,
is
Indira
Kumari
and
I'm-
a
proud
mother
of
twins,
a
dedicated
healthcare
worker,
an
immigrant
from
Nepal
and
a
resident
of
Boulder
for
over
12
years.
I'm,
sorry
I'm
a
little
emotional,
because
it's
so
much
related
to
me
and
I've,
been
as
I
stand
here
today,
I'm
representing
myself
and
other
countless
Working
Families
in
the
city
of
Boulder,
who
are
struggling
to
make
and
and
make
ends
meet
from
my
own
experience.
S
I
know
what
it
is
like
to
live
in
a
leave
not
knowing
where
the
next
meal
is
coming
from
and
not
having
a
roof
over
my
head
for
six
months.
We
did
our
best,
but
sometimes
we
have
to
make
the
hard
choice
between
providing
food
or
treatment
to
the
kids.
I
could
not,
because
of
lack
of
Transportation
I
could
not
access
various
support
services
that
was
available
to
me
like
accessing
the
food
bank.
Now
I'm
working
as
a
full-time
medical
assistant,
I
have
a
condo
and
a
car.
S
Yet
I'm
not
able
to
make
make
my
family's
needs
meet.
I
am
currently
two
working.
Two
jobs
I
work
seven
days
a
week
and
still
need
to
pick
up
extra
shift
because
I
cannot
with
all
those
working
hours.
It's
still
not
enough
for
me
to
pay
for
my
basic
necessities
and
then
every
night
I
go
to
bed.
Thinking
like
this,
and
then
it
gives
me
panic,
attack,
anxiety
and
then
feeling
of
nauseousness.
S
So,
on
behalf
of
my
community
and
hard-working
law
with
immigrants,
I
ask
you
to
please
increase
the
local
minimum
wage
immediately
and
continue
to
increase
it
to
a
level
that
allows
the
worker
to
cover
their
basic
needs
with
one
40-hour
job
that
way,
I'm,
not
depriving
my
time
from
spending
my
kids.
This
is
not
charity.
This
is
academic,
Justice
I'm,
just
asking
for
that.
So
please.
This
is
why
I
came
here
to
plead
to
act
on
this
now
and
thank
you
so
much
and
let's
not
wait
too
longer
to
make
this
happen.
Thank
you.
T
U
U
Tonight,
Boulder
County
recently
announced
in
unincorporated
areas
that
they
were
going
to
move
forward
on
increasing
minimum
wage
to
1570
an
hour
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
that
should
really
just
be
the
beginning
of
this
conversation,
and
that
means
we
need
to
look
at
raising
the
wage
further
than
what
they
have
committed
to,
and
we
also
need
the
city
Boulder
to
step
up
that
commitment
as
well.
U
You
know,
currently,
these
proposals
are
are
well
short
of
what
Denver
has
already
implemented
and
has
been
in
place
for
a
couple
years
now
and
starting
at
January
2024.
The
minimum
wage
Endeavor
will
be
18.29
an
hour,
and
when
we
look
at
the
costs
in
in
Boulder
County
and
particularly
the
city
of
Boulder,
the
housing
costs
and
other
costs
of
living,
I'd
say
it's
a
you
could
make
an
argument
that
it's
at
least
that
Boulder
should
be
doing
at
least
what
Denver
is
doing.
U
We
really
need
to
move
forward
on
this.
Finally,
we'll
be
talking
about
the
city's
discriminatory
housing
laws
later
tonight
and
I.
Think
all
of
you
understand
the
need
that
that
we
need
real
housing
for
Working
Class
People
and
that
we
must
guarantee
workers
fair
and
livable
wages,
but
we
also
need
to
increase
access
to
and
supply
of
housing
options
precisely
so
that
landlords
can't
simply
increase
the
rent
when
we
increase
the
wage
of
working
families.
U
V
Good
evening,
mayor
members,
city,
council
and
staff,
I'm
Jonathan,
singer,
I'm,
the
senior
director
of
programs
and
policy
with
the
boulder
chamber
I'm
also
here
to
talk
about
the
minimum
wage
and
I
want
to
say
first
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
all
the
partner
organizations,
including
effa,
and
the
Community
Foundation
that
participate
in
the
self-sufficiency
standard.
Conversation
that
took
place
just
last
week
describing
the
desperate
need
that
we
have
today.
V
V
Because
it's
not
just
about
the
what
it's
about
the,
how
it's
not
just
about
what
we're
going
to
do,
but
how
we
do
it.
Family
Leave,
secure
savings.
All
these
programs
had
discussion,
evaluation,
negotiation,
Passage
and
then
implementation,
and
that
implementation
took
time,
because
we
wanted
to
get
it
right
for
people
and
for
the
employers
with
new
responsibilities.
V
So
what
does
that
mean?
In
this
case?
You
know
I
used
to
be
a
human
services
case.
Worker
I
worked
with
families
on
public
assistance.
There
were
times
I
had
to
have
tough
conversations
with
families
because
they
got
a
raise
because
they
got
a
raise.
They
were
actually
going
to
lose
more
in
food
assistance,
benefits,
Section,
8
benefits
and
additional
basic
cash
assistance.
V
Those
are
the
tough
choices
that
we
have
to
have
conversations
about
before
we
can
move
forward
with
raising
the
minimum
wage.
There
was
a
city
council
member
in
Longmont,
last
Tuesday
she's,
a
teacher
she's,
a
union
member.
She
was
looking
at
this
and
she
said
I,
don't
even
like
the
idea
of
us
looking
at
numbers
right
now,
it's
supposed
to
be
in
the
hands
of
stakeholders.
Let's
put
this
process
back
in
this
hands
of
stakeholders.
Let's
have
those
tough
conversations
and
remember
it's
not
just
the
why?
Let's
get
the
how
right.
W
C
C
We've
served
about
800
people
in
Boulder
County.
Actually
it's
about
a
thousand
people.
If
you
can
include
their
family
members
just
in
the
last
month
or
so.
We've
had
two
single
mothers,
one
with
10
children,
one
with
nine
children.
We've
helped
furnish
homes
for
them
a
safe
place
where
they
can
start
a
life
away
from
a
violent
partner.
C
So
our
work
is
supporting
housing
stability,
it's
advancing
equity
in
the
community,
and
it
also
has
an
environmental
component
because
there's
an
awful
lot
of
stuff
that
gets
given
to
us.
Instead
of
sent
to
the
landfill,
so
we
could
not
do
this
important
work
without
our
Human
Services
funding,
we're
very
grateful
for
it,
and
we
hope
that
you'll
very
carefully
reconsider
messing
with
the
the
funding
allocation
as
it
is
right
now.
Thank
you.
X
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
opportunity
to
speak.
Connor,
Hall,
UFCW,
Local,
7,
member
working
out
of
king
supers
here
in
Boulder
I
know
time
is
limited
I'm
here
to
speak
in
support
of
the
minimum
wage
and
urge
you
guys
not
to
put
it
off
another
year
and
just
remind
you
of
some
of
the
comments
that
the
the
very
people
on
this
Council
made
all
the
way
back
in
2021
about
raising
it
to
exactly
15
an
hour
two
years.
X
Two
years
ago,
council
person
folkerts,
you
said
15
an
hour
is
great,
but
not
far
enough
for
our
community
around
mind,
you
not
far
enough
back
in
2021,
our
cost
of
living
is
higher
here,
and
we
should
have
a
minimum
wage
to
reflect
that
council
person
Wallach.
X
You
said
I'm
always
interested
in
raising
the
minimum
wage.
I
think
all
workers
deserve
the
opportunity
to
live
on
the
sellers
that
they're
they
are
making.
It
turns
out
that
every
time
the
minimum
wage
is
raised,
everyone
adjusts
and
the
world
does
not
come
to
an
end.
A
15
minimum
wage
is
appropriate
and
I
would
be
more
than
happy
to
support
that
council
person
Winer.
X
You
said
I
definitely
support
raising
the
minimum
wage
to
15
an
hour,
it's
necessary
for
us
to
have
a
livable
wage
so
that
people
don't
have
to
work
two
jobs,
so
they
can
just
work
regular
hours,
take
care
of
their
families
and
take
care
of
their
children.
A
council
person
spear,
you
said
even
fifteen
dollars
an
hour
is
leaving
folks
like
single
parents
in
a
really
precarious
financial
position.
X
As
a
union
member
yourself,
you
said,
I
am
a
strong
advocate
for
a
living
wage
that
enable
people
to
afford
housing,
child
care
and
other
living
expenses,
and
finally,
councilperson
Benjamin.
You
said
I
absolutely
support
increasing
our
minimum
wage
I
think
15
an
hour
is
even
maybe
a
little
too
low.
Increasing
the
minimum
wage
is
a
great
way
for
us
to
bridge
the
wage
Gap
and
build
up
families
and
vigils,
so
they
have
a
chance
to
thrive
in
our
community.
So
we
have
you
even
acknowledging
back
then
that
15
an
hour
was
not
enough.
X
You
had
the
option
to
act.
Then
you
have
the
option
to
act
now.
How
can
you
afford
to
put
it
off
a
year
we
hear
from
you.
We
hear
that
from
the
business
community
that
well
we
don't
know
if
we
can
afford
it
this
year,
but
how
can
you
ask
Working
Families
to
to
go
to
afford
themselves?
Thank
you.
Thank.
Y
Yeah
Lindsey
Gill
where's,
my
timer
Oh
yay,
okay,
yay,
okay,
it
probably
should
be
a
minimum
of
oh
I.
Only
get
well
yeah
25
bucks
an
hour,
but
I'm
not
one
what
to
say.
It
probably
should
be
50
bucks
an
hour,
and
it
could
really
help
everyone
in
this
economy
and
we
need
to
do
an
analysis
of
what
the
costs
are
and
when
we
set
the
minimum
wage,
then
we
need
to
index
it
to
the
cost
of
living
and
then
maybe
everything
won't
need
to
be
going
up.
Y
So
much
disproportionately
I
went
to
the
discussion
about
kanamoto
with
Boulder
County
on
the
edge
of
Longmont
for
conservation
easement,
and
it
was
stunning
what
happened
there,
because
this,
the
the
the
question
is:
should
this
conservation
easement
be
lifted
for
housing
density?
And
this
this
brought
to
mind
a
new
term.
Y
I
won
I've
created,
it's
called
a
combination
of
sprawl
and
infill
and
it's
called
sprawl
fill
because
what
we're
doing
these
days
is
setting
up
whole
cities
like
at
Waterview
and
58th
and
Arapahoe
four
stories:
big,
that's
where
the
affordable
housing
is
it's
25
percent,
affordable
there
it's
on
site
and
there's
a
garage
in
every
house,
and
it's
for
servicing
the
community.
So
they're
going
to
be
commuting.
Y
It's
like
another
city,
it's
in
Boulder,
but
it's
like
another
city
and
then
we
can
infill
between
here
and
58th
and
Arapahoe
and
downtown
and
in
Longmont
what
they're
doing
is.
They
only
have
12
percent
affordable
and
still
they
left
up
this
conservation
easement
to
be
taken
without
following
baldler
Valley
comp
plan,
and
it's
egregious.
Z
Z
Z
For
example,
a
DUI
applies
to
the
individual
and
his
driving
anywhere.
It
doesn't
just
apply
to
the
street
where
he
got
the
DUI
on
July
29,
a
man
was
given
a
summons
for
smoking,
illegal
drugs
under
the
public
library.
Next
to
a
playground
where
a
mother
and
child
were
an
8-1,
a
guy
is
found
sleeping
next
to
a
campfire
on
May
30th.
Z
He
had
a
fire
going
in
an
open
field
on
July
on
June
22,
a
guy
was
using
a
blow
torch
on
a
propane
tank
under
Foothills
Parkway
and
729
officers
responded
to
multiple
calls
about
a
man
waving
a
gun,
a
Boulder
Creek
bike
pass
an
eight
on
eight
nine
at
Foothills,
Hospital
and
er
Tech
was
attacked,
and
this
was
not
the
first
time
he
was
attacked.
Our
First
Responders
are
constantly
attacked,
spat
on
and
verbally
abused,
Etc
there's
so
much
more
of
it.
I
have
no
time
here.
This
isn't
fear-mongering,
as
some
mistakenly
suggest.
Z
It's
just
the
facts
and
it's
just
the
tip
of
the
iceberg.
Enforce
the
laws,
including
the
camping
man,
and
make
people
accountable
for
their
actions,
stop
enabling
the
drug
addicts
wreaking
havoc
in
our
town
and
those
kids
of
older
High
deserve
a
safe
surrounding
area
around
their
school
and
I
spoke
to
some
Boulder
High
kids,
who
were
there
when
the
propane
tank
exploded.
AB
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
just
have
a
question
and
I
don't
know.
If
staff
may
be
able
to
answer
this,
or
if
this
may
be
a
question,
Jonathan
may
be
gone,
but
anyway
my
question
was
just
do
do
we
know
how
many
business
or
what
the
average
is,
that
businesses
are
paying
hourly
workers
in
Boulder.
AB
Thank
you,
yep
and
I
would
also
just
be
interested
as
well,
and
what
the
lowest
wages
that
the
businesses
are
paying.
Thank
you
and
I
know.
I
asked
this.
Every
time
we
hear
someone
say
that
we're
not
enforced
in
a
camping
van
I
just
want
to
check
we're
still
enforcing
the
camping
ban.
AA
We
are
still
enforcing
the
camping
ban
and
providing
the
appropriate
notices
and
taking
the
measures
that
we
believe
were
able
to
try
to
connect
people
to
services.
At
the
same
time,
thank.
AB
F
Y
F
Heard
a
few
speakers
in
the
human
services
are
concerned
about
the
possibility
that
the
council
might
put
on
the
compromise
ballot
measure
relating
to
splitting
the
0.15
tax
between
arts
and
the
rest
of
the
general
fund.
Two
questions
Teresa
one
is
currently
the
0.15
tax
is
not
dedicated
to
any
particular
purpose.
Is
that
correct.
F
AC
Yes,
council,
member
Yates,
that's
correct
So,
currently,
there's
in
the
enabling
legislation,
there's
a
list
of
items
that
are
supported
by
the
tax,
but
there's
no
particular
dedication.
F
And
that's
is
that
an
exhaustive
list,
or
in
other
words,
could
could
the
general
the
money
that
the
general
fund
receives
from
that
tax?
Could
they
be
used
for
things
outside
that
list?
I.
AC
F
Great
and
my
second
question
Teresa,
if,
if
Council
were
to
not
tonight,
not
pass
we're
about
out
of
time,
I
think
with
respect
to
the
county
clerk,
we're
pretty
pretty
close
to
out
of
time
on
the
ballot
measures.
So
if
we
were
to
not
pass
either
tonight
or
the
next
week
or
two,
the
50
50
compromise
measure,
we
would
be
legally
required
to
place
on
the
ballot.
The
petitioners
100
are
dedication.
Is
that
correct.
AC
Yes,
that
is
correct.
However,
all
right
is
sleeping.
AC
F
I
I
yeah,
my
questions
did
a
little
different
than
the
withdrawal.
If
we
were,
if,
if
Council
were
to
fail
to
pass
tonight
or
or
the
next
week
or
two
before
the
clerk's
deadline,
the
50
50
compromise
I
think
we
would
legally
be
required
to
place
on
the
ballot
that
100
our
dedication
that
the
petitioners
request
is
at
correct
Aaron.
That's.
AD
Correct
the
petitioners
have
chucked
all
the
boxes
and
done
what
they
needed
to
do
and
unless
they
withdraw,
it
would
need
to
go
to
the
ballot
and
be
certified.
AD
Yes
or
there
could
be
three,
but
unless
the
100
to
general
fund
is
is
not
adopted,
the
petitioner's
ordinance
would
need
to
move
forward
right.
T
Just
a
quick
question:
if
Carol
fries
free
snap
fries
is
still
here,
I
would
just
welcome
you
to
send
in
information
on
a
home
ahead,
because
that
was
a
program
I
had
not
heard
of,
and
it
sounded
amazing
and
I'd
love
to
give
out
that
resource.
So
if
you
could
email
it
to
us,
that
would
be
fantastic.
A
AE
Yes,
I
was
going
to
ask
the
same
question
for
Carol
freeze
because
I
want
like
to
use
home
ahead.
Thank
you
for
that.
What
I
wanted
to
say
was
Michelle
if
you're
still
in
the
room,
thanks
for
the
birthday
wishes
and
congratulations
on
your
five
years.
T
A
P
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
thank
Lauren
for
all
the
work
that
she
has
done
when
it
comes
to
the
minimum
wage.
This
is
an
issue
that,
or
first
in
2019,
when
I
first
got
elected.
A
lot
of
us
said
that
we
would
support
increasing
the
minimum
wage
in
council
member
Sweat.
Lake
actually
was
the
council
member
who
started
pushing
for
increasing
the
minimum
wage
and
council
member
folkert
after
sweatlick
left
take
on
the
mental
of
doing
the
work
and
she
has
done
a
lot
of
work.
P
P
That's
one
comment
I
wanted
to
make,
and
the
next
comment
or
question
I
wanted
to
ask
in,
or
maybe
it's
just
a
comment
based
on
what
I
heard
from
Jonathan
singer
from
the
the
from
the
chambers
he
mentioned:
hey.
If
we
increase
the
minimum
wage,
is
there
a
possibility
that
people
could
potentially
lose
their
benefits?
Well,
all
I
hope
that
doesn't
happen.
P
I
hope
that
you
know
community
members
who
have
their
benefits
get
to
keep
certain
benefits
right
because,
ultimately,
well
in
a
perfect
world,
people
would
have
jobs
that
are
self-sufficient
and
they
wouldn't
need
government
to
subsidize
their.
You
know
services
on
their
behalf.
So
but
ultimately,
maybe
my
question
is:
are
you
as
part
of
your
work?
Are
you
studying
to
ensure
that
hey?
If
would
would
it
impact?
Let's
say
state
benefits
or
federal
benefits,
Federal
benefits
we
may
not
be
impact.
P
We
may
not
be
able
to
change
and
being
a
council
member
I,
try
not
to
talk
about
my
job
at
the
state
level,
but
I
think
I'm
sure
if
the
state
can
be
proactive
as
well
in
helping
if
people
were
to
lose
their
benefits.
I
would
imagine.
Other
communities
has
done
the
same
as
well.
They've
raise
wages
and
they
have
overcome
some
of
the
challenges
that
Jonathan
singer
asked,
but
I
wanted
to
know
from
you
if
that's
part
of
the
research
that
the
Consortium
of
CD
is
doing
or
the
county
as
well.
Thank
you.
AF
AF
If
you
work
more
than
35
hours
away
a
week,
puts
you
above
the
state,
poverty
or
sorry
the
federal
poverty
limit.
So
some
of
the
bigger
Cliffs
are
less
affected,
but
we're
still
trying
to
figure
out
more
details
around
that.
It's
It's
tricky
to
get
into
the
minutia
of
that,
but
we're
looking
into
it.
E
A
D
A
AG
AF
I'll
just
make
can
I
make
that
disclosure
now
yeah
so
for
item
3H
I
have
worked
with
the
property
owners
for
that
property
in
the
past,
but
I
feel
like
I
can
be
impartial
in
this
decision.
A
F
I
move
items
3A
through
3i
on
the
consent
agenda.
A
Second,
got
a
motion
and
a
second
do
we
have
a
roll
call,
The
Cure
Alicia.
Yes,.
D
E
A
D
A
AD
AD
Eight
five,
eight
eight,
with
100
of
Revenue
to
the
general
fund,
eight
five,
eight,
nine,
a
hundred
percent
of
Revenue
to
arts
and
8591,
a
50
50
split
on
August
3rd
Council
took
no
action
on
three
of
those
five
ordinances
and
that
was
the
safe
zones,
the
charter
changes
and
the
tax
extension
with
100
of
Revenue
to
the
general
fund
on
August
3rd.
On
the
other
two
ordinances,
eight
five,
eight,
nine,
a
hundred
percent
to
arts
and
eight
five,
nine
one,
the
50
50
split
both
of
those
were
amended
at
second
reading.
AD
AD
It
that's
correct.
The
the
emergency
is
so
that
the
city
clerk
can
certify
the
ballot
to
the
county
clerk
by
the
deadline
so
that
these
ballot
measures
are
on
the
voters
ballot
in
November.
AD
It
would
call
out
the
term
Human
Services
as
an
explicit
potential
use
of
general
fund
money
and
that
the
Arts
cultural
and
Heritage
purposes
include
direct
and
grant
funding
for
Arts
and
Cultural
nonprofits
professional
artists,
Arts
education,
venues
and
workspaces,
public
art
and
Multicultural
programs.
The
changes
have
been
highlighted
in
the
packet
addendum
that
was
circulated
earlier
today.
AD
In
summary,
staff
recommends
that
Council
adopt
ordinances
8586
regarding
safe
zones
and
8587,
with
Charter
changes
and
for
the
tax
measures.
Staff
recommends
that
Council
choose
from
the
three
options
that
were
discussed
on
August
3rd,
which
would
be
to
pass
all
three
or
to
pass
conflicting,
100,
Arts,
100
general
fund,
or
to
pass
the
compromise
measure
splitting
the
tax
revenue
50
50..
AD
The
petitioners
have
submitted
a
conditional
withdrawal
of
their
petition
that
will
take
effect
if
Council
adopts
the
compromise
measure
8591
and
does
not
adopt
the
measure
that
would
dedicate
100
to
the
general
fund.
Eight
five,
eight
eight
and
those
are
my
prepared
remarks
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions.
A
It's
very
clear,
thank
you,
Eric,
so
I'll
just
turn
my
colleagues
and
say,
of
course
we
have
a
long
night
ahead
of
us
and
we
did
talk
about
this
extensively
two
weeks
ago.
But
hopefully
we
can
move
this
through
this
fairly
quickly.
But
if
people
have
any
follow-up,
questions
for
today
feel
free
to
ask
them.
Nicole.
AB
Yep
I
was
just
hoping
that
we
could
get
a
little
bit
of
clarity
on
the
impacts
to
the
budget
of
these
different
scenarios.
So
Mark
and
Kari,
you
presented
some
slides
to
us
at
Financial
strategies
yesterday
and
I
know
that
you
have
one
more
new
one
since
then,
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
talk
us
through
that,
a
little
bit.
AH
Sure
happy
to
good
evening
Council,
Mark
Wolfe
budget
officer.
Thank
you
for
the
question
before
answering
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
provide
a
little
context.
I
sent
out
a
few
slides
to
hotline
today.
It's
standard
practice
for
us
to
visit
with
council's
financial
strategy
committee
to
preview
the
upcoming
recommended
budget.
So
that's
why
there's
new
information?
We
want
to
appreciate
that
this
Council
and
Community
hasn't
had
a
chance
to
review
the
2024
recommended
budget
yet
and
that
opportunity
is
coming
up
here
in
in
September,
so
those
numbers
are
preliminary.
AH
The
the
selection
of
slides
that
you
all
received
shows
the
environment
that
we're
in
in
developing
the
2024
budget
and
gives
you
a
sense
of
the
impact
of
the
different
options
before
you
in
terms
of
the
the
different
items
potentially
on
the
on
the
ballot
related
to
the
0.15
sales
tax.
So,
as
we
outline
going
back
to
last
year,
the
most
important
thing
is
that
the
0.15
is
renewed.
AH
I
think
I
heard
someone
in
the
back
to
speak
up,
so
if
it
were
not
to
be
renewed,
we
are
in
a
very
tough
position
from
a
from
a
budget
perspective.
AH
Looking
at
the
other
two
options,
as
I
mentioned
two
weeks
ago,
we
have
crafted
a
budget
that
when
you
see
it
in
full
with
the
2024
recommended
budget,
we
believe
it
puts
us
in
a
situation
where
there
would
not
be
service
impacts
even
with
a
half
dedicated
option,
and
then
you
can
see
the
impact
of
remaining
a
full
general
fund
tax
and
that
does
provide
the
most
flexibility
going
forward.
So
that's,
essentially
the
information
and
the
presentation
I
think
overall
we're
just
aware
of
the
the
ongoing
restrictions
that
we
Face
we
were.
AH
A
AH
A
AB
Yeah
just
a
follow-up
question,
so
there
there
were
the
kind
of
two
different,
slides
and
I
was
wondering
in
the
the
first
two
slides
that
you
sent
us.
One
was
the
general
fund
overview
with
0.15
renew
dedicated
50.
The
next
one
was
general
fund,
ongoing
sources
uses
with
0.15
renew
dedicated
50
and
I'm,
just
wondering
if
you
could
get
at
the
difference
between
those
just
a
little
bit,
because
I'm
not
sure,
I
understand
that
fully.
AH
Sure
so
in
the
first
one,
we're
highlighting
the
the
overall
picture
of
the
general
fund
and
and
focusing
on
fund
balance
after
Reserve,
so
that
essentially
shows
you
overall,
the
fund
balancing
or
not
balancing
the
second
slide
gets
at
ongoing
sources
and
uses.
So
that's
a
that's
something
we're
looking
at
very
closely
because
that's
really
our
ability
to
add
ongoing
services
in
the
general
fund
and
we
fund
many
on
ongoing
services
in
the
general
fund,
so
that
staff
and
operations
and
all
that
good
stuff.
AH
So
with
the
recommended
budget
that
will
be
coming
before,
you
will
be
in
the
position
where
we
have
about
a
half.
A
million
dollars
projected
total
over
the
next
five
years.
So
a
very
constrained
environment
as
as
we've
talked
about
and
that
it
will
be
a
fun
discussion
coming
up
this
year
and
in
future
years.
AB
So
I
just
just
want
to
get
this
crystal
clear.
So
what
what
you're
basically
saying
is
that
If
This
Were
to
go
forward,
and
we
were
just
to
have
half
of
the
this
0.15
renewal
going
toward
the
general
fund.
AB
AH
AB
And
then
you
know,
I
know
that
you
all
are
working
with
departments
and
looking
at
things
that
are
probably
not
going
to
make
the
cut
for
funding
in
2024
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
give
us
a
little
bit
of
a
sense
of
the
kind
of
the
flavor
of
things
that
we
may
be
looking
at,
because
then
the
budget
projections
I
believe
you're
planning
on
really
not
having
these
These
funds
available
as
we're
working
on
the
budget
right
now.
So
like
what
kinds
of
things
could
we
have.
AH
Sure
we
entered
the
2024
budget
process,
anticipating
a
constrained
environment,
as
I
mentioned.
Part
of
that
is
because
we
don't
anticipate
voter
action
so
just
like,
with
the
climate
tax
we
we
did
not
build
that
additional
Revenue
in
we
waited
for
voter
action.
Usually
we
get
more
requests
and
we're
able
to
fund,
and
this
was
no
different.
This
year
we
received
over
26
million
dollars
in
requests
in
the
general
fund
from
departments
knowing
we
had
about
three
million
dollars
when
accounting
for
the
items
that
we
we
knew
we
already
committed
to
in
the
23
budget.
A
AI
AI
A
motion
to
pass
them
would
be
a
standard
process
of
just
getting
votes
needing
five
but
separate
motion
for
85
91.
Given
that
there's
a
necessity
for
emergency,
so
I
knew
we
talked
about
trying
to
pass
all
three,
but
they
would
be
needed
to
be
actually
segregated
from
each
other
in
terms
of
individual
emotions
based
on
the
threshold
difference.
So.
A
They
would
be
required
to
be
segregated
anyway.
We
have
to
have
a
separate
motion
per
ordinance.
Okay,
but
yes,
some
require
five
votes
and
some
require
six
okay,
so
anyway,
so
I
would
you
know
we
have
three
possible
paths
with
the
0.15
sales
tax,
so,
like
I
said
I
would
invite
motions
for
us
to
vote
through
this,
but
we
could
just
clear
off
the
first
two
if
we
would
sure.
F
Let
me
try
to
take
care
of
the
first
that
I
think
are
going
to
be
non-controversial.
I'm,
I,
move
from
items;
seven,
three
I'm
Excuse
me
three,
three
J1
and
3j2,
which
are
ordinances.
We
still
got
to
do
a
separate
motion
still.
F
Asset,
thank
you
Aaron.
Thank
you.
Alicia
I
move
items
item
three
J1,
which
is
ordinance
eight
five,
eight
six.
On
second
reason,.
A
A
D
F
Next
one
sure
I
move
items
item
three
J2,
which
is
ordinance
p587
on
second
reading.
AJ
B
A
E
A
AB
Of
course,
I
just
wanted
to
recall
for
us
how
frustrating
it
was
when
we
arrived
to
this
new
Council
and
there
was
so
much
stuff.
We
wanted
to
work
move
forward
on
and
we
couldn't,
because
we
didn't
have
enough
staff.
This
is
going
to
give
voters
a
choice
to
give
the
next
at
least
two
councils
the
opportunity
to
engage
in
the
work
that
they
feel
they
need
to
do
to
move
our
community
forward
and
address
some
of
the
really
important
issues
we
didn't
get
a
chance
to
do
the
engagement
that
we
should
have
done.
AB
We
did
not
engage
with
our
Human
Services
organizations,
we
didn't
engage
our
departments,
we
didn't
engage
human
relations,
commission
or
the
Arts
Commission
on
this
compromise
measure
and
I
think
it
is
just
so
important
that
we
allow
voters
the
opportunity
to
have
this
choice
to
renew
the
sales
tax
specifically
for
the
purpose.
Well,
not
specifically,
but
generally
for
the
purpose
of
the
general
fund
to
give
the
next
couple
of
councils
the
opportunity
to
deal
with
the
issues
that
they're
going
to
be
facing.
The
voters
choose
to
go
in
a
different
direction.
That's
fine!
AB
E
E
I
think
that
our
opportunity
to
expand
various
services
and
programs
is
going
to
be
limited
if
we
dedicate
funds,
as
is
proposed
by
one
of
the
other
iterations
of
this,
and
as
I
said
this
as
Nicole
said,
this
should
be
a
Community
Choice.
E
If
the
community
wants
to
dedicate
this
entire
tax
to
Arts
and
Cultural
purposes,
fine,
we
will
bear
the
consequences,
and
that
will
be
the
decision
of
the
community,
but
I
also
think
the
community
will
look
at
this
and
say
we
prefer
to
have
the
flexibility
to
increase
and
fund
other
programs
that
are
of
a
priority
to
this
this
community
that
we
would
not
otherwise
be
able
to
do
by
splitting
the
baby
down
the
middle.
A
P
You
I
just
want
to
say
that
Nicole
made
a
compelling
argument
for
the
last
couple
of
weeks
as
she's
been
talking
about
this
and
I
will
be
supporting
this
motion
today,
but
I
also
reserve
the
option
of
supporting
50
50.
If
this
one
fails,
I
just
think
as
well,
I
think
the
community
members
who
came
and
spoke-
and
they
were
to
they
also
were
compelling.
We
know
there
is
an
issue
when
it
comes
to
Human
Services.
P
We
do
prioritize
it,
but
we
still
need
more
funding
and
because
of
that
I'm
willing
to
vote
for
it
at
this
time.
Thank
you.
D
I
A
E
A
Okay,
thanks
any
other
emotions.
I
got
Matt
in
my
sites
here.
AI
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to
amend
and
adopt
on
third
reading
as
an
emergency
measure,
ordinance
85
91,
submitted
to
the
electors
of
the
city
of
Boulder
at
the
general
Municipal
coordinated
election
to
be
held
on
Tuesday
November,
7th
2023.
The
question
of
without
raising
additional
taxes,
extending
the
existing
0.15
sales
tax
and
use
tax
approved
by
the
voters
by
ordinance
7300
beyond
the
current
expiration
date
of
December
31st
2024,
until
December
31st
2044,
with
50
percent
of
the
revenue
used
to
fund
fire
and
emergency
response.
AI
Services
Public,
Safety,
Services,
Human,
Services,
homelessness,
Solutions
and
services
parks
and
other
general
fund
purposes
and
50
of
the
revenue
used
to
fund
Arts
culture
and
Heritage
purposes,
including
direct
and
grant
funding
for
arts
and
culture
for
nonprofits,
professional
artists,
Arts
education
venues
and
workspace,
public
art
and
Multicultural
programs.
As
a
voter,
approved
Revenue
change,
specifying
the
form
of
the
ballot
and
other
elected
election
procedures
and
setting
forth
related
details.
Second,.
A
Experiment,
and
can
just
can
you
just
clarify,
did
you
want
to
use
the
language
the
staff
recommended
in
the
hotline
this
afternoon?
That's
what
I
did
I
think
it
I
didn't
hear
the
Human
Services.
Were
it?
Was
it
wasn't
there?
Okay,
my
mess,
then,
okay,
very
good,
so
we
got
a
motion
a
second
you
want
to
speak
to
that.
AI
Absolutely
actually
I'll
start
with
you
know
if
both
of
these
ballot
measures
seeking
100
use
of
this
0.15
are
brought
to
the
voters,
it's
going
to
pit
a
community
against
itself
that
is
I
just
I.
Just
don't
think
that
that's
where
we
want
to
go.
We
have
an
opportunity
to
find
a
middle
ground
and
in
fact,
in
many
ways
that's
what
our
core
job
is.
It's
not
the
oath
we
took,
but
we
all
know
our
job
is
to
find
compromise.
AI
I
would
just
hate
for
us
to
be
having
to
have
infighting
about
whether
or
not
the
Arts
should
get
money
versus
the
general
fund
and
fight
against
each
other
when
all
of
it
is
important
and
I
think
we
can
do
that
with
the
50,
50
and
I
think
we
need
to
be
able
to
work
together.
Moving
forward
and
I
think
this
50
50
compromise
does
exactly
that
and
I'm
sure
there
will
be
some.
Maybe
tough
choices
down
the
road,
but
the
Alternatives
I
think
are
much
worse.
AI
If,
if
we
are
pitted
against
each
other
and
can
Duty.
A
F
A
AI
B
F
What
Matt
said
I
really
want
to
compliment
both
the
Arts
community
and
the
Human
Services
Community
we're
really
coming
together
and
working
out
a
compromise
here.
I
know
it's
no
compromise
is
perfect
and
everyone
comes
away
a
little
bit
sad
and
unhappy.
But
I
think
this
is
a
good
resolution.
As
Matt
said,
it's
our
job
is
to
find
middle
grounds.
F
If
we
could
describe
the
job
of
City
Council
in
one
word,
it'd
be
prioritization,
and-
and
this
is
a
great
prioritization
exercise-
we
have
limited
resources
and
I
really
complement
the
Human
Services
organizations
for
acknowledging
that
the
Arts
organizations
were
legally
entitled
to
put
on
the
ballot.
100
Pilot
measure
the
Arts
organization,
compromise
on
that
and
withdrew
that
to
the
point
of
50,
we're
still
reserving
50
for
the
general
fund,
specifically
calling
out
Human
Services
as
one
of
the
continuing
funding
recipients
of
this
I
think
this
is
a
great
battle
measure.
AB
Yeah
I
just
had
a
quick
clarifying
question
that
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
this
correctly.
So
if
this
is
the
only
measure
that
goes
on
the
ballot
related
to
this
tax
and
it
fails,
we
still
have
one
more
chance
next
year.
Is
that
correct
to
put
a
measure
on
the
ballot
to
renew
this
tax?
Is
that
correct?
So
this
isn't
kind
of
our
only
chance.
That's.
AA
AB
Okay,
thank
you
and
I
just
want
to
say
too
to
Bobby
mentioned
the
kind
of
Engagement
from
Human
Services.
We
really
have
not
had
that
I
think
they've
they've
been
feeling
a
little
bit
blindsided,
but
this
has
all
happened
really
quickly.
A
B
P
E
AD
E
AF
While
I
will
support
the
50
50
I
just
want
to
mention
that
I
think
some
of
our
past
prioritizations
and
making
arts
organizations
and
putting
us
in
a
place
where
sort
of
Arts
organizations
and
Human
Service
organizations
feel
like
they're
pitted
against
each
other
to
fight
for
funding
is
concerning
to
me
and
I
hope
that
we
will
do
better
at
making
sure
that
those
groups,
whether
or
not
this
passes
that
they
will
not
be
put
in
that
position
in
our
prioritization
in
the
future.
AF
A
All
right
now
to
call
on
myself
so
just
want
to
say
you
know
the
congratulations
to
the
Arts
folks,
who
gathered
a
remarkable
4,
000,
odd
signatures
in
a
very
short
period
of
time,
and
also
thanks
to
them
for
them
talking
to
us
about
this,
because
that
100
dedication
of
the
tax
would
have
required
cuts
to
city
services,
whereas
the
50
50
compromise
does
not
require
cuts
to
city
services,
but
still
will
make
a
significant
difference
in
arts
funding
so
appreciate
everybody
working
together
on
this
looking
forward
to
approving
this,
getting
it
on
the
ballot
and
see
make
a
real
difference
for
our
community
for
the
next
20
years.
D
A
E
AM
B
A
Okay,
well,
congratulations
to
everyone
who
was
involved
and
onward
to
the
ballot
and
that
moves
us
to
the
big
agenda
item
of
the
night,
which
is
our
call-up
check-in
item
4A.
D
A
D
AA
Thank
you
so
much
I,
don't
know
how
much
introduction
this
item
needs.
It
has
been
a
topic
of
a
lot
of
conversation.
A
lot
of
work
has
gone
into
it.
You
have
given
staff
some
very
specific
Direction
and
they
are
here
to
respond
to
that
I'm,
going
to
send
it
to
our
director
of
planning
and
development
services,
and
just
note
that
our
staff
member,
who
has
been
leading
this
effort,
will
be
appearing
with
us
remotely.
AN
Thank
you
Nuria
good
evening,
so
thank
you
Nuria
good
evening
Council.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
bring
this
item
forward.
As
Nuri
mentioned,
this
has
been
a
work
item
and
a
council
priority
for
a
couple
of
years
now,
so
we
are
happy
to
bring
the
culmination
of
the
research
feedback
and
Direction
we've
gotten
through
multiple
study
sessions
and
conversations
with
the
community
and
some
very
deep
analysis,
I
will
say
in
advance.
AN
We
always
appreciate
your
acknowledgment
of
the
work
that
staff
has
done
and
in
this
case
Carl
in
looking
at
a
very
complicated
and
complex
topic,
looking
at
research
across
the
country,
as
well
as
our
own
history.
So
with
that,
I
will
turn
it
over
Carl
and
we
will
both
be
available
for
questions
as
we
complete
our
present
or
his
presentation.
AO
AO
So
the
occupancy
reform
project
was
initiated
by
city
council
at
the
retreat
in
2022
on
the
slide.
Here
is
the
problem
statement
that
was
prepared,
the
purpose
statement
of
the
project
and
the
goals
and
objectives.
So
obviously,
the
major
problem
that
we're
trying
to
address
here
is
housing,
cost
increasing
housing
costs
and
some
of
that
is
correlated
to
supply
and
demand
issues.
Increasing
housing
is
something
that
we're
seeing
across
many
communities
in
the
country
that
are
dealing
with
similar
issues.
AO
It
requires
a
lot
of
different
actions
to
address
so
I'm,
not
going
to
read
everything
on
this
slide,
but
occupancy
is
one
component
in
a
wider
strategy
of
trying
to
at
least
slow
down
the
rise
of
housing
costs
in
the
city
of
Boulder.
So
what
we've
talked
about
this
at
the
November
2022
study
session
and
again
on
March
9th
of
this
year,
where
we
finalized
the
problem
statement,
purpose
statement
and
the
goals
and
objectives
as
well
as
the
timeline?
AO
We
also
came
back
to
Council
on
June
15th
to
get
further
Direction
before
we
prepared
the
ordinance
that
you're
reviewing
tonight.
AO
AO
So
I
just
wanted
to
start
on
the
high
level
kind
of
reiterating
some
things
we
talked
about
on
June,
15th,
I,
think
Council
on
and
many
in
the
community
are
aware
that
the
state
legislature
actually
brought
forward
a
Senate
bill
that
related
to
zoning
and
land
use,
which
is
not
too
common
here
in
Colorado,
there
were
many
iterations
of
this
bill
and
it
had
some
required
mandates
for
Middle
housing,
adus,
even
addressing
occupancy
in
low
affecting
local
regulations,
so
that
Senate
Bill
actually
didn't
pass.
AO
But
we
were
monitoring
it
very
closely
because
it's
very
much
like
the
things
that
we're
looking
at
through
a
variety
of
the
ordinances
that
we're
working
on
on
June
15th.
We
brought
forward
some
links
to
National
studies,
commentaries
and
articles
on
the
housing
crisis.
Like
we
said
at
the
prior
meeting,
we
didn't
find
anything
that
definitively
showed
that,
if
you,
you
know
changed
occupancy
limits
singularly
that
that
would
start
reducing
housing
costs.
It
was
really
more
that
you
had
to
do
a
multi-pronged
approach
to
try
to
open
up
housing
availability.
AO
So
what
the
study
said
is
that
zoning
restrictions
over
time
have
greatly
limited
housing
availability
and
that's
one
of
the
factors
that
has
helped
drive
up
housing
costs.
So
the
recommendations
of
a
lot
of
those
studies
are
to
reverse
that
years
and
years
of
zoning
to
just
enable
more
opportunities
to
have
housing
in
the
community
to
address
the
housing
costs.
Obviously,
Boulder
is
a
unique
Community.
AO
It's
high
demand
it's
much
like
other
communities
and
in
the
country
like
in
the
Bay
Area,
where
there's
a
lot
of
reasons
why
people
want
to
live
there
and
that
and
with
limited
land,
it
makes
it
even
drives
up
the
costs
even
more.
So
the
the
theme
of
those
stories
is
that
not
one
option
can
solve
the
problem
that
you
really
have
to
take
that
multi-pronged
approach
and
that
approach
has
really
been
done
largely
on
the
west
coast
in
the
states
of
Washington,
Oregon
and
California.
AO
There's
been
some
State
legislations
and
court
rulings
that
have
made
occupancy
based
on
familial
relationship
illegal.
So
many
of
the
communities
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
in
particular,
have
been
eliminating
their
occupancy
rules
from
the
code,
Minneapolis
also
elected,
to
do
the
same
on
its
own.
We
did
reach
out
to
a
lot
of
these
communities
to
hear
back
from
them
on
what
the
results
have
been,
but
because
of
the
the
legislation
is
actually
still
relatively
fresh.
There's
not
a
lot
of
data
at
this
point
showing
that
housing
costs
have
gone
down.
AO
This
slide's
really
just
to
show
a
distinguishing
between
the
two
different
types
of
occupancy
regs
that
apply
in
many
communities.
There's
the
building
code
occupancy,
which
aligns
with
those
pictures
that
you
see
on
the
slides.
That's
what
you
see
in
buildings.
That's
the
building
code.
It's
really
a
more
of
a
safety
occupancy
limit.
Zoning
regulations
are
typically
more
restrictive
than
the
building
code
and
it's
I'm.
Sorry.
AO
AO
Zoning
regulations
are
have
additional
occupancy
limits
that
tend
to
be
more
restrictive
than
building
codes,
basically
to
try
to
result
in
less
concentration
of
people
that
can
have
more
impacts
on
neighborhoods
and
we've
also
talked
about
before
how
there
has
been
some
motivations
rooted
in
discrimination
against
people
of
color
or
different
Lifestyles
occupancy
regs
kind
of
came
about
in
the
1960s
same
as
Boulders.
AO
So
that's
another
reason
why
many
communities
have
been
looking
at
occupancy
regulations,
so
I'm
not
going
to
spend
as
much
time
on
these
slides
because
we
have
talked
about
these
and
on
a
number
of
occasions.
But
this
is
basically
the
current
occupancy
limitations
in
the
city
of
Boulder.
We
do
like
many
communities
use
the
definition
of
family
there's
no
limit
on
the
number
of
family
members
that
can
live
in
a
unit,
but
when
you
get
to
unrelated
persons
there
are
limits.
AO
So
there's
right
now,
there's
there's
mainly
four
different
options:
there's
ores
in
between
all
of
these,
so
members
of
a
family
and
plus
two
additional
persons
or
rumors,
then
there's
three
unrelated
persons
in
the
lower
density
zones
or
in
all
other
zones.
It's
for
unrelated
persons
or
it's
two
persons
and
any
of
their
children.
AO
We
also
have
a
special
occupancy
limitations
for
adus,
co-ops
and
group
living
uses,
we're
not
proposing
any
changes
to
those
tonight,
so
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
the
definition
of
family
we're
not
making
or
proposing
any
changes
to
the
definition
of
family.
It's
similar
to
many
other
communities.
It
is
quite
broad,
it
does
include
same-sex
marriage
and
domestic
Partnerships.
We
feel
that
there
there
hasn't
been
any
commentary
to
change
it,
so
we're
not
recommending
a
change
to
this
definition.
At
this
time.
AO
So
I
talked
about
the
two
different
occupancy
zones,
so
the
four
unrelated
person
zones
is
shown
in
the
green.
You
can
see
that's
mostly
the
commercial
mixed
use,
industrial
and
higher
density
regulation
zones,
and
then
you
can
see
that
a
wide
swath
of
land
in
the
orange
are
the
lower
density
zones
in
the
city
that
are
capped
at
the
three
unrelated
persons.
AO
So
when
we
came
to
City
Council
on
March
9th,
we
presented
our
our
analysis
of
the
60
different
communities
and
how
they
regulate
occupancy,
and
we
proposed
some
different
options.
Council
directed
us
to
move
forward
with
option
b,
which
was
to
explore
an
increase
of
three
or
four
up
to
four
or
to
five
unrelated
city-wide,
and
to
basically
increase
the
level
of
Outreach
on
that
particular
option
and
then
come
back
to
council
for
more
Direction.
AO
So
I
want
to
talk
a
bit
about
impacts.
We
have
been
hearing
from
many
community
members
about
their
concerns
about
increasing
occupancy.
There
are
accounts
and
not
unlike
other
university
communities.
AO
On-Street
parking
availability
is
a
concern:
increased
activity,
trash
and
weeds
parties.
Noise.
These
are
things
that
many
of
those
communities
have
had
to
deal
with.
It
really
is
a
policy
questions
about
how
these
impacts
should
be
handled.
I
I
think
there's
our
other
communities
that
have
taken
the
leap
to
basically
just
focus
mostly
on
those
impacts
themselves,
rather
than
correlating
them
with
how
many
people
are
actually
living
in
a
unit.
AO
So
that's
a
big
question
for
the
for
the
council
tonight
and
we
know
that
it's
an
issue
that
we'll
probably
have
to
be
talking
about
going
into
the
future
relative
to
enforcement.
Right
now,
active
enforcement
on
occupancy
has
been
paused
due
to
the
pandemic
and
staff
constraints.
We
do
handle
complaints
on
occupancy
if
there
are
instances
of
over
occupancy
from
a
a
zoning
standpoint,
they're
usually
remedied
at
the
next
leasing
cycle,
we're
not
wanting
to
kick
people
out
of
their
units.
Middle
East.
AO
AO
We
were
at
a
Outreach
event
at
Aurora,
East
we've
talked
to
plant
Boulder,
the
hill,
revitalization
group
working
group,
the
dean's
leadership
and
values
committee,
which
is
composed
of
students,
the
community
connectors
and
residents
meetings
with
Community
leaders
to
get
their
perspective
and
hearing
people's
perspectives
at
the
housing,
Advisory
Board
and
planning
board
meetings.
We
also
talked
about
the
be
heard,
Boulder
questionnaire.
AO
So
again
it's
it's
a
it's
one
tool
among
several
tools
that
we
use
to
gauge
Community
feedback.
It
is
not
a
statistically
valid
survey,
but
it
is
very
helpful
to
kind
of
get
a
gauge
of
of
where
people
sit
on
issues.
We
we
got
over
2
000
responses
on
the
be
heard,
Boulder
questionnaire
and
over
a
thousand
written
comments,
so
attachment
C
goes
into
a
lot
of
detail
about
what
we
heard
so
I'm
just
going
to
talk
mostly
about
the
broad
themes
that
we
heard
from
these
different
groups.
AO
Since
we
have
gone
over
this
before,
but
generally
we've
been
hearing
concerns
that
changing
the
occupancy,
regs
will
potentially
drive
out
families
benefit
landlords,
not
help
the
unhoused
issue
in
the
city
we've
heard
from
students
that
are
are
very
much
in
support
of
more
housing
options
and
are
very
concerned
about
the
the
cost
of
rent
in
the
community.
Some
students
or
many
students
actually
have
to
commute
in
because
of
housing
costs.
We've
heard
a
lot
about
concerns
about
parking
impacts.
AO
We
heard
that
from
Aurora
East
and
on
the
hill
we've
heard
kind
of
mixed
feedback
from
different
groups,
because
they
have
different
compositions
of
attendees
but
Hill
revitalization
group
there
were
students
that
obviously
wanted
things
to
be
easier
for
students,
and
then
there
were
homeowners
in
the
area
that
were
concerned
about
impacts
to
their
neighborhood
without
any
guarantees
of
actual
affordability.
By
making
these
changes
talking
to
the
students
again
Boulders
crazy
unaffordable,
when
we
talk
to
the
community
connectors
in
Residence,
there
was
support
for
removing
the
occupancy
rules.
AO
Obviously
they
were
very
cognizant
of
the
discriminatory
issues
of
occupancy
from
the
past.
We've
also
heard
firsthand
accounts
of
eviction,
and
also
we've
heard
from
folks
that
think
that
the
university
adjacent
neighborhoods
should
not
be
subject
to
any
increase
in
occupancy.
AO
So
in
looking
at
the
be
heard,
Boulder
responses,
we
saw
more
support
for
four
unrelated,
rather
than
the
five
unrelated.
When
we
looked
at
the
results
for
five
unrelated,
it
was
more
mixed.
Like
50
50.,
there
was
less
support
for
the
five
and
there
was
more
responses
that
were
were
strongly
against
five
and
looking
at
the
responses.
Most
of
them
did
not
support
removing
occupancy
requirements
entirely,
but
most
of
the
respondents
did
feel
that
the
code
did
need
to
be
changed.
AO
Most
of
the
respondents
were
homeowners
about
a
third
were
renters,
and
then
we
also
saw
that
there
was
more
support
among
renters
and
younger
participants
in
the
questionnaire,
so
we've
discussed
occupancy
with
the
housing
Advisory
board
on
on
these
two
occasions.
April
16th.
We
provided
them
with
an
update
all
members,
except
for
one
felt
that
the
occupancy
rules
should
be
changed.
AO
The
one
member
that
didn't
support
it
as
much
felt
that
they
were
concerned
that
it
wouldn't
increase
affordability
and
that
we
should
just
be
focusing
more
on
co-ops,
but
most
of
them
acknowledge
that
losing
the
rules
is
the
right
trajectory.
There
were
concerns
expressed
about
corporate
entities,
buying
up
properties
to
take
advantage
of
increased
rent
income,
but
they
felt
that
that's
not
something
that
should
be
handled
through
zoning,
but
rather
through
some
sort
of
license
licensing
mechanism.
AO
When
we
returned
to
have
on
July
26th,
the
board
recommended
approval
of
the
ordinance.
There
was
one
member
that
expressed
concern
that
the
change
may
not
result
in
Greater
affordability
and
that
additional
measures
may
be
necessary.
AO
So
we've
talked
a
planning
board
on
this
topic
twice
when
we
talked
to
them
in
April.
At
the
update
three
member
members
expressed
support
for
increasing
occupancy.
Two
members
were
firmly
against
increasing
occupancy
limits,
citing
the
concern
that
you
know,
Council
would
be
overriding
a
public
vote
that
occurred
on
the
bedrooms
or
for
people
ballot
measure
in
2021,
and
two
members
expressed
that
they
were
more
in
the
middle.
On
the
issue
needing
more
data,
when
we
went
back
to
planning
board
on
July
25th,
there
was
a
long
discussion.
AO
AO
The
board
also
offered
the
following
additional
suggestions:
those
that
voted
for
the
ordinance
felt
that
the
non-conforming
language
that
that
I'll
be
talking
about
tonight
in
section
98d,
should
be
removed,
that
there
should
be
increased
efforts
to
address
nuisance
behavior
in
the
city
and
that
the
city
should
explore,
perhaps
as
part
of
a
future
work
program.
Item
mechanisms
for
guaranteed
affordability
that
could
apply
through
the
rental
licensing
program
to
better
ensure
affordability.
AO
So
when
we
went
to
Council
on
June
15th,
we
presented
all
the
the
data
studies
and
analogs
from
the
peer
communities.
AO
The
comments
that
we've
heard
from
the
public,
as
well
as
the
boards
and
the
direction
that
we
got
from
Council
in
June,
was
to
proceed
with
preparing
a
single
ordinance
to
to
increase
the
number
of
unrelated
to
five
city-wide
council
did
Express
a
concern
about
non-conforming
uses.
You
know,
properties
that
have
more
dwelling
units
that
are
orbited
under
the
zoning
today
and
maybe
looking
at
some
ways
of
of
trying
to
freeze
the
the
occupancy
and
on
those
properties
so
that
they
couldn't
go
up
to
the
five.
So
I'll
talk
more
about
that.
AO
There
were
some
council
members
that
suggested
exploring
a
provision
changing
the
provision
of
two
persons
and
any
of
their
children,
and
perhaps
looking
at
two
families
and
or
or
changing
it
to
three
persons
and
any
of
their
children.
AO
AO
We're
not
proposing
to
families,
since
that
kind
of
goes
outside
the
scope
of
the
project,
since
it's
only
been
one
family
or,
and
it's
not
something
that
we
really
got
a
lot
of
public
feedback
on.
So
we
felt
that
the
three
persons
would
give
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
than
today,
but
not
as
much
of
a
change
as
as
two
families.
We
also
are
proposing
to
change
the
the
limits
in
efficiency
living
units
to
three
occupants
since
that
aligns
with
what
the
building
code
allows.
AO
But
I
also
want
to
talk
about,
and
this
can
be
somewhat
complex
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
on
this.
But
there's
the
the
term
non-conforming
is
is
thrown
around
a
lot
with
occupancy.
But
there's
really
two
different
types
of
non-conformity
that
we
have
to
understand
tonight
and
I've
I
have
some
scenarios
that
I'm
gonna
show
you
all
just
so
it's
it's
understood
better,
but
basically
the
existing
section
of
the
code.
That's
section
985c
talks
about
non-conforming
occupancy.
AO
So
what
that
section
means
is
that's
looking
at
a
singular
dwelling
unit
that
had
a
higher
occupancy
in
the
past
and
was
then
rendered
non-conforming
by
some
sort
of
rezoning.
So
today
it's
documented
as
having
a
higher
occupancy
than
is
typically
allowed,
and
it
can
continue
to
have
that
occupancy
and
that
section
of
the
code
is
is
going
to
just
basically
stay
the
same
We're,
not
gonna,
say
you
have
to
you
know,
get
rid
of
that
occupancy,
but
it's
really
looking
at
the
singular
unit
that
a
non-conforming
occupancy
occupancy
can
persist.
AO
The
second
non-conformity
relates
to
non-conforming
uses,
so
this
is.
This
is
a
new
section
that
we're
proposing
in
the
ordinance
section
985d.
So
the
thing
here
this
is
where
you
have
multiple
residential
units
on
a
property
where
that
number
of
units
may
not
be
permitted
under
today's
zoning.
So
in
that
case
you
couldn't
the
way
the
code
or
the
ordinance
is
is
structured.
AO
Is
that
you
couldn't
have
an
increase
up
to
five
unrelated
in
scenarios
where
a
housing
type
is
not
permitted
in
that
zone
or
if
the
number
of
units
on
that
property
is
more
than
what's
currently
permitted?
So,
for
instance,
a
a
five
Plex
might
exist
up
on
the
hill,
where
only
a
single
family
house
can
be
done
today
under
current
zoning.
That
would
be
something
subject
to
985
D
or
an
eight
Plex,
where
only
a
Triplex
is
permitted
under
current
zoning.
AO
Concern
that
was
raised
on
June
on
June,
15th
and
Council
requested
that
we
come
back
with
two
options
on
how
to
mitigate
that
that
issue,
because
the
concern
is
like,
for
instance,
you
might
have
a
Triplex
or
we
we've
seen
one
up
on
the
hill,
where
it's
allowed
three
occupants
per
unit
under
today's
code.
So
that's
a
total
of
nine
people
on
that
one
site
that
today
would
just
be
you
know
a
family
or
three
unrelated.
AO
If
this
ordinance
or
to
pass
and
didn't,
have
this
provision,
you
could
see
it
increase
up
to
15
occupants
on
that
site.
So
that's
why
this
is
a
concern
that
was
raised
so
now
I'm
going
to
run
through
some
of
these
scenarios.
I
think
will
help
illustrate
this
so
on.
The
left
is
a
single
family
example
and
on
the
right
is
a
multi-family
example
and
that's
the
same
on
each
of
the
slides.
When
I
show
a
box,
that's
a
dwelling
unit
and
if
it's
green,
it
means
it's
conforming
and
if
it's
red,
it's
non-conforming.
AO
AO
So
in
this
scenario,
it's
red,
because
under
today's
situation
it
might
have
five
unrelated
as
non-conforming
occupancy,
which
is
more
than
our
code
allows
today,
but
it's
legal
non-conforming.
So
if
this
ordinance
passes,
that
particular
unit
would
actually
become
conforming
that
it
wouldn't
be
subject
to
985c
anymore.
So
you
might
have
the
same
thing
in
a
multi-family
situation.
So
a
six
Plex,
that's
at
five
occupants
per
unit
more
than
what
we
allow
today.
If
this
ordinance
passes,
then
it
becomes
a
conforming
use.
AO
AO
This
is
where
occupancy
within
a
unit
is,
is
perhaps
six
or
maybe
seven,
and
you
can
see
if,
if
the
ordinance
passes
tonight,
it
would
just
stay
the
same.
So
that's
what
this
is
basically
trying
to
show
is
it
even
though
it
increases
to
five
if
it's
non-conforming
occupancy
in
that
individual
unit
today,
it'll
just
continue
to
be
a
non-conforming
occupancy
in
the
future.
AO
What
I
think
is
raised
questions
is
this
scenario,
so
this
is
non-conforming
uses
but
conforming
to
occupancy,
so
you
might
have
a
six
Flex
on
a
site
that
only
allows
two
units,
but
the
occupancy
in
the
individual
units
conforms
to
our
limits
today
at
three
and
the
thing
that
we're
trying
to
make
clear
here
is
that,
if
ordinance
8585
passes,
it
would
not
be
in
this
scenario
per
the
ordinance,
an
automatic
thing
to
go
up
to
five.
AO
In
fact,
even
if
the
ordinance-
even
if
we
didn't
have
the
provision
in
here,
it
wouldn't
be
automatic
and
the
reason
we
say
that
is
because
we
have
a
definition
in
the
code
already
that's
called
expansion
of
a
non-conforming
use
and
it
basically
recognizes
any
potential
impact
like
parking
floor
area
number
of
units
or
occupancy.
So
if
any
of
those
were
to
increase,
it
would
trigger
a
non-conforming
use
review.
So
in
such
instance,
they'd
have
to
request
an
increase
to
go
up
to
the
five.
AO
So
it's
not
an
automatic
increase
for
non-conforming
uses
already
in
the
code,
but
what
we
we
do
have
in
the
proposed
ordinance
per
section.
985D
is
a
limitation.
That's
that
actually
prohibits
those
requests
to
go
to
increase
occupancy,
so
a
basically
freezes
the
occupancy
in
non-conforming
uses
at
whatever
it
is
under
today's
code.
AO
So
this
is
the
language
and
you
can
see
it.
The
language
in
985d
almost
mirrors
the
current
code,
so
it
basically
just
makes
it
clear
that
if
you're
a
non-conforming
use
you're
a
housing
type,
that's
not
allowed
in
the
zone
or
there's
more
dwelling
units
than
is
allowed
under
current
zoning.
It's
the
same
occupancy
as
today,
so
this
would
be
a
measure
to
protect
areas
like
the
hill,
where
there
are
a
concentration
of
non-conforming
uses
and
trying
to
avoid
the
impacts
of
particularly
in
parking
of
increasing
occupancy
in
those
areas.
AO
AO
So
Council
had
asked
for
two
options,
so
what
we've
proposed
is
for
Simplicity
and
just
to
avoid
impact
city-wide
that
option
A
is
what
is
incorporated
into
the
ordinance.
So
it
would
just
put
this
freeze
on
any
non-conforming
uses,
city-wide
the
secondary
option.
If
the
council
was
inclined
is
just
to
to
have
it
apply
in
zones
that
are
adjacent
to
the
university.
AO
If,
if
the
council
wanted
to
limit
the
scope
and
the
thing
that
we
want
to
make
clear
about
option
b,
is
that
the
way
we
would
do
that
at
this
point
is
if
the
Zone
even
existed
somewhere
else
in
the
city
away
from
the
University?
It
would
still
also
be
subject
to
that
limitation
again.
This
is
all
done
in
efforts
to
try
to
mitigate
any
impacts
from
from
the
increase
so
coming
down
to
the
staff
recommendation.
AO
We've
provided
an
analysis
in
the
memo
that
shows
that
we
we
believe
that
we
have
met
the
the
purpose
statement
that
we've
worked
towards
the
goals
and
objectives
that
are
up
on
the
slide,
and
we
do
find
that
the
ordinance
would
be
consistent
with
a
number
of
different
Boulder
Valley
humbrance
of
plan
policies
related
to
the
jobs,
housing,
imbalance,
preservation
and
support
for
reservation,
residential
neighborhoods.
AO
Based
on
that
that
cap
on
non-conforming
uses
and
meeting
a
number
of
our
housing
policies
and
trying
to
open
up
housing
opportunities,
we've
made
an
argument.
You
know
that,
obviously
there's
a
number
of
focus
areas
where
housing
is
is
of
extreme
importance
in
Boulder,
and
that
this
is
one
way
of
trying
to
address
the
cost
of
housing
in
Boulder.
AO
So
with
that,
this
is
the
the
recommended
motion
for
Council.
We
can
come
back
to
this
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thanks
so
much
for
that
Carl,
that
was
an
enormous
amount
of
information
very
well
and
thoughtfully
presented.
So
questions
for
Carl,
and
just
before
we
get
into
these,
we
do
have
a
very
long
night
ahead
of
us.
We
have
84
people
signed
up
to
speak,
so
I'd
encourage
pithy
and
a
limited
number
of
questions.
I
saw
over
here,
Nicole
and
Jenny.
First.
AB
All
right,
thank
you.
I
just
had
a
couple
of
questions
about
and
first
of
all,
thank
you.
Carl
appreciate
your
distilling.
All
these
this
years
of
work
into
this
presentation,
so
I
was
one
thing
I
was
wondering
about,
is
how
many
units
are
we
talking
about
when
we
are
looking
at
the
units
that
have
non-conforming
occupancy
and
non-conforming
uses.
Do
you
have
a
sense
of
what
percentage
of
all
the.
AO
AB
Okay,
thank
you
and
do
we
know
that
the
landlords
you
know
if
they
had
the
opportunity
would
like
in
that
13?
Would
they
definitely
jump
on
that
and
want
to
go
up
to
whatever
the
next
highest
limit
was
yeah.
AO
We
we
reached
out
to
the
landlord's
talk
to
to
the
bar
about
this
issue,
they're
aware
of
the
change.
My
conversations
with
barha
is
that
they're
they're
not
in
full
support,
and
they
might
talk
to
you
tonight
but
they're,
not
in
full
support
of
the
ordinance
just
it
seems
solely
based
on
the
concerns
about
the
complexity
of
not
applying
it
uniformly
and
having
the
the
specific
provision
for
non-conforming
uses,
just
because
it
has
the
potential
for
causing
confusion
that
it's
not
going
to
be
readily
understood.
AO
What
the
limit
is
going
to
be
on
on
a
site
like
that
they
may
have
to
like
check
with
the
city.
I
think
a
lot
of
property
owners
tend
to
know
that
whether
or
not
their
properties
are
are
conforming
or
not,
but
I
think
it
probably
would
require
some
inquiries,
but
it's
not
too,
unlike
what
we
have
today
with
the
two
different
zones
for
occupancy.
It
tends
to
trigger
inquiries
anyway.
AO
Also,
I
know
that
of
concern
to
council
was
with
the
students
moving
back
now.
How
does
the
timing
of
this
ordinance
work
and
what
they've
told
me
is
that
they
are.
They
do
have
the
flexibility
of
changing
leases
Midway
through
it
doesn't
have
to
wait
till
the
next
leasing
cycle.
They
do
have
the
option
to
do
an
addendum
that
could
change
it
pending.
Whatever
the
outcome
of
this
ordinance
is.
AO
I
mean
I
think
with
any
ordinance.
We
just
have
to
be
clear
and
communicate
with
all
the
the
contacts
that
we've
been
working
with
so
that
they
understand
it.
I've
been
you
know,
meeting
with
people
to
describe
the
changes,
we'll
continue
to
do
that.
AO
If
this
gets
adopted
and
then
just
they're
gonna
have
to
understand
the
steps
you
know
when
they
come
in
for
a
rental
license,
there's
always
a
little
bit
of
research.
That
has
to
be
done
as
to
what
the
occupancy
is,
because
the
occupancy
ends
up
getting
printed
on
the
rental
license
and
that's
what
we
do
today.
So
I
think
that
would
just
continue.
Thank.
AB
AB
P
P
AO
AO
It's
something
that
we're
looking
at.
You
know
the
the
state
of
Colorado,
prohibited,
rent
control
and
I
know.
There's
been
some
changes
to
that
provision
that
allows
more
flexibility.
So
it's
something
that
our
our
housing
department
is
looking
into.
There's
a
lot
of
nuance
to
it.
So
there
is
no
provision
that
requires
a
cap
to
the
rents,
it's
something
that
could
be
looked
at
as
a
separate
project.
Perhaps
but
right
now,
there's
there's
no!
You
know
mechanism
for
that.
AO
So
in
talking
to
to
barha,
you
know
like
what
we
heard
is
that
some
landlords
will
elect
to
you
know:
break
down
the
fees
so
that
it
brings
down
the
rent.
You
know
if
they're
allowed,
you
know,
for
instance,
two
additional
persons,
that'll
level
out
the
costs,
and
then
others
probably
will
not
do
that
and
they'll
just
they'll.
Just
you
know,
charge
the
same
and
make
more
money.
That's
certainly
a
possibility.
A
I
can
just
ask
people
in
the
audience
to
to
not
make
audible
comments,
feel
free
to
make
a
silent
hand
gesture
of
some
kind
as
long
as
they're
not
offensive,
but
but
no
audible
comments.
Please
thank
you.
A
P
Well,
I,
don't
have
any
other
questions,
maybe
just
yeah.
It's
thank
you
for
that.
That
comment
that
you
make
I
didn't
really
think
about
the
fact
that,
yes,
we
don't
have
any
State
rent
control
and
what
would
that
look
like
if
we
were
to
have
some
guard
rails
around
these
additional
bedrooms?
P
Is
that
something
that
we
can
do,
but
I
hope
that
you
do
look
into
it,
because
if
we
are
going
forward
and
ultimately
what
we
want
to
do,
at
least
for
me,
I
can
only
speak
for
Juni
Joseph
here
on
this
Council
I,
fully
support
increasing
the
occupancy
But,
ultimately
part
of
it
is
the
affordability
aspect
of
it.
It's
not
just
so
that
we
can
have
more
bedroom
to
be
rented
at
at
market
rate
or
even
higher
right,
because
there
is
that
demand.
P
P
So
ultimately,
My
Hope
Is
that
we
there
there
are
some
guard
rails,
that
those
bedrooms
are
not
more
expensive
or
as
expensive
as
they
are,
because,
ultimately,
regular
people
will
still
not
be
able
to
afford
them
or
people
who
are
struggling
so
I
hope.
That's
part
of
that
conversation.
Thank
you
great.
T
Question
awesome
so
we've
gotten
a
fair
number
of
emails
and
and
conversation
recently
around
whether
this
process
is
Democratic
or
if
we're
undoing
the
will
of
the
voters
and
I
know
you're
thinking.
Teresa,
maybe
is
the
person.
But
my
question
is:
what
can
staff
walk
us
through
sort
of
the
process
of
how
we
got
here
and
what
the
vote
was
for?
Adding
this
to
the
work
plan
and
what
was
added
to
the
work
lamb.
AA
Actually
I
appreciate
that,
but
it
will
likely
be
Brad
or
Carl
who
can
share
with
us
what
the
process
I
think
they
had
it
as
part
of
their
presentation
on
how
we
got
here.
AO
To
council
at
the
retreat
in
2022,
I
think
the
the
thinking
was,
you
know
that
followed
the
bedrooms
or
for
people
ballot
initiative,
the
prior
November
and
I.
Think
because
the
the
vote
was
relatively
close,
I
think
it
was
like
52
no
48,
yes,
because
it
was,
it
was
close
and
there
were
like
stated
concerns
about
the
concept
of
how
that
regulation
might
have
gone
into
effect
because
it
was
related
to
bedrooms.
AO
It
was
one,
it
was
the
number
of
bedrooms
plus
one
was
the
bedrooms
are
for
people
ballot
measure
and
there
were
concerns.
You
know
that
that
might
encourage
people
to
illegally
cram
in
bedrooms
to
get
a
higher
occupancy
that
that
maybe
it
wasn't
the
right
solution,
so
I
I
think
what
the
council
was
thinking
at
the
retreat
was
that
maybe
we
need
to
be
looking
at
other
different
solutions,
so
that
was
kind
of
the
basis
of
this
project.
AO
So
that's
basically
what
got
started
in
2022
and
we
talked
about
it.
You
know
in
the
two
study
sessions
that
followed
and.
T
Can
try
to
find
it?
Okay,
thanks.
E
Just
one
question:
what
percentage
of
the
non-conforming
uses
and
properties
that
you
spoke
of
are
located
in
these
University
adjacent
communities?.
AO
I,
don't
know
that
we
have
a
specific
percentage
at
this
point.
I
think
we
understand
that
it's
a
pretty
high
percentage
because
there
were
a
number
of
rezonings
that
happened
on
the
hill
and
around
downtown
in
the
1970s
that
didn't
occur
in
other
areas
of
the
city,
so
I
think
the
highest
number
of
non-conformities
do
exist
in
areas
like
University,
Hill,
Goss,
Grove,
Whittier
areas
that
surround
downtown
and
near
the
university,
but
I
don't
have
a
specific
percentage.
Okay,.
AO
I,
don't
know
that
there
was
a
rezoning
that
affected
Martin
Acres.
AE
AO
Was
not
part
of
the
scope
of
the
project?
I
think
the
original
scope
was
to
to
look
at
a
simple
solution.
If
we
did
tie
it
to
some
mechanism,
it
would
not
be
a
Simple
Solution.
It's
something
that's
been
suggested,
but
really
what
we've
been
hearing
is
in
order
to
get
the
increased
occupancy
you'd
have
to
like
apply
for
it.
Now,
if
we're
talking
about
people
having
to
apply
for
increased
occupancy,
we
could
see
an
onslaught
of
applications.
AO
There'd
have
to
be
a
whole
new
review
process
to
review
for
those
and
then
do
some
sort
of
agreements
you
know
to
cap
rent.
If
that's
allowable
it
would
take
more.
You
know
legal
research.
It
would
be
a
a
large
administrative
change
to
what
we
review
in
the
in
the
planning
and
development
services,
and
we
also
did
look
at
the
other
communities,
the
the
peer
communities
and
we
didn't
see
any
analogs
that
that
had
that
type
of
process,
so
we've
we've
not
recommended
that.
AP
AE
Which
I
know
I'm
not
allowed
to
comment
but
I'm
going
to
ask
this
as
a
rhetorical
question:
it's
still
a
question:
isn't
it
always
complicated
when
you're
trying
to
make
something
affordable,
just
saying
moving
on?
Do
we
I
think
I
asked
this
last
time,
but
I
forgot,
no
I
didn't
forget
I'm,
actually
asking
it
again.
Do
we
have
enough
code
enforcement
to
counteract
the
possible
increases
in
traction
noise
right
now?
I,
don't
know
that
you
know
that
but
I
wonder
if
anybody
knows
that.
AN
Bread
Mueller
again
director
of
planning
and
development
services,
so
the
short
today
answer
to
that
is
that
our
Police
Department's
code
enforcement
unit,
which
is
primarily
responsible
for
things
like
weeds
and
trash,
is
I.
Think
at
about
half
staff.
That's
part
of
the
you
know,
Universal
policing,
Staffing
challenge
that's
around,
but
there
is
obviously
a
goal
to
have
that
be
fully
staffed.
AN
Then,
to
maybe
council
member
your
your
larger
kind
of
question
of
in
general,
we
recognize
that
that's
an
area
of
the
hill
and
other
places
that
would
be
affected
by
potentially
affected
by
increased
occupancy
city-wide.
It
would
be
areas
that
would
continue
to
need
Focus
for
code
compliance
and
code
enforcement.
The
city
manager
has
also
identified
this
as
a
priority
in
the
next
couple
of
years,
this
being
all
things
Code,
Compliance
and
code
enforcement.
AE
AN
AN
Well,
there
are
six
budgeted
right
now
on
the
code
enforcement
side
in
police.
Our
department
has
six
in
planning
and
development
services,
which
are
zoning
issues
such
as
occupancy
parking
enforcement
or
in
community
Vitality
also
has
Staffing
I,
don't
know
that
exact
number.
B
AN
AB
Brad
I
was
just
wondering:
do
we
have
evidence
that
occupancy
numbers
that
the
more
number
of
people
in
a
unit,
the
more
nuisance
ordinances
we
have
or
the
more
need
we
have
for
enforcement?
Do
we
have
that
data
I.
AN
Think
that
gets
to
the
one
of
the
earlier
slides
that
Carl
spoke
to
in
terms
of
Our
National
Review
of
different
codes
and
the
impacts
from
that
Carl.
Do
you
feel
like
you're
able
to
touch
on
that
further.
AO
Yeah
I
don't
know
that
we
have
like
specific
data
other
than
we
did
look
at
areas
of
complaints
in
the
city
and
obviously
a
lot
of
areas
around
the
university
were
the
highest
number
of
complaints
and
I.
Think
the
highest
number
of
complaints
related
to
occupancy
were
on
the
hill
and
the
second
highest
I
think
work
in
the
South
Boulder
category,
which
I
think
might
include
Martin
Acres.
AB
AB
AN
And
just
to
add
to
that
Carl,
when
you
did
a
review
of
the
national
literature
and
other
peer
communities,
I
think
we
didn't
find
anything
conclusive
about
the
relationship
between
the
two.
If
I
remember
correctly,.
AO
AI
Thanks
Carl
and
appreciate
Brad
for
walking
through
this
my
questions
kind
of
center
around
our
efforts
to
regulate
impacts
and
behaviors,
rather
than
regulating
people,
and
so
I
just
want
to
maybe
go
through,
like
we've
recently
passed
a
number
of
ordinances,
addressing
noise
and
trash
and
I'm,
also,
and
so
I
just
want
to
verify,
like
one
we've
done
that
and
two
that
you
know
as
the
semester
starts,
we're
in
the
process
of
working
through
those
new
ordinances
to
address
those
impacts
and
behaviors
and
then
really.
AN
You
know
either
way:
I'll
I'll
start
so
there
there
are
a
wide
range
of
what
we
could
characterize
as
quality
of
life
or
on-site
nuisance
abatement
efforts
that
the
city
managers
initiated
over
the
last
year,
plus
in
response
to
a
variety
of
different
observations
over
the
last
couple
of
years.
A
couple
of
the
tangible
items
that
are
already
in
place
are
an
update
to
the
noise
ordinance
last
fall.
AN
The
early
this
year
was
an
update
to
the
weeds
and
trash
ordinance,
moving
it
from
Criminal
to
civil
to
make
that
more
easy
to
administer.
There
are
also
efforts
that
are
underway
to
provide
for
landlord
education
there'll
be
some
opportunities.
This
fall
for
landlord
education.
There
is
a
fairly
recently
launched
tenant,
I'm
Sorry
landlord
notification
tool,
which
it
helps
landlords
be
aware
of
calls
for
service
and
other
activity
at
their
properties.
AN
There
is
also
in
the
books
Works
a
chronic
nuisance.
Ordinance
that
would
acknowledge
those
circumstances
of
the
worst
of
the
worst
and
recognizing
that
when
there
are
chronic
properties,
those
tend
to
have
spillover
effects
to
the
Block
in
the
region
and
and
then
parking.
We
recognize
for
a
couple
years
now
that
Boulder's
parking
regulations
might
be
due
for
a
refresh
really
writ
large.
We
are
preliminarily
teeing
that
up
as
a
potential
work
program
item
for
2024.
AN
That
would
need
to
be
probably
confirmed
through
Council
prioritization,
but
out
of
my
office,
that
would
fall
into
our
policy
group
and-
and
we
are
anticipating
that
it
is
a
zoning
regulation
element,
and
we
know
that
not
only
in
areas
of
nuisance
but
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
parking
that's
required
in
new
development
or
Redevelopment
that
that
plays
into
the
fact
into
into
the
issue
as
well.
AN
We
know
that
there
may
be
an
opportunity
to
look
at
managed
parking
as
well
in
ways
that
are
more
perspective
rather
than
reactive,
which
has
been
the
city's
history
and
managing
that
in
high
impact
areas.
But
is
there
an
opportunity
to
maybe
look
at
that
prospectively
with
new
development
or
redeveloping
areas?
So
there's
a
lot
in
the
works
councilman
member
and
hopefully
that
touched
on
on
the
major
ones
for
you.
AI
That
was
a
very
thorough
answer.
I
appreciate
that
Brad
and
just
as
a
follow-up
with
regards
to
Chronic
nuisance,
and
many
of
these
questions
for
Nuri
is
where,
where
are
we
in
being
able
to
sort
of
press,
go
on
that
I
know,
there's
been
an
extensive
education
and
Outreach
campaign
to
make
sure
everyone's
fully
aware,
and
so
one.
When
do
you
expect
to
sort
of
launch
that
and
two
you
know
what
what's
your
in
your
experience
here
and
in
other
cities?
AI
If
and
when
a
property
were
to
have
its
license
revoked,
is
the
expectation
of
getting
a
lot
more
compliance
on
a
lot
of
those
issues
throughout
the
area
and
so
I
sort
of
won?
When
and
what's
your
expectation
in
terms
of
results,
should
someone
actually
fail
and
have
their
license
revoked.
AA
So
appreciate
that
council
member
and
we
anticipate
bringing
forward
The
Chronic
nuisance,
ordinance
to
you
all.
This
fall
we're
targeting
October
and
obviously
that
may
depend
on
what
other
items
we
need
to
discuss
and
squeeze
in,
as
we
get
closer
to
the
end
of
the
year.
AA
To
your
question
about
what
I
have
seen
and
I
think
some
of
you
know-
or
all
of
you
know
that
this
area
of
rental
license
work
was
something
that
I
did
in
my
previous
life
and
I
will
say
that
it's
both
and
right.
It
is
something
about
both
providing
education
to
both
landlords
and
property
managers
and,
frankly,
looking
at
how
do
we
provide
more
tools
and
resources
to
our
renters
and
our
tenants
as
there
is.
AA
There
is
a
lot
of
consideration
at
the
front
end
to
education
and
compliance,
but
in
my
experience,
I
will
say
that
when
there
are
clear
mechanisms
and
tools
for
True
accountability,
you
start
to
see
changes
in
Behavior
as
that
moves
forward,
and
so
different
cities
have
different
tools
for
that.
Some
have
warnings.
Some
have
fines,
some
have
fees,
some
have
up
to
revocations.
In
my
former
city.
We
actually
were
able
to
reach
into
multiple
portfolios,
depending
on
how
egregious
someone
was
and
not
allow
them
to
continue
to
rent
across
their
portfolio.
AA
But
it
is
important
to
have
a
gamut
and
an
array
of
tools
in
which
to
make
sure
that
everyone
is
protected
as
we
move
forward
and
in
particular
I
feel
that
there
is
a
particular
obligation
to
anyone
who
you
invite
into
your
property
to
live
in
that
space
as
a
tenant,
because
they
do
not
have
the
wherewithal
to
really
look
underneath.
All
the
underneath
I.
Don't
know
what
the
American
phrase
I'm.
Looking
for.
AA
AF
Thank
you
I
believe
this
one
is
going
to
be
for
Carl
geiler
I
was
wondering
what
the
process
is
for
a
non-compliant
use
to
increase
its
non-conformity,
currently
so
say
if
we
didn't
carve
out
an
exemption
that
keeps
them
from
doing
that,
and
someone
who
had
a
non-conforming
use
wanted
to
increase
their
occupancy
to
what
we're
talking
about
today.
What
would
that
process
look
like?
Is
it
discretionary
or
not?
Thank
you.
Yeah.
AO
We
do
have
a
process
and
you
know
a
lot
of
communities.
The
way
they
treat
non-conformities
is.
They
have
regulations
that
try
to
phase
out
non-conformities
over
time.
I
think
Boulder
has
made
the
decision
that
they
can
continue.
We
have
a
more
relaxed
approach
to
non-conformities
the
what
we
try
to
get
it
is
that
we
don't
want
to
increase
the
level
of
non-conformity,
but
we
want
to
enable
people
to
have
the
ability
to
to
make
changes
to
their
properties,
so
the
process
is
called
a
non-conforming
use
review.
AO
So,
for
instance,
we
see
a
number
of
them
on
the
hill
every
year
where
there
might
be
an
existing
building.
That's
composed
of
you
know
could
be
20
rooming
units
and
you
can
come
into
a
non-conforming
use
review
process
and
make
modifications
to
the
building.
You
can
even
add
up
to
10
of
the
floor
area,
so
we
do
allow
for
some
expansion.
It
is
limited
through
that
process.
AO
It
is
a
discretionary
review,
so
we
do
look,
get
impacts
on
the
neighboring
properties
and
they're
not
allowed
to
increase
the
non-conformity,
like
they
couldn't
add
to
the
number
of
units
or
they
couldn't
expand.
It
such
that
it
would
require
more
parking,
but
they
could
make
changes
that
would
result
in
a
number
of
units
that
may
not
be
consistent
with
the
underlying
zoning,
but
as
long
as
it's
not
more
than
what
they
have
with
the
number
of
rooming
units
and
they
lower
it.
They
there
is
a
process
for
that.
AO
So
if
that
provision
were
to
be
removed
that
freezes
the
occupancy
property
owners
could
come
in
with
a
non-conforming
use,
review
and
request
it
to
increase.
You
know
if
there
were,
if
there
are
units
within
the
building
were
limited
to
three,
they
could
come
in
with
a
non-conforming
use
of
you
and
ask
for
five
per
unit,
and
then
we
would
have
to
evaluate
that
for
impact.
So
it
is
a
discretionary
review.
AO
I
think
that
we're
recommending
that
that
section
be
in
the
ordinance
just
because
a
lot
of
those
areas,
particularly
on
the
hill,
often
are
non-conforming
to
parking
so
allowing
such
an
increase.
It
might
be
difficult
for
these
Property
Owners
to
argue
that
they're,
not
you
know
needing
additional
parking.
So,
that's
why
we're
recommending
approval
of
that
provision,
but
I
think
it
would
have
to
if
it
weren't
in
there
we
would
have
to
look
at
it.
You
know,
on
a
case-by-case
basis,.
AF
But
we
do
currently
have
the
capacity
to
look
at
it
at
a
case-by-case
basis
and
take
into
account
the
neighborhood
and
the
whether
or
not
they'd
be
meeting
parking.
AO
Requirements
you
know
if
you
know
there
could
be.
You
know
a
lot
of
applications
that
come
in.
If
that
were
not
in
the
ordinance,
there
might
be
a
lot
of
landlords
that
are
seeking
that
occupancy.
So
it
you
know,
we'd
have
to
look
at
our
staff
capacity
for
handling
a
you
know
a
new.
You
know
a
new
application,
basically
for
all
those,
but
we
do
have
that
ability
to
review
it.
A
Thank
you,
Mary
Did,
You
Have,
additional
information.
AA
I
did
and
I
always
try
to
be
precise
before
I
speak,
and
so
we
took
a
look
and
council
member
friends
question
and
the
issue
of
occupancy
in
the
February
midterm
Retreat.
As
we
talked
about
it,
the
topic
or
the
action
was,
do
comparative
analysis
from
other
communities
and
develop
a
model
occupancy
approach
and
solicit
Community
input
with
an
eye
towards
ordinance
change.
It
was
one
of
three
work
plan
items
that
had
a
unanimous
vote.
A
Okay,
any
other
questions
seeing
none.
We
can
now
go
to
the
public
hearing.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
we
got
84
people
signed
up,
got
55
in
person
and
another
39
remote.
So
each
of
you
will
have
two
minutes
to
speak,
we're
looking
forward
to
hearing
from
each
and
every
one
of
you,
but
keep
in
mind.
You
don't
necessarily
have
to
use
the
full
two
minutes.
If
other
people
have
said
what
you're
thinking
about
saying
you
can
do
a
ditto
or
what
have
you,
but
we
you
have
your
two
minutes.
A
If,
if
you
want
them
and
just
remind
people
to
be
respectful,
I
know
there
are
high
feelings
on
this
topic.
Amongst
many
folks,
please
be
respectful
of
the
people
who
are
speaking.
Please
know
verbal
outbursts.
If
you
do
want
to
express
some
form
of
support
or
disagreement
with
a
hand
gesture
you
may
do
so,
but
we'll
encourage
you
to
do
so
politely.
Although
your
first
amendment
rights
allow
you
wider
latitude.
A
And
then
I'll
call
three
names
at
a
time
and
I
would
just
encourage
you
to
come
on
down
if
your
turn
is
coming
up.
Okay
and
our
first
three
speakers
are
Paul
Givens,
Cedar,
Barstow
and
Kristen
Hollingsworth.
H
Right
thanks,
it
looks
like
pardon
me.
This
is
Ryan
Hanson,
it
does
look
like
Paul
is
available
online.
So
maybe
we
can
move
Paul
to
the
online
list.
A
AR
AR
AS
Hello,
my
name
is
Kristen
Hollingsworth
I
have
lived
in
Boulder
for
about
nine
years,
and
tonight.
I
am
speaking
in
support
of
the
measure
to
allow
five
unrelated
people
to
live
together.
It's
very
challenging
to
find
affordable,
shared
housing
in
Boulder.
Personally,
as
a
graduate
student
I
struggled
to
find
a
three-bedroom
option
to
live
legally
as
three
unrelated
people
in
Boulder.
Much
of
the
available
housing
has
unequal
bedrooms
like
two
good
sized
rooms
and
one
very
small
closet
sized
rooms.
AS
The
difficulty
to
find
housing
for
three
unrelated
people
leads
to
looking
for
more
bedrooms
for
space
and
more
occupants
for
affordability.
Everyone
wants
to
live
legally,
but
affordable,
comfortable
and
legal
housing
options
are
very
limited
and
Bolder.
I
would
like
to
thank
the
council
for
considering
this
measure,
which
I
think
is
an
important
step
to
help
make
the
Boulder
Community
that
we
all
care
about
a
little
more
inclusive
by
expanding
legal
housing
options.
AT
Hi,
my
name
is
Max
Hollingsworth
and
I'm
here
to
voice
my
support
for
allowing
five
unrelated
people
to
live
together.
I'm.
Currently,
a
grad
student
at
CU,
Boulder
I've,
lived
here
for
seven
years,
I'm
starting
a
family
in
Boulder,
and
it's
not
easy
to
live
in
Boulder.
If
you're,
a
grad
student
I've
seen
many
of
my
friends
and
fellow
grad,
students
have
to
live
illegally
over
occupied
just
to
be
able
to
afford
to
live
in
the
town
that
they
go
to
school
in
and
work
in.
AT
So
this
is
a
really
good
change
for
Boulder.
It's
a
step
in
the
right
direction,
so
I
want
to
say
thank
you
and
good
work.
A
Okay,
then
Lincoln
you're
up,
okay,.
AU
I
have
my
oh,
that's,
okay,
so
Boulder
Housing
Coalition,
as
you
know,
provides
permanently
affordable,
Cooperative
housing
for
Boulder
and
we're
a
city
contractor
called
an
expert
Cooperative,
Housing,
Organization
and
Echo.
AU
We
help
certify
housing,
co-ops
Under,
The,
Cooperative,
housing,
ordinance,
we
oh
yeah,
I,
don't
know
if
it'll
play,
but
there's
some
sharing
in
action
at
the
mango
Co-op.
It
is
a
movie,
but
we
strongly
support
the
change
to
five
unrelated
people.
AU
So
co-ops
are
about
three
hundred
dollars
per
bedroom
per
month,
lower
in
rent,
and
the
study
showed
that
we
use
one-third
the
per
capita
energy
of
other
coloradans,
the
key
to
our
affordability
and
our
sustainability
is
the
legal
sharing
of
housing.
This
change
to
five
helps
with
that
unrelated
persons.
Ordinance
has
been
the
strongest
barrier
to
creating
affordable
cooperatives
over
the
last
20
years.
AU
The
co-op
ordinance
is
very
cumbersome
to
use
and
margins
are
razor
thin
on
all
affordable
housing
deals,
so
more
possible
occupants
can
allow
more
affordable
deals
to
work
and
make
it
easier
to
convert
multi-unit
buildings
to
permanently
affordable
housing.
This
helps
the
city
reach
its
affordable
housing
goals.
AU
Lots
of
folks
need
to
share
housing
just
to
be
able
to
stay
in
Boulder,
and
we
heard
from
a
few
of
them,
but
we
hear
from
single
parent
service
workers,
teachers,
child
care
providers
and
city
workers
when
you
give
the
power
to
homeowners,
who
can
on
a
complaint
basis,
turn
these
folks
in
it
criminalizes
poverty
and
it
may
cause
them
to
lose
their
housing.
It
is
unjust
and
inherently
it's
classist.
This
proposal
is
more
just
because
it
decriminalizes
sharing
for
lots
of
folks
across
the
city.
Thank.
AW
AV
Boulder
as
well,
who
wanted
to
come
up
tonight,
I've
been
fighting
against
this
ordinance
since
I
was
first
evicted
for
sharing
housing
almost
30
years
ago
in
this
city
and
we're
still
having
this
conversation
since
then
I've
become
vice
president
of
the
school
board.
In
a
time
where
prices
for
housing
are
going
up
and
enrollment
is
dropping.
AV
Occupancy
is
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
we
face
in
housing,
families.
I
know
this
council
is
passionate
about
keeping
families
housed
and
secure
in
their
housing,
but
for
single
parents
with
small
children
options
are
very
limited.
Many
single
parents
are
hoping
to
share
housing,
but
they
can't
risk
losing
housing,
getting
evicted,
having
CPS
get
involved
Etc
by
violating
housing
law.
We
want
people
who
are
living
and
raising
their
children
in
this
city
to
stay
here.
AV
We
badly
need
more
kids
in
our
bbsd
schools
and
we
know
that
we
are
suffering
from
declining
enrollment
and
it's
not
getting
better.
We
need
hourly
staff
in
our
retail
and
service
Industries.
We
need
teachers
and
health
care
workers
who
live
where
they
work
and
we
need
young
families
in
our
neighborhoods,
but
housing
right
now
makes
it
nearly
impossible
for
new
families
to
come
here
or
for
existing
families
to
stay
so
many
families
in
Boulder
would
love
the
option
to
live
together.
It
would
make
it
easier
for
us
to
house
them.
AV
It
would
make
it
easier
for
them
not
to
need
our
services
in
the
first
place.
All
we
need
is
for
you
to
give
them
the
option,
so
please
allow
five
unrelated
people
to
live
together
and
I.
Ask
you
two
to
consider
not
including
minors
in
the
occupancy
standards
so
that
families
can
live
together.
Thank
you.
AX
Good
evening
Council,
my
name
is
Aiden
Reed
I'm,
a
co-chair
for
the
Boulder
County
DSA
chapter
and
a
member
of
the
solutions
not
safe
to
owns
advocacy
group
I
want
to
urge
you
to
vote
to
raise
Boulder's
occupancy
limits
to
allow
up
to
five
unrelated
people
to
live
together.
Boulder's
current
occupancy
limits
are
discriminatory
and
contribute
to
the
conditions
that
make
it
prohibitively
expensive
for
poor
and
working-class
people
to
live
in
the
city.
AX
Raising
Boulder's
occupancy
limits
like
raising
its
minimum
wage
to
15.70
by
January
1st
2024
is
a
critical
step
towards
making
Boulder
a
more
inclusive
and
affordable
place
to
live.
Border's
competitive
Advantage
is
its
people,
and
if
the
city
continues
to
make
it
difficult
for
people
who
are
not
wealthy
homeowners
to
live
here,
it's
Community
wealth
and
diversity
will
continue
to
suffer
as
a
result.
AX
AY
A
AY
Thanks
so
much
for
your
time
and
attention
here,
I'm
here
to
speak
in
support
of
raising
the
occupancy
elements,
I
think
any
healthy
system.
The
health
of
a
system
is
dependent
on
its
diversity
and
I
think
it
is
vital
that
we
do
what
we
can
to
increase
the
diversity
of
Boulder
and
I.
Think
that
means
increasing
the
diversity
of
people
here
in
the
diversity
of
lifestyles,
and
that
means
being
welcoming
to
more
people
and
welcoming
to
more
Lifestyles
right
now.
AY
AY
AZ
AZ
You
know
I
imagine
participation
would
involve
at
least
monitoring
the
email
list
and
potentially
coming
to
a
monthly
meeting
for
10
years
and
I
reviewed
our
you
know:
Boulder
housing,
working
groups
from
2014-15
there's
been
so
much
engagement
and
I
want
to
say,
I.
Think
there's
a
lot
of
first-timers
in
the
audience.
Raise
your
hand
if
you're
speaking,
for
the
first
time
we
have
drawn
crowds
out
for
10
years,
and
there
is
so
much
Rich
information
and
public
comments
in
your
emails.
AZ
I'd
love
for
Sabrina
sedaris's
students
to
analyze
public
comments
for
10
years
to
have
common
sense
laws
for
unrelated
people
and
I
want
this
to
also
you
know
this
is
this
comment
is
y'all,
know
me
and
y'all
know
this
and
where
we
stand,
but
this
is
for
our
community
to
understand
a
greater
Community
like
this
conversation
has
has
been
had,
and
you
know
it's
time
that
we
take
action
and
I
want
to
say.
As
the
chair
of
our
Sierra
Club,
you
know
committed
to
how
does
this
further
climate
action
Injustice?
Thank
you.
BA
BA
BA
Sorry
I
lost
my
spot
as
there
are
many
documentary
examples
of
successful
strategies,
as
mentioned
in
the
presentation
earlier,
while
this
ordinance
does
not
guarantee
affordability,
it
is
one
step
in
that
direction.
Let's
welcome
people
to
share
space
with
us
and
Foster
an
inclusive
community.
Thank
you.
BB
Thanks
for
supporting
housing
for
people,
I
fully
support,
this
proposed
change
to
the
ordinance
and
it's
not
sufficient,
but
it's
a
good
small
step
and
more
must
be
done
and
as
I've
sung
to
you
before,
prairie
dogs
and
colonies,
nests
for
birds
and
hives
for
bees
and
our
squirrel
friends
live
in
trees,
but
bedrooms
are
for
people
Boulder,
Boulder,
college
town.
Why
are
things
so
upside
down?
Mansions
mansions
on
the
hill,
but
our
friends
are
homeless.
Still,
bedrooms
are
for
people
thanks.
BC
Hi
Council
Chase
Cromwell
last
time,
I
was
in
Chambers.
I
was
a
director
of
legislative
affairs
for
CU
Student
Government.
This
spring
it
was
elected
as
the
external
Affairs
tri-executive
one
of
three
co-equals
to
my
presence.
First,
while
I
am
the
elected
representative
of
the
36-ish
Thousand
students,
University
of
Colorado
undergraduate
and
graduate
many
of
whom
are
in
this
room,
I'm
going
to
State
very
clearly
that
this
issue
is
not
just
a
windfall
for
students
or
landlords
or
Property
Owners
or
some
other
group
of
people
that
we
can
demonize.
BC
This
issue
is
a
government
saying
that
groups
of
certain
people
cannot
live
together.
This
impacts
University
faculty
staff
students,
but
also
community
members
who
have
no
connection
to
the
university.
This
issue
is
about
rights
for
tenants.
If
you
look
at
the
hill
any
unit
that
can
be
over
occupied
by
students
almost
certainly
already
is.
BC
This
will
not
result
in
a
flood
of
students
showing
up
to
the
hill
or
anywhere
else
in
the
city.
It
will
result
in
those
tenants
being
able
to
breathe
a
sigh
of
relief
that
their
existence
in
their
home
is
legal,
that
they
have
eviction
protections
and
rent
payment
protections
and
other
rights
between
their
landlord
and
between
their
roommates
I
also
want
to
reiterate
one
specific
point
for
my
counsel,
my
email
to
council.
Earlier
this
week.
This
issue
has
been
used,
like
others,
to
smear
students.
BC
There
is
this
implication
that
allowing
students
to
live
with
other
students
will
destroy
our
town.
The
chaos
in
Mayhem
will
be
devastating
to
the
very
fabric
of
our
municipality.
Undoubtedly,
you'll
hear
some
of
these
comments
tonight.
This
is
infuriating
to
say
the
least.
Yeah
students
are
people
they
exist
here.
BC
They
have
existed
here
since
before
there
was
a
here
in
Boulder,
they
are
not
perfect,
but
they
are
not
a
monolith.
The
overwhelming
majority
of
students
are
as
normal
as
everyone
else
in
this
room
normals,
you
know,
Boulder
has
literally
been
fighting
about
being
overrun
with
students
for
100
years.
The
language
we
use
about
students
and
their
behavior
is
important
and
I
hope
you'll
reject
these
descriptions
of
young
people
who
moved
here
to
get
a
degree.
BC
BD
BD
Affordability
requires
decoupling
the
cost
of
parking
from
housing
as
a
local
example,
I'm
extremely
grateful
that,
as
a
non-core
owner
a
table
makes
an
apartment.
A
community
explored
as
a
housing
option.
This
year
offered
180
less
per
month
for
rent
if
I
did
not
have
a
car
to
park
in
that
Community,
this
scope
of
savings,
as
well
as
a
deduction
and
traffic
intensity
by
desensitivizing
code
ownership,
create,
could
be
achieved
by
creating
parking
permit
programs
across
the
city
and
really
and
then
and
eliminating
parking
minimums
should
be
the
next
step.
BD
After
passing,
this
ordinance
occupancy
is
not
the
primary
only
cause
of
issues
associated
like
noise
or
parking
to
resolve.
Those
issues
requires
direct
action
on
those
issues
using
occupancy
as
a
means
to
address
noise
or
parking
or
other
concerns
is
not
the
actual
result.
We
want
to
be
tackling
so
I,
encourage
you
to
move
forward
and
increasing
occupancy
limits
and
for
other
concerns
that
remain
still
a
problem.
We
can
move
forward
in
other
populations
that
directly
tackle
those.
Thank
you.
BD
BE
Council
good
evening,
and
thank
you
for
letting
me
speak
to
you
about
this.
My
name
is
Mark
Lester
I'm,
an
undergraduate
student
at
C
Boulder,
and
this
is
my
first
time
at
Council.
BE
But
this
is
a
very
important
issue
to
me
and
to
many
of
us
students
living
in
Boulder
and
I'm
here
because
as
I'm
sure
we're
all
here,
because
we
love
Boulder
and
we
want
to
build
a
boulder,
that's
better
for
everybody,
that's
affordable
for
everybody
and
where
everyone
feels
welcome,
and
there
is
not
a
student
that
I've
met
at
C
Boulder,
who
doesn't
love
it
here.
But
there
are
a
lot
who
say
that
they
can't
stay
here,
which
is
really
sad
to
me,
because
Boulder
is
a
place
where
I
found
acceptance.
BE
I,
Found,
Love
I've
found
passionate
advocates
for
the
community.
I've
found
just
community,
and
it
just
breaks
my
heart
that
so
many
students
are
feeling
unwelcome
like
they
can't
make
a
future
here,
especially
when
so
many
of
them
want
that.
BE
I
have
a
friend
who
lost
their
job
on
campus
and
had
72
hours
to
vacate
their
student
housing.
They
ended
up
having
to
pay
thousands
of
dollars
out
of
pocket
just
to
afford
to
put
a
roof
over
their
head
I'm.
One
of
the
fortunate
few
who
has
the
right
friends
to
be
able
to
live
in
shared
housing
and
I,
can
say
from
personal
experience
that
I
spend
way
less
on
rent
than
any
of
them.
BE
Do
and
I'm
very
privileged
to
be
able
to
afford
to
spend
that
rent
here,
and
it
really
just
breaks
my
heart
that
this
stuff
happens
to
students
and
that
they
can't
find
a
home
here
and
I
believe
that
expanding
occupancy
limits
today
will
give
students
the
options
that
they
need.
Definitely
not
enough.
But
it's
a
start
and.
BF
BF
Every
day
we
see
tenants
who
lose
their
housing
and
become
unhoused
because
they
can't
find
an
affordable
rent,
I
crunched
some
numbers
and
for
a
full-time
worker
making
less
than
twenty
dollars
an
hour.
An
affordable
rent
is
in
three
figures,
so
we
have
an
opportunity
tonight
to
actually
make
a
dent
in
the
housing
stock
available
without
turning
a
shovel
full
of
dirt.
BF
AM
Hello
last
night,
I
had
a
powerful
vision
and
I
think
it
was
exacerbated
by
the
fact
that
I
had
a
large
bowl
of
sugar
cereal
before
I
went
to
bed.
But
in
the
in
the
dream
that
I
had
God
appeared
and
spoke
to
me
and
I
was
so
thankful.
I
said
I've
been
wanting
to
speak
to
you
because
my
city
has
a
housing
crisis.
Can
you
help
us
and
she
said
housing
crisis?
What
housing
crisis?
AM
You
have
30
000
empty
bedrooms,
and
you
said
what
you
need
more
than
occupancy
reform
is
vacancy
reform
and
I
thought
that
she
had
a
pretty
good
point,
and
so
but
I
couldn't
help
asking
her
where
she
got
that
number
and
she
said
from
the
Bing
and
that
was
kind
of
awkward
for
me,
because
the
last
time
I
asked
Bing
how
many
empty
bedrooms
there
were
in
bedroom.
It
served
up
a
number
that
it
had
pulled
from
a
blog
post
that
I
had
written,
but
I.
AM
Chance
to
explain
that
to
her
before
she
vanished,
leaving
me
to
think
about
vacancy
reform
and
I
have
good
news:
I
have
lots
and
lots
of
ideas
about
vacancy
reform.
I
can't
wait
to
share
them,
but
in
the
interest
of
time
I'll
just
I'll
I'll
share
those
later.
Please
vote
for
this
important
occupancy
reform.
Thank
you.
BG
Hello,
my
name
is
Blake
Stone
first
off
I
want
to
thank
all
the
city
council
members
for
their
ongoing
hard
work
and
diligence
for
their
community
in
Boulder
over
the
last
two
decades
or
so.
Occupancy
reform
has
become
an
increasingly
contentious
issue
that
I
and
many
others
feel
very
strongly
about,
because
at
times
this
ordinance
has
impacted
our
daily
lives,
but
I
want
to
mention
that
many
of
us
with
opposing
viewpoints
on
this
issue
do
share
goals
and
values.
Most
of
us
value
the
Earth's
nature
and
Wildlife
clean
air
in
a
healthy
community.
BG
BG
Additionally,
it
would
be
dangerous
for
me
to
return
to
my
home
state
of
Tennessee,
where
I
could
be
arrested
for
using
a
public
bathroom
for
the
last
decade
and
through
the
pandemic.
I
have
been
a
healthcare
worker
in
Boulder
I
work
at
the
community
hospital
and
in
Elder
Care
I
even
worked
in
our
covid-19
positive
homeless
shelter
during
the
pandemic.
BG
BG
A
BH
Good
evening,
thank
you
for
tonight's
vote.
We
own
a
home
on
a
cul-de-sac
near
third
and
Pearl.
Last
month,
my
neighbor
yelled
at
my
Latina
friend
treating
her
like
she
didn't
speak
English
because
her
car
was
parked
one
foot
outside
our
driveway.
Last
year.
Another
next
door,
neighbor
told
my
wife
that
civilized
people
don't
take
up
space.
The
way
our
garden
beds
do
in
our
driveway
the
way
garden
beds
in
our
driveway.
Do
we
prefer
vegetables
over
vehicles
the
year
before
that
my
other
next
door?
BH
AB
A
Thanks
for
that
Nicole
now
we
have
Dave
Coleman,
Sarah,
Campbell
and
Sean
Haney.
BI
Thank
you
for
your
time
today.
It's
my
first
time
here,
I
feel
very
passionate
about
this
topic.
I've
lived
in
Boulder
for
12
years,
and
for
most
of
that
it's
been
illegal.
As
a
PhD
student,
it
was
the
most
affordable
route
and
I
had
an
amazing
community
of
fellow
grad
students
and
young
professionals,
and
we
weren't
trashing
our
neighborhood.
We
were
in
Martin
acres
and
they
were
just
such
welcoming
friends
that
I
came
to
this.
BI
The
city
and
it's
just
been
in
a
weird
situation
to
like,
have
to
be
dodging
this
law
for
so
many
years
since
then,
I've
started
a
company,
a
block
from
here
we're
now
50
people,
and
it
just
irks
me
that
four,
only
14
of
my
50-person
company
actually
lives
in
Boulder.
The
rest
have
to
commute
in
despite
us,
taking
and
being
in
the
Aerospace
industry
and
taking
funds
from
NASA
so
I'm
in
support
of
this
as
a
small
business
owner
and
as
a
someone
at
C
Boulder
as
a
student
in
the
past.
BJ
Hi,
thanks
for
all
your
hard
work
and
the
wonderful
presentation
earlier,
my
classmates
and
I
lived
over
occupancy
when
we
were
getting
her
phds
in
physics
at
CU
Boulder,
we
had
our
own
little
Community.
We
volunteered
in
local
science
classes,
but
it
didn't
always
feel
like
the
city
wanted
us
later.
My
husband
and
I
bought
and
fixed
up
a
home
in
Martin
Acres,
renting
out
two
spare
bedrooms
to
make
ends
meet,
but
unfortunately
we
got
divorced.
BJ
We
could
not
legally
rent
my
empty
spot
in
the
house,
so
I
had
to
both
cover
the
mortgage
and
pay
my
rent
at
a
new
place,
so
I
found
the
cheapest
place.
I
could
with
three
other
roommates.
Therefore,
I
was
not
on
the
lease
and
yeah
I'm
still
trying
to
get
my
security
deposit
back
from
that
one
I
don't
have
any
legal
rights.
Nor
do
I
want
to
jeopardize
the
housing
of
the
local
service
workers
who
I
lived
with
and
as
I
try
to
rebuild
my
life
at
age.
BJ
I
hope
we
can
give
renters
rights
to
people
in
their
current
situations
and
also
promote
a
friendlier
City
where
people
aren't
scared
of
being
found
out.
Ordinance
8585
is
a
thoughtful
compromise
that
addresses
many
concerns
raised
by
the
opposition
during
previous
occupancy
reform
campaigns.
So
I
hope
we
can
take
this
step
together.
Thank
you.
BK
R
I
reject
that
definition
when
I
first
moved
out
on
my
own
I
found
family
in
my
four
unrelated
roommates
that
I
shared
a
house
with
keep
in
mind,
we
were
respectful,
neighbors,
we
cooked
together,
we
watched
TV
together
and
we
celebrated
holidays
together.
This
was
in
Austin,
which
is
another
expensive,
University
City,
but
I
was
able
to
afford
to
live
there
very
comfortably,
because
I
was
able
to
split
rent
with
four
other
people,
but
if
I
had
lived
in
Boulder
during
that
time,
then
those
three
years
of
memories
with
my
chosen
family
would
not
exist.
R
A
Sean
now
we
have
Savannah
Kruger
shine,
rudbari
and
Sarah
Fleming.
AK
Hi
Council,
thanks
for
listening
to
all
of
us,
so
I
have
lived
in
Boulder
for
about
13
years
and
eight
eight
of
those
have
been
at
the
Folsom
funny
farm
co-op.
That
was
the
second
legal
co-op
in
Boulder.
AK
It
was
an
utter
dream
to
live
there
we
had
potlucks
I
grew
tremendously
as
a
person
that
was
my
early
20s
I
I'm
in
love
with
that
man
over
there
in
the
peacock
shirt,
mainly
because
of
the
education
I
got
in
communication
in
relationships
in
that
home,
and
it
was
deeply
precious
to
me.
AK
I
want
to
share
that
the
co.
The
current
Co-op
licensure
process
was
almost
prohibitive
in
its
just
like
bureaucracy
and
steps
and
processes,
and
it
was
financially
difficult
for
us
to
afford,
but
it
made
it
possible
for
us
to
be
legal
and
that
felt
really
good.
We
wanted
to
go
through
the
headache
of
a
process,
though
I'm
grateful
for
it
deeply
to
be
a
model
and
set
a
precedent
to
make
it
safer
for
more
and
more
people
and
to
see
licensure
forward.
AK
So
yeah
I
just
want
to
say
that
the
current
status
of
living
communally
is
very
difficult
to
us,
and
this
would
be
an
incredible
Improvement
upon
that
for
everyone.
Thank
you.
So
much.
BL
Hi
I'm
another
Sarah
and
I
was
born
here
in
Boulder
I'm
26
years
old
now
and
I
live
on
University
Hill
I'm
really
grateful
that
you're
considering
raising
the
occupancy
limit
to
five
today.
This
change
would
have
an
immediate
positive
impact
for
me,
as
well
as
many
other
young
and
low-income
people
in
Boulder,
when
my
partner
and
a
friend
and
I
were
looking
for
a
new
housing
situation,
this
spring,
it
quickly
became
clear
that
finding
a
place
we
could
afford
would
be
nearly
impossible
without
breaking
the
occupancy
limit.
BL
We
looked
at
so
many
five
bedroom
houses
that
popped
up
on
Craigslist,
where
the
difference
between
splitting
rent
between
five
people
and
between
three
people
would
be
over
500
per
person.
So
that's
a
significant
number
and
it's
not
just
rent.
It's
sharing
housing
with
more
people
allows
us
to
save
significantly
on
utilities
on
Wi-Fi
rely
on
food
and
lots
of
other
costs,
and
that
also
allows
us
to
reduce
reduce
our
personal
consumption.
BL
So
it's
obviously
not
a
Panacea
there's
lots
of
other
things
that
we
need
to
do
to
address
our
housing
crisis
and
make
sure
rents
stay
affordable,
but
it
is
an
essential
part
of
doing
so.
So
I
really
hope
you
vote.
Yes.
Thank
you.
Thank.
B
A
A
BM
My
name
is
Jim
beard,
it
looks
like
buyer,
but
yeah.
That's
not
wrong.
I
just
want
to
say
I
am
seriously
in
favor
of
the
ordinance.
I
really
appreciate
that
you
guys
are
recognizing
the
complexity
of
the
whole
thing
that
this
isn't
a
magic
fix.
You
know
one
thing
and
then
we're
done
I'm
strongly
in
favor
of
finding
ways
that
everyone
that
works
in
Boulder
can
live
in
Boulder
and
that's
a
big
challenge.
BM
AJ
Hi
all
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
My
name
is
Joseph.
Stein
I
have
lived
most
of
my
life
most
of
my
24
years
in
Martin,
Acres
I
work
in
retail,
on
Pearl,
Street
and
I
am
the
treasurer
of
the
local
chapter
of
the
democratic
socialists
of
America.
I
am
here
to
urge
you
to
raise
the
number
of
unrelated
persons
permitted
to
live
together
to
five,
for
the
simple
reason
that
working
people
and
young
people
are
already
living
over
occupied
at
no
threat
to
anyone's
health
or
safety.
AJ
BN
The
opportunity
to
speak
about
this
important
issue
I,
was
born
and
raised
in
Boulder
and
desire
to
continue
living
here
long
term,
even
as
a
college.
Graduate
Boulder
remains
prohibitively
expensive
for
most
people
for
my
generation,
with
housing
being
the
most
costly
of
all.
The
ability
to
share
expenses
such
as
rent
with
housemates
and
Friends
makes
it
possible
for
people
like
me
to
remain
in
the
city.
BN
I
call
home
and
grew
up
in
I
urge
you
to
to
vote
in
favor
of
allowing
unrelated
people
to
share
home
in
Boulder
in
the
name
of
mine
in
future.
Generations
and
I
would
also
like
to
speak
in
favor
of
raising
the
minimum
wage
according
to
the
MIT
living
wage
calculator,
a
living
wage
and
Boulder
would
be
27
an
hour,
far
more
than
being
proposed.
Let's
support
workers
in
all
of
Boulders
residents
by
increasing
wages
and
therefore
quality
of
life
in
Boulder.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
Lucy
Lucy,
not
to
single
anyone
out
else
out,
but
our
topic
tonight
is
occupancy
limits.
I'll
just
I'll
just
say:
right
now
we
have
Mikey
Jacobs
animate,
sallow
and
Kevin
McWilliams.
BO
Foreign,
my
name
is
Mikey,
J
and
I
hope
we're
all
doing
well
today,
as
a
five-year
member
of
the
Boulder
Community
I'm
here,
to
enthusiastically
express
my
support
for
this
ordinance
and
allow
five
unrelated
tenants
to
cohabitate
as
a
recent
graduate
of
CU
Boulder
I'd
bring
a
somewhat
youthful
perspective
throughout
my
four
years
of
studies.
My
eye,
like
many
of
my
peers,
struggled
to
secure,
affordable
housing
due
to
occupancy
laws.
BO
BO
Sorry,
your
support
is
Paramount
to
Our
Success
I
implore
you
to
consider
revising
these
unjust
laws
and
declare
an
unwavering
commitment
to
the
welfare
of
students
in
these
times
of
challenges,
and
let's
not
ignore
the
fact
that
student
loan
forgiveness
has
just
been
rescinded.
We
seek
a
supportive
environment
rather
than
additional
hurdles.
BO
I
do
sincerely
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
address
you
today
and
acknowledge
the
significance
of
your
attention
to
this
matter.
It
is
my
hope
that
you
recognize
the
gravity
of
this
situation
and
that
anything
short
of
endorsing
this
initiative
could
be
perceived
as
an
affront
to
the
youth,
a
clear
indication
that
climate
and
Equity
are
not
prioritized
within
our
city
and
a
call
for
change
in
current
leadership
with
utmost
respect.
Mikey.
BP
BP
BP
BP
I
support
raising
the
occupant
occupancy
limits
to
five
unrelated
people,
because
it
would
alleviate
a
significant
barrier
for
queer
people
to
continue
to
live
in
Boulder,
as
we
already
are,
and
alleviate
barriers
to
accessing
the
resiliency
and
the
Beautiful
brilliant
community
that
we
have
built.
Families
come
in
all
different
forms
and
have
a
right
to
housing
security.
BP
Overall,
this
proposal
is
one
piece
of
the
puzzle
of
increasing,
affordable
housing
here
in
Boulder.
It's
an
opportunity
for
Boulder
to
take
the
pride
flag
that
is
hanging
on
the
historic
Courthouse
of
our
town
and
turn
it
into
actionable
support
for
its
residents,
local
action
at
a
time
when
the
nation
and
multiple
states
are
passing
anti-lgpt
legislation.
This
is
Paramount.
BP
BQ
Hello
and
good
evening,
my
name
is
Kevin
McWilliams
I've
been
a
resident
of
Boulder
since
2001
and
for
nearly
that
entire
time,
I've
had
to
live
over
occupied
in
a
rental
with
friends
just
due
to
housing
costs,
and
you
know
wanting
to
live
with
my
preferred
community
and
in
every
one
of
those
cases
having
the
occupancy
limit
at
five
unrelated
individuals
would
have
made
these
situations.
Legal
I've
had
two
separate
housing
situations,
one
in
2015
and
another
in
early
2019,
severely
disrupted
by
this
ordinance,
when
an
anonymous
neighbor
made
a
complaint
to
the
city.
BQ
For
some
reason,
though,
we
were
not,
in
my
opinion,
being
disruptive,
so
it's
directly
impacted
me
multiple
times
and
it's
been
a
burden.
The
entire
time
that
I've
lived
in
this
city,
which
I
love
dearly
so
I,
do
urge
you
to
increase
the
housing
occupancy
limit
to
five
unrelated
people.
I
would
also
like
to
address
some
of
the
comments
that
have
been
made
in
the
lead.
Up
to
this
meeting.
People
have
said
that
changing
the
occupancy
limit
would
be
overturning
the
will
of
the
voters
of
Boulder
and
I
would
like
to
rebut
that
statement.
BQ
The
bedrooms
are
for
people
measured,
narrowly
lost
in
a
low
turnout
off
your
election,
and
we
helped
support
three
members
of
this
Council
who
were
vocal,
Advocates
of
upping
occupancy
limits.
Those
people
are
on
the
council
right
now.
That's
over
50
percent
of
the
people
who
are
elected
to
the
council
in
2021
I
think
that
speaks
to
the
voters
desire
for
this
measure
to
be
or
for
this
issue
to
be
addressed
and
to
be
addressed
now.
I.
Thank
you
for
taking
this
up.
A
BR
Hi
Council,
my
name
is
Becky
Davies
and
I
was
thinking
back
to
my
kind
of
first
engagement
with
the
city
in
any
capacity
in
Boulder,
and
it
was
really
through
occupancy
limits
within
weeks
of
arriving
here
for
graduate
school
and
for
a
lot
of
the
reasons
other
folks
have
mentioned.
It
was,
you
know,
a
pretty
negative
experience
and
it
really
turned
me
off
to
participating
or
engaging
with
the
city
any
further.
BR
You
know
that
includes
any
other
public
processes
responding
to
surveys
or
any
of
the
other
ways
that
the
city
seeks
to
engage
with
with
a
broad
constituency
of
the
population
and
that
lasted
for
about
five
years
until
I
saw
a
glimmer
of
hope
that
this
law
would
be
changed
and
they
got
me
motivated
to
get
involved
again
and
now,
as
most
of
you
know,
I'm
a
member
of
tab,
so
I
also
receive
emails
about
parking
like
you,
and
you
know,
and
I
think
and
I
know
from
that
that
Council
and
City
leadership
have
expressed
a
desire
to
get
a
more
diverse
cross-section
of
the
city
participating
in
public
processes
and
thinking
of
ways
to
do
that.
BR
I
just
want
to
point
out
that,
if
this
is
your,
if
your
first
experience
with
the
city
is
through
this
occupancy
limit
law,
that
is
quite
punitive
and
often
weaponized
again,
as
others
have
described,
then
you're-
probably
not
coming
back
to
engage
again.
So
that
is
just
another
reason.
Why
I
strongly
support
increasing
the
occupancy
limit
to
five,
and
thank
you
so
much
for
considering
this
change.
AW
AW
AW
We
should
be
better
and
smarter
than
the
folks
who
wrote
housing,
discrimination
and
high
costs
into
the
fabric
of
our
neighborhoods
I've
spoken
so
much
about
occupancy
over
the
years
that
it's
hard
to
sum
up
now
that
we're
finally,
here
at
a
vote,
but
here's
my
best
shot
I
want
to
live
and
raise
my
kids
in
a
community
that
practices,
inclusion,
that
values
sharing
and
that
listens
to
the
voices
of
our
neighbors,
who
are
struggling
to
be
here,
allowing
more
people
to
share
housing.
City-Wide
moves
Us
in
that
direction.
AW
BS
Hi
Council,
my
name
is
Nick
Grossman.
Tonight
you
have
the
opportunity
to
show
courageous
leadership.
You
can
be
the
first
city
council
brave
enough
to
meaningfully
address
this
serious
issue
that
has
been
hurting
people
in
Boulder
for
more
than
50
years.
You
can
pass
this
bold
reform
to
give
everyone
more
equal
access
to
homes
across
Boulder.
You
can
finally
make
it
legal
for
five
unrelated
adults
to
share
a
five-bedroom
home
anywhere
in
the
city,
which
will
immediately
benefit
thousands
of
people
in
our
community
who
are
currently
living
illegally.
BS
You
can
decriminalize
the
majority
of
shared
housing
options
in
Boulder
by
allowing
all
people
to
choose
to
share
living
expenses
and
create
their
own
community.
You
can
take
this
important
and
long
overdue
step
towards
equity
and
justice.
Boulder,
renters
and
homeowners
will
back
you
in
supporting
the
sensible
policy
reform
and
we
hope
you
will
rise
to
the
occasion
tonight.
Thank
you.
BT
Hi
friends,
over
the
past
five
to
ten
years,
I've
watched
the
brightest
Minds
in
Boulder.
The
people
who
care
the
most
and
work
the
hardest
to
improve
our
community,
spend
thousands
and
thousands
of
person
hours
advocating
researching,
discussing
and
debating
this
issue,
I'm
talking
about
all
of
our
elected
officials,
City
staff
activists
and
engaged
residents
across
the
political
Spectrum,
putting
in
an
enormous
amount
of
work
for
years.
BT
BT
U
Ericbud
I
live
in
Boulder,
I,
guess
I
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
to
city
council
for
taking
up
this
issue.
It
was
you
know,
unanimous
that
you
all
put
this
on
the
work
plan
to
discuss
and
I.
It's
really
meaningful
and
humbling
to
me.
I've
worked
on
this
issue
for
over
10
years
without
any
meaningful
action,
and
tonight
you
can
take
action,
I'm
humbled
by
everyone
who
has
participated
in
this
process
in
any
way
everyone
who
has
signed
up
to
speak
tonight.
U
Today
there
was
an
article
in
the
New
York
Times
talking
about
Colorado's
housing,
crisis
and
New
York
Times
described
bedrooms
are
for
people
as
a
movement
and
that's
exactly
what
it
is.
It's
not
about
one
Ordinance,
one
ballot
measure:
it's
a
movement
and
these
occupancy
limits
that
are
based
on
relationships
of
people
they
are
designed
to
exclude.
That
is
their
purpose.
U
BU
Hello
I
would
like
to
dedicate
my
time
here
to
every
single
volunteer
who
has
stood
in
the
Blazing
heat
I
know.
BU
Many
of
you
are
back
there
to
the
wild
winds
and
in
the
torrential
rains
to
collect
signatures
two
years
in
a
row
thanks
to
some
of
you
to
the
10
000
people
who
signed
our
petitions
to
the
hundreds
of
people
who
showed
up
to
March
for
housing
Justice
to
the
people
who
showed
up
here
tonight
and
many
nights
before
to
share
their
powerful
personal
stories
of
how
this
issue
has
caused
them
harm
to
the
students
who
have
been
vilified,
despite
being
the
heart
and
soul
of
this
community,
to
those
who
have
been
evicted
for
sharing
a
home
and
to
those
who
have
lived
in
fear
that
eviction
would
happen
to
them.
BU
I
want
to
dedicate
this
time
to
the
generations
of
Advocates,
like
Cedar,
who
have
worked
for
decades
to
chain
this
change,
this
Insidious
and
exclusionary
law.
We
stand
on
their
shoulders
and
there
is
no
better
time
than
now
to
end
this
harm
that
this
law
has
caused.
I
also
want
to
dedicate
this
time
to
Nicole
Lauren,
Matt,
Juni,
Rachel
and
Aaron,
who
are
using
their
power
tonight
for
positive
change.
BU
Bedrooms
are
for
people
is
not
a
ballot
measure
or
a
specific
policy.
It
is
a
movement
of
people
who
want
to
live
in
a
more
just
and
kind
community
and
who
have
the
courage
to
be
and
create
that
change.
I
am
beyond
honored
to
be
a
part
of
it
and
I.
Thank
you
for
making
history
with
us
tonight.
Thank
you.
A
Thanks
Chelsea
now
we've
got
Victor,
maybe
you
can
pronounce
your
last
name
for
us
and
then
Roxanne
Ruggles
and
Nathan
sweet
yeah.
BV
Sure
it's
it's
I've
spoken
English,
so
long
that
it's
trouble
for
me
to
say
it
too.
This
is
a
great
crowd.
I
wish
I
could
have
everyone
here,
as
my
neighbors
but
I'm
here.
First
today,
speaking
against
the
occupancy
limit
increase
and,
of
course,
I
live
on
the
hill
I
get
it
older
has
an
appeal
to
many
of
us
myself
personally,
I
like
to
run
through
Choctaw
Park
Until
I
am
so
out
of
breath
that
the
Rangers
will
sometimes
jokingly
say,
don't
die
as
I
pass.
BV
It
totally
makes
sense
that
we
should
maximize
the
utility
of
this
place
for
everyone
who
wants
to
live
here.
Unfortunately,
for
as
long
as
I
can
remember,
the
city
has
demonstrated
an
inability
to
deal
with
the
problems
that
result
from
high
occupancy
or
high
density.
Rather,
we
really
need
to
fix
these
problems
around
noise
and
fireworks.
For
me,
in
particular,
is
a
concern
before
we
tackle
or
before
we
make
the
problem
larger.
BV
Had
we
done
so,
we'd
have
increased
occupancy
already,
maybe
a
decade
ago
there
would
have
been
less
opposition
every
year
around
November
students
will
knock
on
my
door
and
ask
if
I'm
renewing
my
lease
I
own
the
place.
I
tell
them.
Oh
sorry,
no
problem
by
the
way
I
ask
how
much
does
rent
go
for
one
guy
told
me
1600
per
person.
BV
He
says,
but
your
place
can
only
have
three
since
it's
not
a
duplex,
it
was
curious
to
me
that
they
speak
in
terms
of
cost
per
person
and
not
cost
per
like
the
size
of
the
house,
or
anything
like
that.
They
know
as
do
landlords,
that
rent
is
priced
by
the
occupant.
Well
sixteen
hundred
times
three
is
a
big
number
1600
times.
5
is
a
bigger
number:
more
noise,
more
fireworks
and
more
money.
I
don't
want
to
move
elsewhere
and
I.
Don't
want
to
be
a
landlord
I.
BV
BW
My
name
is
Roxanne
roggles
and
I
live
on
the
hill
I'm
here
tonight
to
voice
my
disappointment.
That
council
is
discussing
and
voting
on,
increasing
the
number
of
unrelated
persons
in
a
single
dwelling.
This
occupancy
issue
was
voted
on
in
2021
and
denied
by
53
percent
of
Boulder
voters.
Council
has
stated
that
this
change
in
occupancy
will
affect
all
of
Boulder
and
help
in
rent
affordability.
Both
of
these
statements
are
not
true.
BW
The
proposed
ordinance
will
impact
already
densely
populated
neighborhoods
surrounding
CU
campus,
as
well
as
Martin
acres
and
Table
Mesa.
This
ordinance,
if
passed,
will
have
minimal
effect
on
neighborhoods
such
as
Fraser
Meadows,
Newlands
upper
Chautauqua,
Dakota,
Ridge,
Meadows
and
Mapleton
Hill.
Due
to
the
makeup
of
these
neighborhoods
and
the
proximity
to
CU
for
decades,
many
of
the
densely
who
lived
in
neighborhoods
have
experienced
a
swell
of
undergraduate
students
bringing
in
them
increase
in
petty
crime.
Fireworks
gunfire
party
noise
and
parking
issues.
Raising
the
non-related
persons
will
further
explode
these
already
existing
problems.
BW
There
is
already
a
lot
of
illegal
renting
to
five
so
making
this
legal
in
these
densely
populated
neighborhoods
will
just
increase
it
to
six.
Seven.
Eight
per
household
cramming,
more
bodies
into
rental
housing
and
given
additional
Revenue
to
landlords,
many
of
these
renters
have
little
or
no
respect
for
their
rental
properties
or
the
permanent
residents.
BW
A
large
part
of
the
housing
part
problem
is
a
town
and
gown
issue
between
the
city
and
CU,
with
enrollment
hovering
at
36,
000
undergraduates
in
campus
housing
for
ten
thousand
do
the
math?
That's
26
000
people
in
need
of
Housing
close
to
CU.
This
crisis
needs
other
solutions
that
involve
CU.
Thank
you.
BX
BX
BY
Good
evening,
Council
boy
is
it
getting
late?
I
am
very
honored
by
your
continued
attention
to
listening
with
so
much
care
to
all
of
us
tonight.
My
name
is
Celia.
I
am
an
elder
care
worker
and
I.
Do
group
exercise
at
the
YMCA
my
partner
and
I
moved
to
Boulder
one
year
ago,
and
we
were
fortunate
enough
to
be
accepted
into
one
of
Boulder's
independent
co-ops.
This
was
the
only
way
we
could
afford
to
come
to
Boulder
for
my
partner
to
attain
her
Masters
in
acupuncture,
from
one
of
the
incredible
healing
schools
in
Boulder
County.
BY
BY
Increasing
the
occupancy
limit
to
five
is
a
positive
step
towards
fostering
a
more
inclusive
community
that
is
also
more
environmentally
sustainable.
As
more
people
are
permitted
to
pool
resources
like
heating
oil,
like
electricity,
food
and
appliances,
there
are
many
ways
to
approach
this
type
of
code
ordinance.
Setting
an
occupancy
limit
doesn't
necessarily
seem
like
the
best
possible
way
to
ensure
the
safety
of
older
citizens,
but
a
limit
of
five
is
much
better
than
a
limit
of
three
and
the
provisions
that
allow
families
to
pull
resources
more
efficiently
are
also
extremely
important.
BY
BY
A
Now
Renee
reader,
Reynold,
Feldman
and
Hannah
George
do
we
have
Renee
in
the
room
not
sing
so
Reynold
Feldman
there
we
go.
BZ
BZ
If
I
were,
if
we
were
a
family
of
seven,
we
could
live
there
legally,
as
I
age
in
place.
I
would
like
to
be
living
with
more
of
my
peers.
Green
say
the
Germans
is
a
sign
of
Hope
I'm
wearing
green
tonight
in
the
hope
that
you'll
raise
the
housing
limit
to
five
unrelated
people.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
CA
Good
evening,
city,
council
staff,
thank
you
so
much
all
for
being
here
and
serving
the
community.
My
name
is
Hannah
George
and
I
work
in
private
land
conservation,
landscape,
scale
conservation
and,
as
you
know,
we
are
living
through
a
climate
crisis,
a
catastrophe.
If
you
will
caused
by
humans
putting
far
too
much
CO2
into
the
atmosphere.
CA
CA
I
hope
you
vote
today
to
allow
many
people
who
already
live
here
to
officially
get
on
a
lease
and
enjoy
the
rights
that
tenants
hold
as
an
independent
Co-op
resident
in
the
lower
Chautauqua
neighborhood
I
hope.
Your
vote
tonight
allows
more
people
to
enjoy
the
benefits
and
cost
Savings
of
sharing
housing
without
needing
to
go
through
a
costly
and
time-consuming
permitting
process.
B
CB
Am
going
on
my
fourth
year
living
in
Boulder
in
a
house
in
Martin
Acres,
three
of
those
years
as
a
student,
and
now
as
someone
living
and
working
in
Boulder
I
live
in
a
large
house,
five
bed,
three
bath,
two-car
garage,
a
basement
with
a
kitchenette
and
a
separate
living
room
zoned
for
three
people.
The
city
should
not
be
able
to
tell
me
who
I
can
share
this
very
large
living
space
with
I
live
1200
miles
away
from
my
family
and
I
found
a
support
system
here
in
Boulder
and
I.
Consider
them
my
family
here.
CB
So
why
can't
I
share
my
home
with
them?
My
second
point
is
that
these
zoning
laws
aren't
preventing
people
from
over
occupying
homes.
It's
just
an
added
stressor
for
those
who
aren't
on
a
lease
and
still
is
for
those
who
are
on
a
lease.
This
is
about
tenants
rights
in
the
past.
I
had
roommates
who
weren't
officially
living
in
the
house
last
summer,
our
water
heater
broke
and
caused
a
flood
in
the
basement
where
mine
and
my
unofficial
roommate
were
living.
CB
It
was
a
three-month
period
from
the
break
to
remediation.
We
couldn't
stay
in
our
room
for
most
of
the
time,
because
my
FloorMate
wasn't
on
our
lease.
I
was
stuck
as
the
point
of
contact
three
months
of
scheduling
with
remediation
companies,
flooring,
companies
and
plumbers,
even
things
that
impacted
her
space
I
had
to
deal
with.
CB
What
will
change
is
people
like
my
roommates
will
be
able
to
contact
their
landlord
when
they
have
a
problem
minor
or
major
like
their
room
flooding,
because
they
will
be
on
a
lease
you'll,
be
helping
the
people
who
are
already
part
of
the
Boulder
Community
Living
in
Boulder
housing.
Just
unofficially,
adults
will
also
be
able
to
live
with
other
adults,
family
or
not,
and
not.
Have
the
looming
anxiety
that
they
could
be
kicked
out
of
their
home,
a
crazy
concept
right.
CC
Hello,
my
name
is
shiv
srivastava
I'm,
an
international
student
originally
from
Bombay
India
I'm,
studying
engineering
here
at
CU,
I've
lived
in
Boulder
for
the
last
five
years,
four
of
which
have
been
off
campus
in
different
locations
in
the
city.
I'd,
not
vote
on
issue
300
since
I'm,
not
a
U.S
voter,
but
I,
don't
believe
that
that
diminishes
my
position
in
this
community
at
all.
These
occupancy
issues
have
made
it
difficult
and
confusing
for
me,
and
students
like
myself
to
find
housing
in
Boulder
when
looking
at
homes
that
are
clearly
rented
to
students.
CC
CC
My
question
is
which
I
feel
like
has
been
highlighted
multiple
times
tonight.
Why
can
five
adults
live
together
if
they
fit
the
government's
description
of
a
family
unit,
but
not
five
unrelated
students,
as
an
international
student
I,
have
very
little
blood
related,
extended
family
in
the
United
States,
and
none
here
in
Boulder.
So
please
step
back
from
the
politics
of
this
issue.
It
creates
more
problems
than
it
solves.
Please
vote
to
change
these
limits.
Thank
you.
W
University
Hill
When
Miss
John,
sent
out
the
list
of
speakers
yesterday.
I
was
stunned.
The
names
of
people,
I,
thought
would
speak,
were
missing.
I
made
some
phone
calls
and
found
out
that
some
people
sent
emails,
but
most
didn't
feel
it
was
worth
speaking
because
the
majority
on
Council
had
already
made
up
its
mind.
You'd
never
talk
to
anybody.
You
never
got
any
ideas
that
we
might
have.
W
Six
of
you
ignored
the
voters
when
they
rejected
bedrooms
are
for
people
they
plan
to
overturn.
That
vote
became
apparent
first
time.
This
Council
met
bedroom
supporters,
packed
open
comment,
demanding
that
Council
refused
to
enforce
occupancy
limits.
That
Awkward
misstep
was
covered
when
the
city
manager
informed
Council
that
the
city
wasn't
informing
occupancy
limits
during
the
paying
enforcing
occupancy
limits
during
the
pandemic.
W
Six
of
you
advance
the
plan
to
overturn
the
vote
at
this
council's
first
Retreat.
You
claimed
it
was
your
right
because
you
won
the
election
and
you
supported
bedrooms.
Didn't
it
occur
to
you
that
if
you
won
a
bedrooms
lost
some
of
your
supporters,
voted
no
on
bedrooms
had
a
chance
to
sit
down
with
people
and
look
at
look
at
the
possibilities.
Instead,
you
do
this
five
people
city-wide
and
absolutely
refuse
to
look
at
anything
else.
It
was
really
discouraging
to
everyone.
W
W
W
CD
My
name
is
Tom
Masterson
The.
Increased
occupancy
ordinance
is
the
wrong
answer
to
a
thorny
problem.
It,
for
instance,
destroys
our
rights
to
a
family
home
in
Martin,
Acres
We.
The
People
evidently
have
neither
vote
on
our
own
destiny,
but
we
are
feudal
serfs
to
your
omnipotence.
Increasing
the
occupancy
to
five
unrelated
people
will
principally
affect
neighborhoods
like
Martin
acres
and
have
no
effect
on
the
neighborhoods
where
the
city
counts.
Most
the
city
council
live
the
city
of
Boulder
would
greatly
benefit
from
doubling
our
taxes
on
our
residential
property.
CD
While
we
pay
dearly
into
Boulder
City
coffers,
this
ordinance
will
transform
Martin
acres
into
a
student
rental
burial
wedged
between
huge
two
huge
segments
of
Cu
with
ever
increasing
traffic,
thanks
to
a
city
collusion
with
CU
to
allow
the
development
of
what
was
previously
wetlands
and
open
space.
Big
businesses
and
absentee
landlords
will
control
most
of
Martin
Acres
because
the
of
the
enormous
money
making
opportunities
if
this
has
more
than
doubled
the
cost
of
a
home
here,
traffic
and
parking
problems
will
will
increase
exponentially.
CD
We
already
live
with
24
7
365
days
a
year
in
a
deafening
Roar
of
U.S
36.
city
council.
You
are
bigger
than
this
show
Boulder
that
you
respect
democracy
and
can
work
for
those
who
live
here
already.
You
cannot
help
your
neighbor
by
exploiting
your
brother.
There
are
Creative
Solutions,
convert
the
huge
amount
of
currently
vacant
vacant
office,
space
to
residential,
decreased
traffic
problems
and
accidents.
CD
CE
My
name
is
Joel
marks
and
I'm
speaking
in
opposition
to
the
ordinance
I'm
sensitive
to
the
stories
and
arguments
made
by
people
in
support
of
this
ordinance.
At
the
same
time,
the
citizens
of
Boulder
did
speak
when
they
rejected
the
bedrooms
for
people
initiative
in
2021
and
the
fact
that
it
was
close
doesn't
matter.
They
rejected
it.
And
if
that
initiative
doesn't
speak
to
this
proposal,
then
perhaps
this
proposal
should
be
put
to
the
voters
as
a
referendum.
CE
Sadly,
there
are
whole
blocks
in
our
neighborhood
that
are
littered
and
I
use
that
term,
literally
with
Once,
beautiful
and
stately
homes
that
have
been
turned
into
decrepit
eyesores,
decaying
physical
appearance
graffiti
on
the
brick
unkempt
yards
trash
in
the
in
the
yards
Etc.
That's
just
the
visual
picture,
we're
also
subjected
to
noise
from
parties
and
fireworks
at
all
hours
of
the
night
violence
yes
gun
play
is
now
an
unwelcome,
if
not
infrequent,
visitor
to
our
neighborhood
and
parking
woes.
CE
The
proposed
changes
will
incentivize
investors
to
add
more
students
to
existing
structures
and
to
purchase
and
convert
even
more
we've
spoken
about
enforcing
behaviors,
not
people,
but
there
is
no
enforcement
on
the
hill
there's
inadequate
and
to
zero
enforcement
of
current
occupancy
limits.
There's
also
very
poor
enforcement
of
noise
and
disturbance
regulations.
CE
CF
When
I
moved
to
Boulder
in
63
There
were
about
11
12
000
students
at
the
University,
it's
now
been
tripled
and
the
university
has
not
done
their
fair
share.
I
know
they
make
up
the
rules,
but
the
lob.
You
have
to
Lobby
that
University
to
do
their
fair
share,
one
of
the
dear
pleasures
of
being
90
years
old
is
remembering
a
time
when
time
was
slower.
CF
I'm
against
making
changes
for
for
is
plenty
I'm
sympathetic
to
students,
but
we
have
to
make
life
more
sensible
for
our
young
people,
we're
not
doing
that
and
we
need
to
make
little
ways
to
make
life
more
personal.
Thank
you.
CG
Good
evening,
Council
I
stand
before
you
in
unabashed
support
of
affordable
housing
and
in
opposition
to
propose
increase
in
higher
density,
I'd
like
to
bring
a
few
facts
to
the
table
that
have
represented
here
number
one
I'm,
a
heterosexual
homeowner
on
the
hill,
14th
Street
800
blocks
and
I
shared
100.
The
values
of
all
these
wonderful
people
behind
me
to
say
that
we
wouldn't
want
them
to
be
have
way
to
be
affordable.
Just
not
true.
However,
we
are
dealing
with
a
complex
issue
that
does
not
need
a
sledgehammer,
but
a
surgical
solution.
CG
Staff
brought
about
stat
board
about
some
of
the
comparisons
with
other
cities.
We're
not
Minneapolis
we're
University's
sitting.
They
did
bring
about
one
comparison,
which
is
awesome.
Texas,
Austin
Texas
is
very
Progressive
and
they
went
10
years
ago
and
increased
their
density.
It
turned
out
to
be
unmitigated
disaster.
Why?
Because
there
were
no
guard
rails,
it
turned
out.
There
were
ghost
storms,
their
term
higher
rents
and
so
much
cladodempts.
It
had
to
be
reversed
and
in
such
it's
really
made
the
affordable
housing
and
rent
situation
they're
much
worse.
CG
It
would
be,
and
there's
no
sense
that
it's
going
to
be
better
because
there's
much
memory
to
this
so
without
guard
rails,
affordable,
guaranteed,
affordable
housing
and
code
enforcement.
It
was
a
disaster
number
two
I
live
on
the
800
block
of
14th
Street.
Now,
if
you
go
from
college
up
to
Baseline
thousand
900
block
all
student
housing,
high
density
has
increased
density,
allowing
up
to
40
people
in
the
last
couple
years,
because
they're
allowed
some
high
density
when
I
moved
on
800
block,
it
was
pretty
good.
Hat
submissive
is
pretty
good.
It's
gotten
much
worse.
CG
You
go
up
there
on
a
Saturday
night
and
Saturday
morning,
and
you
will
see
a
lot
of
noise
dirtiness
crimes
and
recently,
as
my
neighbor
Joel
has
mentioned,
automatic
weapons
being
fired.
The
800
700
blocks
are
tidy
net
neighborhoods
that
have
been
around
for
25
35
60
years
and
have
supported
Boulder
and
all
its
values.
I
will
say
that
this
this
proposal,
as
as
worded,
seems
to
us
that
you
want
to
do
something
and
there's
not
much.
You
can
do
about
some
of
these
issues.
You
look
at
us
as
collateral
damage.
CG
We're
not
collateral
damage.
We're
citizens
I
support
it
business
for
10
years
here
and
I
always
had
affordable
rent
for.
A
CH
I've
been
a
professional
in
the
real
estate
industry
for
over
20
years.
I've
done
research
all
over
the
world
have
done
extensive
research
in
boulders
to
decide
to
continue
my
career
here.
I
have
some
personal
points
that
I
want
to
touch,
but
essentially
I
want
to
highlight
how
restrictive
and
constrained
Supply
is
affecting
what's
happening
to
both
their
has
happened
to
Boulder
in
many
decades.
You
must
have
in
front
of
you
a
slide
that
I
shared
in
advance
of
this
meeting.
CH
That
shows
that
the
total
number
of
rental
licenses
is
actually
decreasing
in
this
city.
Allowing
increased
occupancy
limits
will
only
mitigate
the
problem.
That's
already
here,
so
don't
consider
the
fact
that
Boulder
has
no
Solutions,
like
the
opponents
of
The
Proposal
increase,
proposed
increase
are
trying
to
portray
so
I
urge
you
to
consider
this
increase
immediately,
because
it
is
important
immediately
in
the
city
and
will
affect
or
help
people
who
today
live
completely
without
rental
tenant
rights,
although
they
are
residents,
even
though
they
are
residents.
Thank
you.
CH
A
You
carlston
and
I
just
want
to
check
in
is
Sean
Rupp
in
the
room.
Okay,
I
wanted
to
make
sure
we
didn't
miss
Sean
it
was.
There
were
two
people
with
similar
names
on
the
list.
Anybody
else
that
signed
up
that
we
missed.
Okay,
so
great,
that's
everybody
in
person,
we've
got
about
30,
more
speakers,
virtual
I'm
not
going
to
call
for
a
break,
but
maybe
a
quick
stand
like
we
can.
Maybe
just
do
a
real,
quick
stretch.
I'm
like
oh,
it's
even
at
this
long
time.
CI
B
T
B
T
A
A
A
CJ
CJ
These
are
people
who
want
to
start
families,
but
they
feel
like
they
can't
because
of
our
refusal
to
attend
to
our
housing
situation
without
increasing
housing.
We
are
continuing
to
create
a
class
and
generational
divide
in
Boulder.
So
please,
let's
make
Boulder
a
city
for
all
by
making
housing
easier
to
afford,
and
let's
not
just
stop
with
this
one
measure.
CK
Good
evening
I'm
Ryan
shuhart,
you
might
recognize
me
as
a
member
of
the
transportation
Advisory
Board
I'm-
also
oh,
but
I'm
here
on
my
own
and
I'm,
also
the
dad
of
two
small
kids
that
I'm
picking
in
Boulder
and
trying
to
build
the
next
generation
of
our
community
for
and
for
full
disclosure,
I
suppose
I
am
running
for
city
council.
This
fall
I
support.
The
proposed
change
to
five
person
occupancy
there's
a
lot
of
reasons
for
it.
It's
a
climate
case.
We
have
a
housing
crisis,
thousands
of
cars
coming
in
every
day.
CK
While
this
fear
about
students
might
be
a
familiar
theme
in
these
proceedings,
not
The
Logical
Viewpoint,
nor
one
that
is
representative
of
people
like
me,
who
live
in
the
community
that
have
not
been
students
for
a
while,
indeed,
I'm,
not
a
student,
but
the
university,
a
culture,
excitement
and
Innovation
that
comes
with
it
is
one
of
the
biggest
draws
for
living.
Folder
I.
Think
most
people
feel
that
way
too
fact
is:
there's
no
limit
to
the
number
of
students
we
can
ever
report.
Nor
should
we
treat
students
as
something
that
is
other
or
other.
CK
As
council
member
Benjamin
said,
we
have
the
tools
to
regulate
behaviors,
not
people.
We
have
problems
with
noise,
litter,
fireworks,
parking,
petty
crime,
those
are
problems
and
they
need
to
be
managed
directly.
Our
approach
here
should
be
more
often
is
to
use
those
tools
and
say
that
everyone
is
welcome
and
the
more
welcome
we
are,
the
Richer,
the
more
cohesive
and
the
more
interesting
our
community
people
will
be
delivered.
Thank
you
very
much.
CL
As
my
friend
Aiden
said
earlier
in
the
evening,
I
am
also
a
co-organizer
for
Solutions,
not
safe,
Zone's
campaign
this
year,
which
is
a
group
of
bvsd
parents
and
residents
who
want
the
city
to
treat
homelessness
urgently
directly
and
using
evidence-based
Solutions,
rather
than
leaning
into
policies
that
haven't
moved
the
needle
in
the
direction
that
we
need.
I
am
therefore
thrilled
to
be
here
in
support
of
the
city's
consideration
of
changing
occupancy
rules.
It
is
a
great
and
necessary
step
toward
housing.
CL
Security
in
Boulder
people
need
flexibility
in
places
where
the
rents
and
the
prices
are
going
nowhere,
but
up
beyond
that,
I
just
want
to
say
that
these
things
are
all
connected
right
so,
and
the
ability
to
have
flexibility
in
housing
and
accessible
housing
has
to
do
with
wages
as
well,
so
I
encourage
you
to
support
raising
the
minimum
wage.
Thank
you
for
moving
forward
on
occupancy
reform
this
year.
CI
Hi,
my
name
is
Michael
Parrish
I
would
like
to
just
thank
you
all
for
taking
this
up.
I
would
like
to
speak
in
support
of
you
passing
this
ordinance.
CI
CM
Oh
sorry,
so
I
want
to
thank
you
just
for
considering
this
important
issue
and
for
the
sake
of
time,
I'm
I
just
want
to
add
my
voice
to
the
inspiring
chorus
of
fellow
Working
Class
People
fellow
queer
people
and
fellow
CU
students
who
have
already
spoken
in
favor
of
increasing
Boulders
occupancy
limit
to
five
unrelated
people
and
I
yield
the
rest
of
my
time.
H
CN
Thank
you
so
much
it's
gonna,
okay,
it
seems
like
everyone
can
hear
me.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Counsel
I've
been
a
boulder
resident
for
three
years
now
and
was
a
resident
of
the
Bay
Area
for
10
years
before
that
you'd.
CN
Imagine
my
surprise
when
moving
here
to
notice
that
the
housing
prices
weren't
that
different
from
the
most
expensive
place
in
the
country
to
a
city
with
a
hundred
thousand
people
mandated
by
the
green
belt
around
Boulder,
but
I've
been
grateful
and
privileged
to
become
connected
with
the
city
community
and
connect
with
it
on
a
daily
basis.
CN
CN
Where
do
these
vital
community
members
go
and
how
do
we,
as
residents
in
the
city,
combat
gentrification,
archaic
zoning
policies
and
the
detrimentally
negative
effects
that
will
come
from
displacing
our
most
vulnerable
and
valuable
community
members?
It
is
my
sincere
hope
for
both
current
and
future
generations
of
Boulder
residents
that
Council
votes
to
increase
housing
occupancy
to
five
residents
tonight.
Thank
you.
H
It
does
look
like
we
have
had
Henry
corn
number
621
during
the
meeting.
If
we
would
like
to
go
back
to
Henry.
CO
Hello,
my
name
is
Henry
quaren
I
live
in
Table,
Mesa
I
came
to
Boulder
14
years
ago,
my
girlfriend
and
I
rented
an
apartment
with
two
other
roommates.
Since
we
were
not
yet
married.
We
were
unrelated
according
to
the
city's
definition
of
a
family.
We
were
four
unrelated
people,
since
our
apartment
at
people's
Crossing
was
located
a
few
feet
outside
the
city
limits.
We
were
not
subject
to
eviction.
Instead,
we
all
saved
money
by
pulling
our
rent.
Some
of
these
savings
would
go
towards
the
down
payment
for
our
house.
CO
My
girlfriend
became
my
wife
and
we
are
proud,
proud
parents
of
two
amazing
kids
in
bbsd,
but
enrollment
is
inclining
along
with
the
population
of
our
city.
Why
has
population
declined
despite
new,
dense
housing
near
Transit
corridors,
because
occupancy
in
the
single-family
zone
areas
has
declined,
as
our
children
find
it
hard
to
make
it
in
this
town?
They
leave
by
forcing
bedrooms
to
be
vacant.
Properties
are
underutilized,
leading
to
more
sprawl
commuting
traffic
and
pollution.
CO
The
concern
about
bedroom-backed
dormitories
was
addressed,
but
we
hear
the
same
fear-mongering
about
increasing
occupancy,
being
a
handout
to
investors,
nonsense
every
bedroom.
That
could
be
legally
occupied
is
potentially
taking
one
of
our
60
000
in
commuters
off
the
road,
empowering
them
to
live
a
more
sustainable
but
sustainable
bike
and
Transit
lifestyle
inside
the
city
utilizing
the
buildings
we
already
have
requires
zero
construction
or
pollution
for
those
who
oppose
occupancy
reform.
I
want
you
to
think
about
your
children
and
ask
yourself
if,
if
Boulder
is
doing
everything
it
can
to
make
them
feel
welcomed
here?
CO
CP
Day
occupancy
limits
all
together,
but
since
that's
not
on
the
table
tonight,
unfortunately
I
support
adopting
ordinance,
8585.
People,
Are
People.
Five
is
five.
If
we
don't
question
a
conventional
family
of
five
moving
into
a
house
how
much
trash
they
might
generate,
how
much
noise
they
make,
how
many
cars
they
have,
how
many
times
they
flush
a
toilet,
then
why
would
we
question
any
other
five,
any
other
five
people
who
want
to
share
a
house.
Excuse
me
allowing
people
to
share
the
house
is
the
fastest
and
most
economical
way
to
provide
affordable
housing.
CP
H
I'm
not
saying
that
Theodore
iconic
in
the
meeting
Ryan
bonick
is
present.
CQ
Hello
Council
and
thank
you
for
your
time,
I'm
speaking
as
a
long-term
resident
of
Boulder,
to
express
my
full
support
for
the
proposed
occupancy
limit
changes
in
2020
and
in
2021.
I
volunteered
with
the
bedrooms
are
for
people
organization
to
support
a
Citizens
petition
to
relax
Boulder's
strict
occupancy
limits,
though
the
petition
failed
by
a
very
close
margin.
CQ
Some
of
the
complaints
were
not
really
focused
on
the
actual
relaxation
of
limits,
but
more
regarding
fears
that
you
know
the
lack
of
the
cap
would
lead
to
mass
dormitories
of
10
plus
bedrooms
or
other
ancillary
fears
better
addressed
directly
like
parking
noise
and
Treach.
Excuse
me.
This
proposed
change
still
keeps
that
absolute
cap,
but
at
a
higher
level,
so
that
three
four
and
five
bedroom
houses
can
be
more
fully
utilized.
CQ
Y
Yes,
first
of
all,
I'm
going
to
have
to
do
a
no
on
this
boat
for
greater
occupancy,
but
there
are
two
reasons
that
I'm
saying
no
and
one
is
that
first
I
think
we
need
to
control
sprawl
and
extreme
density
in
Boulder.
That
is
stimulated
by
many
City
subsidies
and
and
increases
the
cost
of
housing,
because
it's
counter-intuitive
to
what
you're
doing.
First,
you
need
to
do
that.
Stop
the
flow,
and
then
you
can
do
these
kind
of
things.
Y
Y
That's
how
I
measure
things
and
then
you
can
have
all
this
communal
space,
crafts,
room,
multi-generational,
communal
and
and
we
need
to
incentivize
our
Architects
to
do
this
kind
of
design
that
is,
mainstream
multi-generational
housing
with
a
crafts
room,
an
office
room
old
communal,
there's,
natural
car
sharing,
and
that
that's
the
kind
of
long-term
approach
that
I
see.
Y
Whereas
when
we're
doing
numbers
here
and
numbers
there,
I
think
spaces
are
naturally
meant
to
be
right
for
folks,
they
get
abused
in
the
University
areas
and
something
needs
to
be
done
to
Stave
that
off,
especially
because
of
Cu
South,
which
is
going
to
drive
up
the
double
the
population
of
Boulder.
So
the
otherwise
I
would
be
supportive
of
something
like
this.
CR
CR
CR
Why
are
you
undoing
a
definitive
vote?
This
I'm
led
to
believe
you
don't
listen
to
or
believe
your
constituents,
you
disregard
factual
information
and
are
quim
based,
not
fact-based.
Our
votes
don't
count
and
can
be
disregarded
because
you
disagree.
We
therefore
have
to
sue
the
city
to
enforce
the
voters.
Will
your
disenfranchising,
Boulder
voters
is
seriously
undemocratic?
CR
Author
authoritarian,
non-inclusive,
dictatorial,
paternalistic,
disenfranchising,
Kyle
geiler
points
out
many
of
the
problems.
There
are
no
requirements
for
affordability
in
your
higher
occupancy
ordinance
and
you
made
no
Provisions
for
neighborhoods
that
are
already
have
already
absorbed
thousands
of
students
that
see
you
simply
does
not
house.
This
ordinance
has
problems
Boulder
recently
surveyed
occupancy
in
60
peer
college
towns
and
found
60
percent
of
them.
Allow
only
three
unrelated
or
less
23
of
these
60
cities
or
38
percent
allow
only
two
unrelated.
CR
CS
Hello
I'm
a
53
year
old,
divorced
woman
who
owns
a
2,
800
square
foot,
five
bedroom
four
and
a
half
bath
home
on
almost
a
half
acre
in
North
Boulder.
My
neighbors
are
all
around
100
feet
away
from
my
home.
There
are
three
schools
next
to
my
house
and
two
directly
across
from
me.
CS
Why
am
I
limited
roommates,
my
home
costs
around
fifty
five
hundred
dollars
a
month
with
maintenance
costs
around
2
000
a
year
before
the
city
shut
down
my
home,
that
I
had
with
four
other
roommates
I
had
I
had
people
between
the
ages
of
25
and
50
living
with
me,
mostly
holistic,
medicine
practitioners
as
a
non-alcohol
drinking
person
living
on
a
fixed
income.
Most
of
my
social
life
happens
in
my
home.
CS
I
am
still
close
friends
with
about
75
percent
of
my
previous
roommates
since
2020,
when
the
city
forced
my
roommates
out
during
the
pandemic,
I
had
to
move
my
entire
life
into
one
bedroom,
so
I
could
rent
my
house
out
to
a
quote-unquote
family
and
I
moved
part
time
into
an
RV.
This
was
devastating
to
me
and
has
left
PTSD
symptoms
in
my
life.
CS
If
I
can
hold
on
to
my
home
for
15
more
years,
then
I
will
have
a
paid
off
home.
I
can
die
in
and
give
to
my
children
or
I
will
be
yet
another
elderly
woman
displaced
in
a
community
that
doesn't
want
me
when
I
was
young.
I
would
watch
movies
and
shows
like
Little
House
on
the
Prairie
and
Little
Women,
and
most
of
the
divorced
widowed
women
held
onto
their
homes
by
renting
rooms.
To
me,
this
is
American
using
our
assets
to
work
for
us
to
help
us
survive.
CT
Hi,
my
name
is
Charlie
Shearer
and
I.
Thank
you
for
all
your
hard
work
and
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
tonight.
I'm
generally
not
opposed
to
increasing
the
occupancy
limit,
but
I
want
to
make
two
points.
First,
Boulder
has
a
lot
of
grandfathered
non-conforming
homes,
especially
in
the
University
home
neighborhood
that
already
have
high
density.
The
home
next
to
me
on
the
800
block
of
9th
Street
is
a
single
structure
on
a
normal
50
by
100
foot
lot
with
a
single
off
Street
Parking
Spot.
CT
It's
been
designated
as
three
dwelling
units
basement
first
floor
and
second
floor,
so
it
has
nine
students
living
there.
I
learned
tonight
from
Carl
dialer's
presentation
that
it's
considered
to
be
a
non-conforming
use,
but
conforming
to
occupancy
situation.
Nine
people
in
a
single
house
is
already
very
high
density.
It's
a
chronic
nuisance
house
with
noise
trash
and
parking
problems.
That
would
obviously
be
worse
with
even
higher
density.
Five
people
in
most
homes
seems
fine.
CT
Nine
is
too
many
and
15
would
be
just
awful
I'm
strongly
in
favor
of
section
985b,
as
described
by
Carl
earlier
tonight.
Second,
nothing
in
the
proposed
changes
ensures
that
rents
will
actually
become
more
affordable.
Instead,
landlords
will
make
more
rent
increasing
their
property's
value
and,
in
some
cases,
at
the
expense
of
decreased
values
for
the
Neighbors
of
the
properties.
I
have
two
suggestions
for
addressing
these
shortcomings.
CT
One
the
grandfathered
non-conforming
home
should
be
treated
separately,
especially
on
the
hill
and
other
neighborhoods
heavily
occupied
by
students
and
occupancy
limits
should
not
be
increased
where
there's
already
high
density
again.
I
strongly
support
section
985d,
as
Carl
Galley
described
it
earlier
tonight,
and
two
increased
occupancy
limits
should
be
tied
to
some
form
of
commitment
by
landlords
to
hold
rents
at
below
market
rate.
Without
this,
the
city
won't
achieve
its
own
stated
goal
of
more
affordable
housing
opportunities.
Thanks
for
your
consideration,.
Z
Intensity
is
a
play
on
words
to
really
obfuscate.
What
this
really
is.
How
can
the
council
majority
overturn
what
we
voters
already
voted
on?
This
is
a
true
disenfranchisement
of
Voters.
If
this
passes,
it
seems
to
me
that
you're
opening
up
the
city
for
a
lawsuit-
you
are
not
dictators,
you're
elected
representatives
and
you're
supposed
to
uphold
the
law
in
the
will
of
the
voters,
not
that
not
just
what
you
personally
want
or
think
read:
Mark
wallach's,
thoughtful
and
eloquent
Council
hotline
opinion
on
this
he's
a
hundred
percent
correct.
Z
Z
You
know
during
the
ncar
fire
evacuation,
when
Table
Mesa
had
to
evacuate
the
roads
were
at
a
complete
gridlock
and
now,
if
there's
a
fire
where
our
neighbor,
how
are
neighborhoods
supposed
to
evacuate
with
all
the
additional
traffic
that
will
be
there?
It'll
just
be
a
standstill
and
with
our
propane
tank
explosion
crisis,
a
fire
can
spark
a
neighborhood
at
any
time.
Z
Z
AL
Hi
city,
council
and
mayor,
thank
you
for
having
me
today.
It's
late
in
the
lineup,
so
I'll
be
brief.
I'm
Kathleen,
Hancock
I'm
leader
of
the
group,
think
Boulder,
which
focuses
on
housing
and
climate
change
in
Boulder
racing.
Occupancy
limits
does
not
work
unless
you
have
rent
control
without
rent
control,
landlords
can
simply
increase
occupancy,
while
keeping
bedroom
prices
the
same,
thus
creating
more
crowded
houses
and
overburdened
neighborhoods,
while
landlords
are
enriched
that
doesn't
sound
like
Progressive
policy
like
most
Boulder
rights,
I
want
to
see
more
affordable
housing
units
both
for
ownership
and
Rental
I.
AL
Don't
want
to
live
in
a
rich
Enclave
I
want
more
diversity,
but
raising
occupancy
limits
is
not
the
way
to
do
it.
If
you're
serious
about
increasing,
affordable
housing,
you
must
consider
regulations
such
as
rent
control.
Unfortunately,
we
can't
do
rent
control
because
the
state
banned
it
in
1981.
In
response
to
a
boulder
initiative
and
Governor
polis
has
said
he
would
veto
it,
because
there
is
no
rent
control.
I
oppose
this
increase
in
occupancy
limits
and
urge
you
to
do
the
same.
I
also
encourage
you
to
attend
the
public
forum.
AL
Think
Boulder's
organizing
for
late
September,
early
October
we'll
explore
ways
to
truly
help
renters,
as
opposed
to
this
well-meaning,
but
nevertheless
ill-conceived
idea
for
the
students
in
the
room.
I
have
two
daughters
in
college
I'm
sympathetic
to
your
plight,
I
encourage
you
to
pressure
your
University
to
step
up
and
provide
housing
for
you
and
for
you
to
learn
more
about
ways
to
increase
permanently
affordable
housing
stocks
in
Boulder.
Thank
you.
CU
I'm
running
for
Boulder
City
Council
this
year
and
I'm
running
on
a
sustainable
platform.
I
oppose
this
because
I
don't
think
it's
done
an
eco-conscious
way.
I
really
think
that
Boulder
has
a
gold
standard
of
environmentalism
and
increasing
the
occupancy
limit.
Is
it's
not
truly
sustainable?
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
this
as
a
buy
neighborhood
Division
and
delegated
to
each
neighborhood
to
say:
hey,
my
house
has
five
bedrooms.
CU
How
do
you
feel
about
me
renting
them
out
to
more
people,
and
then
we
put
this
in
the
neighborhood's
hands
instead
of
letting
a
certain
group
decide
for
the
whole
city,
I
think
it
really
needs
to
be
more
thought
out
and
get
more
communal
input
from
every
house
and
it
needs
to
be
a
buy
house
standard.
I.
Think
it's
caused
a
lot
of
problems
on
the
hill
already
and
the
hill
is
our
connection
to
the
Flatirons.
CU
Should
talk
was
right
there,
it's
been
a
main
Poll
for
people
to
come
to
Boulder
for
hundreds
of
years,
and
we
really
need
to
preserve
that
and
preserve
the
beautiful
architecture.
That's
there
and
preserve
the
historic
value
of
that
area
and
I.
Don't
think
that
this
measure
Works
to
preserve
that
thank
you.
BK
Thanks
very
much
hi
I'm
Michael
landrig
I'm,
a
founder
of
a
startup
specializing
in
supercomputers
and
I've,
created
dozens
of
jobs
in
Boulder
since
relocating
from
San
Francisco
in
2021
I
advocate
for
raising
the
housing
limit
to
five
people.
For
a
reason
you
actually
I
think
we
actually
haven't
heard
yet
for
17
years,
I
flourished
in
Bay,
Area,
Community
houses
living
with
diverse
groups
of
startup,
co-founders
Engineers,
researchers
and
Friends.
BK
These
houses,
ranging
from
5
to
20
residents
of
various
ages
and
income
levels
from
college
students
to
Center
millionaires
compared
to
the
relatively
modern
nuclear
family,
Computing
community
community
houses
have
helped
me
grow
and
learn
and
connect
more
than
I
ever
could
have,
including
professional
growth
and
I've.
Seen
co-founders
meet
I've
personally
raised
millions
of
dollars
from
investors
that
I've
met
through
connections
at
Community
houses.
BK
BK
AP
AP
in
1977
I
purchased
my
home
here
sad
to
say
that
after
45
years
of
living
through
rental
experiences
that
negatively
affected
my
life
and
negatively
affected
the
quality
of
life
in
my
neighborhood
I'm
strongly
opposed
to
increasing
rental
occupancy
I.
Ask
you,
please
forgo
the
vote
to
increase
renter
occupancy
tonight
and
instead,
please
vote
tonight
to
place
this
issue
on
the
November
ballot.
Please
do
the
fair
thing:
the
Democratic
Thing
by
permitting
Bolder
residents,
to
decide
if
they
are
in
favor
of
a
five-person
rental
occupancy
increase.
Thank
you.
CV
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
thank
you.
My
name
is
Harvey
Wellman
I
strongly
opposed
to
increasing
the
number
of
people
that
can
live
in
home.
I've
lived
in
Boulder
for
53
years
and
I'm.
Sorry
to
say,
the
quality
of
life
here
has
taken
a
turn
for
the
worse.
There
are
simply
too
many
people
and
you
want
to
make
it
more
crowded.
CV
CV
CV
This
is
not
true
for
many
areas
in
town,
namely
Goss
Grove,
the
hill
downtown,
some
really
nice
homes
downtown,
don't
have
an
alley.
They
don't
have
any
off
street
parking
if
we
we
need
to
keep
it
for
unrelated
people
maximum
in
place.
What
are
you
going
to
do
in
three
or
four
years
you're
going
to
raise
it
to
six
people
per
house?
Oh
On,
a
related
subject:
housing
is
not
our
biggest
problem.
CV
It
is
not
climate
change
anymore.
This
is
full-blown
climate
emergency.
This
town
is
full.
Please
vote
no
on
this
I'm,
also
horrified
that
you
let
the
homeless
camp
in
Central,
Park
and
in
the
creek
along
the
creek.
All
of
us
have
found
this
little
bit
of
paradise
here,
let's
not
proceed
to
ruin
it.
CV
A
CW
Good
evening,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
I've
dedicated
my
life
to
working
for
those
who
do
not
have
a
voice
who
are
food,
cash
and
medically
insecure,
I,
believe
in
inclusion
and
the
right
of
everyone
to
live
with
their
chosen.
Families
and
I
fully
appreciate
the
testimony
of
those
who
are
looking
for
Relief
to
live
their
lives
as
they
choose
and
that
Boulder
needs
to
be
welcoming
for
all
and
that
we
need
to
make
Boulder
award
affordable
for
all
and
environmentally
sustainable.
CW
The
people
of
Boulder
have
already
spoken
by
voting
down.
The
bedrooms
are
for
people
initiative
and
I
too,
was
disappointed
at
the
last
city
council
meeting
on
this
matter,
when
the
council
seemed
predisposed
to
moving
to
increasing
occupancy
limits
before
anyone
had
the
chance
to
speak,
but
we
also
need
to
think
how
to
ensure
that
we
develop
affordable
housing
going
forward.
A
recent
Boulder
Daily
Camera
article
reported
that
the
city,
let
the
Mapleton
developer
out
of
its
affordable
housing
requirement
with
the
promise
that
the
developer
would
build,
affordable,
housing
someday.
CW
We
need
to
do
much
better.
We
need
meaningful
urban
planning
that
balances
the
needs
of
the
homeowners
with
future
growth
and
preserves
Boulder
open
space.
We
do
not
need
unfettered
and
unbalanced
infill
that
does
not
have
guardrails
ensuring
affordable
housing.
I'd
like
to
urge
the
city,
councilman
Catherine,.
A
H
AW
A
A
Eight
eight
vote
there.
She
is
nine
okay,
okay,
the
meeting
is
duly
extended
and
so
now
we'll
go
to
our
last
few
speakers,
which
are
Bev,
programa,
Kim
and
Harmon,
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
Ian
frosh,
so
Bev
you're
up.
CX
Hi
Council
and
sorry
for
the
late
meeting,
I'm
Ben
gray,
but
I
live
in
Boulder,
so
rentals
that
have
five
tenants.
The
five
incomes
or
five
students
will
mean
a
higher
price
for
that
rental.
This
could
be
an
equity
issue
for
families
with
one
or
two
incomes
who
apply
for
the
same
rental
with
four
plus
bedrooms.
CX
CX
Currently,
yes,
rental
rates
are
high,
but
they
are
starting
to
stabilize
and
even
decrease
in
much
of
the
country.
However,
by
increasing
occupancy,
if
it
actually
accommodates
and
helps
meet
even
higher
prices.
Instead
of
putting
pressure
on
those
prices,
I
hope
you
will
rethink
this
and
have
a
good
evening.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
A
AQ
Okay,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
so
I
really
feel
like
that.
This
hasn't
been
thought
through
thoroughly
enough.
There's
been
a
lot
of
great
points
raised
to
that
point.
There's
there's
a
lot
of
consequences.
If
you
do
this
and
I'm
afraid
that
when
once
you
let
the
genie
out
of
the
bottle,
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
put
it
back
in
so
I'm
against
raising
the
limit
from
three
to
five,
you
know
you're
increasing
the
limit
without
regard
to
the
neighborhood
impact
or
they
afford
or
affordability.
AQ
You
know,
there's
no
guarantee
that
landlords
won't
charge
per
person
as
they
do
now,
and
so
you
know,
they're
just
lining
the
pockets
of
of
the
landlords
to
get
rich
quick
scheme
anyway,
you
guys
could
have
proposed
an
arrangement
whereby
landlords
would
agree
not
to
raise
a
rent,
but
nothing
was
done
there,
but
you
just
jump
right
to
five
people.
AQ
You
know
it's
interesting.
I
have
a
new
neighbor
who,
who
bought
a
house
a
young
guy
and
he
has
four
roommates
and
they
all
drive
cars
with
all
their
accoutrement.
On
top
of
their
car-
and
they
all
have
friends
over
so
it's
different
from
a
a
family
that
lives
in
a
house
with
five
people.
AQ
The
ages
are
different,
they
don't
all
have
the
same
amount
of
the
same
age.
They
have
people
over
at
all
all
hours
anyway,
they
it's
it's
intrusive,
but
anyway
the
town
is
completely
out
of
balance.
So
you
need
to
see
who
needs
to
take
responsibility,
and
there
are
other
Solutions
out
there.
So
take
small
steps.
A
CY
Hello,
I'm
Ian
I
live
in
Denver,
so
they
just
did
a
very
similar
change
in
Denver
a
couple
years
ago
on
2021,
where
they
increased
the
number
of
unrelated
adults
that
were
allowed
in
a
dwelling
from
two
to
five.
It
was
originally
10,
but
it
watered
it
down.
During
the
debate
on
this
change,
there
was
a
lot
of
beer
mongering,
and
people
said
this
guy
was
going
to
fall,
the
sewers
were
going
to
back
up,
trash
was
going
to
be
everywhere,
Denver
would
turn
into
a
dump.
CY
There
would
be
strip
clubs
at
garages,
no
I'm,
not
making
that
up.
That
was
actually
sad
and
all
of
that
didn't
happen.
It's
been
totally
fine
and
the
change
really
wasn't
even
noticeable
and
really
nothing
changed.
It's
the
same
as
before,
except
now,
people
can
legally
share
housing
costs
with
roommates
and
people
that
are
already
doing
that.
Don't
need
to
fear
that
they'll
be
reported
and
evicted
from
their
homes
and
put
onto
the
street.
This
is
honestly
such
a
small
change.
CY
Boulder's
current
housing
policy
is
very
exclusionary.
It's
not
just
the
occupancy
limits,
but
the
zoning
that
severely
restricts
the
housing
Supply
driving
up
prices,
making
it
so
only
rich
people
can
can
afford
to
live
in
Boulder.
So
this
change
is
an
important
step
forward
towards
making
Boulder
less
exclusionary
and
more
progressives.
Please
vote.
Yes,
thanks.
A
B
CZ
Okay,
I'm,
unmuted
and
I'll
be
as
brief
as
possible
because
I'm,
the
Caboose
or
the
lantern
Rouge
as
the
same
in
Tour
de
France
I'm,
against
increasing
the
limits
for
a
lot
of
reasons.
Other
callers
have
cited,
but
in
simple
terms
as
a
contrast
to
the
previous
person,
it
will
drop
housing
costs
up
for
people
are
looking
to
own
a
house
simple
cap
rate,
simple
higher
rims
for
the
same
property.
I
also
think
work
Community
takes
time
to
think
about
big
changes
like
this,
and
it
does
seem
too
drastic.
A
change
without
input.
CZ
I've
been
reading
a
lot
about
what
they're
doing
in
Mountain
communities
and
there's
a
lot
of
Creative
Solutions
up
there
in
Aspen.
If
you
rent
to
someone
who
works
for
Aspen,
Ski
Company,
you've
got
a
free
ski
pass,
you
know
I,
don't
we
can't
do
things
like
that,
but
there's
there's
creative
ways
to
bring
keep
our
service
economy
folks,
local
without
chasing
them
off,
but
without
dramatically
increasing
density,
because
there
also
with
the
quality
of
life
issue.
If
we,
if
we
we're
not
going
to
go
from
100
some
odd
thousand
two
hundred
thousand.
CZ
But
if
we
stretch
towards
that
there's
water
supply
issues,
there's
other
issues
that
over
a
long
term,
you
need
to
think
about,
but
broadly
I,
think,
let's
take
the
time
as
Community
to
think
about
solutions
that
can
bring
affordability,
not
just
density
and
higher
housing
prices
which,
under
simple
math
or
investor
people,
will
pay
more
for
the
same
property
if
they
can
run
into
five
people
at
90
of
the
bedroom.
Costs
of
three
people
and
I
will
conclude
that
and
wish
everybody
a
good
night,
and
thank
you
for
your
patience.
A
CZ
B
A
B
A
That's
thanks
for
that
public
hearing
and
we'll
now
bring
it
back
to
council
for
deliberations.
AI
I
just
want
to
give
a
quick
thank
you
to
all
the
first
timers
that
testified
in
person
that
had
written
us.
It
takes
a
lot
to
want
to
throw
yourself
out
there
to
want
to
communicate
to
elected
officials,
certainly
under
the
bright
lights.
So
it's
just
awesome
to
see
new
engagement
in
our
community,
it's
awesome
and
for
those
that
helped
bring
those
new
folks
to
us,
a
big
thank
you
to
all
of
you.
AI
T
I
forgot
earlier
to
disclose,
as
I
was
advised
to
do
that.
I
do
have
a
short-term
rental
license
and
that
does
not
impact
my
ability
to
be
objective.
So
I'm
not
recusing
from
this
vote
and
then
I
just
wanted
to
ask
what
is
our
process
here
and
when
is
it
right
to
make
a
motion.
A
AO
AO
A
A
T
Okay,
I
am
making
a
motion
that
city
council
adopt
ordinance,
85,
85,
amending
chapter
9-8
intensity
standards,
BRC
1981,
increasing
the
number
of
persons
that
may
occupy
a
dwelling
unit
and
setting
forth
related
details
bam
sucking
it
someone.
Second,
all.
A
T
Sure
I
I
did
not
prepare
a
speech
or
anything
so
I
will
just
note
some
things
that
I've
written
down
as
we
went
tonight.
So
obviously,
as
we
heard
from
all
the
speakers,
increased
occupancy
is
going
to
be
a
way
to
provide
legal
stability
and
diminish,
anxiety,
stress
and
fear
and
economic
hardship
for
our
community
members.
It's
very
favorable
for
the
energy
and
for
climate.
We
use
space
better
without
adding
units.
It
is
just
an
inclusive
for
chosen
families
and
people's
safety.
T
This
is
a
little
bit
of
an
aside,
but
the
boulder
rental
market
sucks-
and
this
does
not
fix
that.
So
we
still
have
a
lot
more
work
to
do.
We
need
to
look
at
Chronic
nuisance
and
enforcement.
We
need
to
look
at
investment
properties,
sort
of
writ
large
parking
minimums
and
the
gouging
of
renters
on
things
like
you
know,
deposits
and
little
fees
and
carpet
and
cleaning
and
stuff
I
mean
it's
it's
absurd.
So
we
have
a
lot
of
work
left
to
do.
This
is
not
a
Panacea.
It's
not
going
to
solve
everything.
T
I
do
believe
that
people
hate
cars
and
noise
and
not
other
humans,
so
I
I
think
that
enforcement
is
a
big
piece
of
what
we
will
need
to
do.
In
addition
to
this,
I
want
to
briefly
address
the
the
allegation
that
we
are
somehow
disenfranchising,
people,
which
is
a
really
strong
and
loaded
word,
and
that
is
absolutely
not
what
we
are
doing.
This
was
a
a
unanimous
9-0
vote
to
add
this
to
our
work
plan.
This
is
a
democratic
process.
We
are
a
representative
form
of
government.
T
We
are
not
voting
on
the
same
thing
that
was
rejected.
It
is,
it
was
pretty
readily
understood
during
the
the
bedrooms
are
for
people
which
we
are
not
again
voting
on
tonight
that
that
part
of
the
concerns
were
that
this
is
better
done
as
a
legislative
process,
and
the
council
could
probably
do
it
better.
So
I
was
one
of
the
people
that
was
concerned,
like
maybe
people
could
chop
up
bedrooms
and
this
you
know
this
dispenses
with
that.
Concern
is
a
different
thing.
T
This
is
not
trumpian
or
anti-democratic,
so
I
take
a
strong
issue
with
that
allegation.
Someone
said
earlier
that
thanked
us
for
being
courageous
or
Brave,
and
this
is
I,
don't
feel
very
brave
tonight.
This
is
a
a
years-long
well-studied
issue.
This
is
a
compromise.
There
are
people
to
my
literal
and
figurative
left
to
don't
want
any
limits
on
occupancy.
There
are
people
to
my
right
who
don't
want
any
change.
T
This
was
a
well
thought
out
and
and
compromised
position
that
we
arrived
at
and
then
I
also
just
want
to
say.
I
was
at
a
meeting
on
the
hill
today
and
heard
people
who
were
sincerely
concerned
from
both
sides
that
you
know
the
impact
that
this
might
have
on
them,
and
the
student
Emily,
which
I've
I've
become
the
co-chair
of
the
Emily
fan
club
today
so
hi
to
Emily.
T
If
you're
watching,
she
was
mentioning
that
she's
she's
a
sophomore
now
and
when
she
was
16,
which
is
the
same
age
as
my
son
covet
hit
and
and
it's
a
really
hard
age
to
be
right
now,
like
kind
of
learning
to
adult,
and
so
I
want
to
say
to
the
the
neighbors
who
are
or
people
who
oppose
this
ordinance
change.
T
I
hope
that
there
will
be
some
extra
Grace
with
the
people
who
are
are
renting
for
the
first
time
this
year,
because
they
I
think
had
coveted
worse
than
just
about
any
other
age
group.
They
have
a
high
rate
of
suicidality
and
depression
and
and
just
serious
mental
health
and
behavioral
health
issues,
and
so
I
would
just
ask
for
kindness
and
gentleness.
You
know
direct
your
anger
at
me,
but
not
your
your
neighbors,
who
are
students
who
are
learning
again
how
to
adults
and
and
could
use
I
think
especially
this
year.
T
Some
extra
love
and
grace
so
with
that
I'm
very
excited
to
be
at
the
end
of
a
long
journey
with
looking
at
occupancy
and
I'm
excited
to
be
supporting
making
and
supporting
this
motion.
I
do
wonder:
do
I
need
to
clarify
any
subparts
of
the
motion?
Okay,.
AF
Think
I
might
need
to
retract
my
statement.
I
wanted
to
make
a
different
slightly
different
modification
from
what
was
suggested
regarding
the
non-conforming
you
uses
and
occupancies.
A
A
AF
AF
This
is
important
because
it
allows
those
where
they
make
sense
and
disallows
them
where
they
do
not
creating
an
additional
restriction
in
is
unnecessary
and
will
reduce
this
ordinance's
effect
in
our
most
Transit
rich
and
walkable
neighborhoods.
It's
not
easy
to
map,
but
I
can
tell
you
from
my
experience
that
many
of
our
non-conforming
uses
are
an
older
apartment
buildings
in
and
around
downtown,
and
our
other
Regional
centers
in
transit-rich
environments.
AB
D
A
AF
I
would
like
to
strike
the
sections
related
to
non-conforming
uses
and
occupancies.
AB
A
A
Okay,
well,
okay,
great
so
so
we've
got
this
amendment
on
the
table.
Does
anybody
else
want
to
speak
to
this?
This
amendment,
I
I,
see
I,
got
Rachel,
I
can
speak,
say
something
but
I.
A
Well,
no
actually
I
mean
this
would
be
it's
a
formal
Amendment,
a
motion
to
amend,
which
you
don't
need
to
accept.
It
would
be
a
vote
on
whether
or
not
to
pass
that
Amendment.
Okay,.
T
So
I
will
just
speak
to
why
I
chose
the
staff
version.
My
understanding
is
that
this
would
eat
up
a
lot
of
Staff
time
to
get
to
a
no
under
our
current
regulations.
If
I
I
understand
staff
correctly,
so
I
would
much
rather
have
staff
use
that
time
to
change
the
underlying
issues
such
as
parking
minimums,
rather
than
go
through
a
very
annoying
process
of
looking
at
all
of
these
requests
for
non-conforming
use
change
that
are
going
to
have
to
get
to
know
due
to
other
issues
in
our
code,
so
I
would.
E
I'm
good
representatives
of
the
communities
that
are
most
affected
by
this
proposed
ordinance
have
been
begging
us
for
some
form
of
protection
against
its
impacts.
The
only
thing
we
have
given
them
is
the
prospect
that
non-conforming
uses
will
not
be
further
burdened
with
more
over
occupancy,
and
so
I
would
not
be
in
favor
of
that
Amendment
I'm
in
favor
of
the
staff
proposal.
It's
about
the
only
thing
we
have
done
for
those
communities.
Thank
you.
Bob
yeah,.
F
For
the
reasons
that
Regional
Mark
stated,
I
would
not
support
the
amendment
ultimately
I'm
not
going
to
support
the
overall
thing,
but
I
think,
let's
just
keep
it
clean
for
the
reasons
that
Rachel
stated
and
keep
it
simple
for
the
staff.
Future
councils
can
come
in
and
change
that
if
they
want,
if
they,
if
they
after
they
get
through
parking
and
some
of
the
other
priorities,
I
suspect
the
next
Council
will
have.
But
let's,
let's
just
keep
this
one
clean
as
an
up
or
down
as
opposed
to
burdening
it
with
extra
stuff.
A
And
and
I'll
call
on
myself
there
and
agree
with
what
what
Rachel
said
and
others
just
that
I
think
we're
looks
I'm
hopeful
that
we'll
take
a
significant
step
forward
by
adopting
this
ordinance
tonight.
It
is
a
pretty
big
step
forward.
I
think
it's
reasonable
to
not
take
it.
A
We
can
find
some
stable
ground
after
this
ordinance
passes,
work
on
Code
Enforcement
and
see
that
the
sky
doesn't
fall
and
get
to
some
calm
places
in
the
community
and
then,
if
a
future
Council
in
some
future
year
says
you
know
what
everything's
working
great
we
can
let
this
one
go.
Then
then
they
could
do
that
at
that
time,
I
got
Tara.
AB
It's
going
to
speak
really
briefly:
I
haven't
seen
any
kind
of
evidence
in
any
of
anything
that
staff
has
presented
tonight
from
other
cities
that
it's
really
occupancy
per
se
that
is
related
to
some
of
the
nuisance.
Issues
that
we're
seeing
so
I
will
support
the
amendment,
because
I
just
fundamentally
think
that
we
are
somebody
mentioned
a
sledgehammer
earlier
we
are
using
a
sledgehammer
on
a
problem
that
requires
a
scalpel
with
these
issues
of
nuisance
and
I.
Just
don't
see
that
as
being
an
effective
way
to
go
at
it.
Pretty.
T
Well,
just
that
I.
My
concern
is
not
that
we
that
this
is
getting
at
nuisance
issues.
It's
just
that,
like
the
these,
cannot
be
brought
up
to
be
non-conforming
uses
under
the
current
ordinances,
mostly
due
to
parking,
so
it
just
wanted
to
clarify.
This
is
not
a
nuisance
issue
to
me,
no
I'm
open,
I'm
open
to
hearing,
but
that's
what
I
understood
from
staff
was
that
that
we
cannot.
AF
Understanding
was
that
Carl
was
speaking
specifically
to
the
Hill
area.
There's
also
I
mean
I,
just
think
of
a
number
of
areas
around
like
Pearl
Street
that
have
been
down
zoned
that
do
have
significant
amounts
of
parking
on
site
apartment
buildings
like
along
Arapahoe,
and
things
like
that.
That
would
be
non-conforming
with
their
current
zoning,
but
would
like
seemed
like
they
would
likely
be
able
to
fit
some
of
the
requirements
you
would
need
in
order
to
move
them
through
that
process.
A
All
right,
I,
don't
know
if
I
mean
we're
kind
of
opinions
here,
I
don't
know
if
it
changes
the
fundamentals
of
of
how
to
vote
on
the
amendment,
but
both
Fair
points
any
other
comments
on
the
amendment
and
can
we
move
to
a
vote
on
the
amendment?
A
Is
there
a
show
of
hands
for
an
amendment?
Okay,
so
we
would
the
proposalman
from
Lauren's
second
by
Nicole,
all
in
favor
raise
your
hand.
A
We
got
three.
Those
not
in
favor
raise
your
hand,
okay,
so
the
emotion
is
not
successful.
In
vote
of
three
to
six,
and
thanks
for
that
Lauren
and
now
we
can
come
back
to
the
original
motion
and
a
couple
people
have
spoken
to
it.
Who
else
would
like
to
speak
to
the
motion?
I,
guess:
yeah,
you,
you
were
lined
up
weren't,
you
Nicole,
so
go
ahead.
AI
What
a
long
time
coming
to
finally
get
to
this
place:
lots
of
community
debate,
man,
yeah,
there's
no
Stones
been
left
Unturned
on
this
conversation
over
the
last
many
years.
So
it's
nice
for
us
to
finally
just
be
able
to
air
everything
and
make
a
decision
so
I'm
excited
for
us
tonight
to
do
that.
A
couple
of
things
sort
of
struck
me
and
and
I
appreciate,
Rachel.
Bringing
that
up,
you
know,
veterans
are
for
people
didn't
ask.
Do
you
wish
to
reform
occupancy
in
Boulder?
AI
It
asked
a
very
specific
question
about
a
style,
a
solution,
a
prescription
of
occupancy
and
that
narrowly
lost
so
coming
back
to
the
formal
question
about
occupancy
was
was
an
obvious
thing
to
do,
and
all
nine
of
us
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
agenda
to
work
on,
and
so
we
did
and
I
think
staff
did
a
great
job
in
taking
that
opportunity
reaching
out
to
community
and
studying
it
and
bringing
us
something
that
we
can
work
with.
AI
That
addresses
some
of
those
other
concerns
that
came
from
bedrooms
but,
more
importantly,
allow
us
to
move
forward
in
a
way
that
that
Bridges,
some
of
those
gaps
of
some
of
the
best
practices
we've
seen
around
the
country,
so
I
think
that's,
that's
really
important,
and
also
for
those
that
are
thinking
that
this
is
somehow
usurping
of
democracy.
That's
extremely
dangerous
rhetoric,
given
that
when
people
threaten
the
the
usurping
of
democracy,
what
we've
seen
occur
in
this
community
when
we
unsubstantiatedly
threaten
that
and
so
I
think
we
just
need
to
be
careful
of
hyperbole.
AI
AI
Last
thing
I
want
to
mention
is
I
think
this
Council
can
can
act
on
its
values
of
trying
to
be
focusing
being
inclusive
and
treating
all
equally,
and
the
idea
that
this
is
somehow
just
focused
on
the
students,
I
think
is
ridiculous,
but
but
I
will
mention
for
a
minute
on
the
students
front,
we
need
to
welcome
and
work
with
students
rather
than
marginalize
them
and
treating
them
as
second-class
Citizens.
I
was
a
student
here
once
and
I
chose
to
make
this
my
home
and
raise
a
family
here.
AI
We
talked
about
last
week
about
liquor
laws
and
all
that,
on
the
hill
being
a
way
to
indirectly,
you
know,
cut
the
knees
off
at
the
students,
so
I
think
we
need
to
be
done
with
that
and
and
focus
more
holistically
going
forward.
I
wholeheartedly
support
this
and
I'm
glad
we
get
to
finally
move
forward
and
hope.
My
colleagues
join
me
in
supporting
this
and
I
hope
we
can
all
get
out
of
here
at
a
reasonable
hour.
AB
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
staff
for
this
thorough
engagement
process,
I'm,
remembering
back
to
a
while
ago,
when
a
few
of
us
really
kind
of
wanted
to
move
forward
without
doing
quite
this
thorough
process,
and
you
push
back
and
I
did
it
anyway,
you
got
a
lot
of
feedback
from
a
lot
of
different
groups
in
the
community
and
I
just
want
to
recognize
and
honor
the
work
that
went
into
that.
So
thank
you
for
for
all
that
engagement,
so
I
came
into
this
meeting.
AB
AB
AB
AB
And
for
personal
freedom
and
affordability,
but
it
feels
like
a
giant
leap
forward
for
inclusion
and
for
community
I
will
vote.
Yes
I
just
also
want
to
address
this
issue
of
noise
trash
cars,
all
the
things
that
make
people's
lives
harder.
It's
not
just
homeowners
that
feel
those
issues,
it's
other
renters
and
students
as
well
and
I
really
want
to
highlight
that
this
is
not
a
homeowner
versus
renter
issue.
It's
not
an
adult
versus
student
issue
when
we
are
defining
occupancy
based
on
familial
relationship
and
a
complaint,
complaint-based
enforcement
plan
or
enforcement
process.
AB
AB
AB
I
also
just
want
to
know
what
a
few
speakers
mentioned
that
at
this
point
about
affordability,
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
I
hear
it
I.
Think.
Probably
all
of
us
hear
it.
We
have
a
lot
more
work
to
do
to
help
people
stay
in
our
community
and
to
slow
these
housing
increases
that
we're
seeing
a
couple
of
things
I
would
love
to
have
us
consider.
AB
It
would
be
wonderful
if
we
could
track
the
nuisance
violations,
not
the
complaints
but
the
the
actual
violations,
and
if
it's
increasing
by
some
percent
for
a
period
of
maybe
three
months
or
something
like
that,
maybe
10
percent
over
three
months.
Maybe
we
could
just
come
back
and
have
a
discussion
about
whether
there
are
some
other
things
we
could
be
looking
at.
AB
I
would
also
love
to
check
in
with
barha
and
maybe
six
months
or
so,
and
just
see
how
that's
doing,
in
terms
of
confusion
for
landlords
and
folks
who
are
in
these
non-conforming
uses
and
non-conforming
occupancies,
just
to
make
sure
that
it's
not,
we
haven't
overly
confused
people
who
own
property.
So
that's
all.
Thank
you.
B
E
One
of
the
reasons
why
all
of
us
supported
putting
this
on
the
work
plan
in
2022
was
that
there
were
representations
made
that
the
results
would
not
be
inconsistent
with
the
vote
that
was
taken
by
the
community
in
2021.
E
E
E
You
don't
have
to
like
the
result,
but
that
was
the
community's
decision,
and
votes
of
the
community
should
be
controlling
until
the
community
decides
otherwise
not
reversed
by
legislators.
Who
did
not
like
the
outcome
at
the
time
as
such
passage
of
8585
by
this
Council,
despite
the
hundreds
of
emails
we
have
received,
asking
us
not
to
do
so
is
simply
the
negation
of
the
vote
taken
in
2021.
E
AE
I
found
so
much
tonight
really
hard
to
listen
to
first
of
all,
I
remember
just
prior
to
this.
We
talked
about
the
Arts
when
some
of
our
colleagues
said,
let's
find
a
middle
ground,
we're
pitting
Community
against
each
other,
but
tonight
I
felt
pitted
against
I
care
about
the
students,
I
care
about
affordable
housing,
I
care
about
people
that
need
two
or
three
jobs
to
live
here.
But,
in
my
opinion,
five
from
going
from
three
to
five
is
anything
but
a
compromise.
Even
if
you
don't
think
that
the
bedrooms
are
I
would
never
brought
up.
AE
Bedrooms
are
for
people,
but
frankly,
was
brought
up
by
the
community.
Members
who
spoke
tonight
so
now
I
feel
like
I
can
bring
it
up.
Even
if
you
felt
like
that,
vote
didn't
have
anything
to
do
the
vote
tonight
and
what
we
did
tonight
has
nothing
to
do
with
that.
Bedrooms
are
for
people
vote
that
was
taken
two
years
ago.
You
still
don't
know
that
what
you're
doing
is
what
the
people
want.
You
have
no
idea
in
fact,
be
there
Boulder
said
people
were
upset
at
five.
AE
AE
I
have
just
a
few
more
things
that
I
want
to
say.
Half
the
people
that
spoke
tonight
were
I.
Consider
my
friends.
There
is
not
a
world
where
I
want
to
see
people
suffer
and
everybody
who
knows
me
knows
that
that's
true
I
work
so
hard
to
increase,
affordable
housing,
I
care
about
the
people
who
live
in
affordable
housing,
but
I
also
know
something
that
the
hundreds
of
people
that
wrote
to
us
today
when
I
asked
them
to
speak.
They
said
no
I'm
not
going
to
speak.
AE
It
doesn't
matter
what
I
say
nobody's
listening
to
us.
We
voted
and
even
if,
even
if,
what
even,
if
sorry,
I'm
just
a
little
bit
emotional
about
it.
So
just
let
me
just
let
me
think
through
I,
just
don't
like
to
be
pitted
as
somebody
who
doesn't
care
who's
like
somehow
immoral,
because
I
think
that
we
should
have
not
gone
for
five,
that
it
was
just
too
big.
AE
It
was
just
too
much
and
too
big
I'm
gonna
switch
over
to
when
my
90-something-year-old
friend,
who
I
actually
met
because
he
has
a
basement
unit
in
a
house
on
the
hill,
and
he
said
he
actually
said,
isn't
Ford
good
enough
and
to
me
it
would
have
been
good
enough.
Do
I
have
any
last
words:
I,
always
I,
never
speak
quite
short
enough
and
I
always
think
I
should
I
believe
we
all
know
that
we
have
a
housing
crisis.
AE
We
do
know
that
we,
every
single
one
in
Council,
cares
about
this
housing
crisis
and
for
me
you
know
that
I
do
so.
This
vote
has
nothing
to
do
with
that,
but
it
has
to
do
with
trying
to
compromise
and
support
the
people
that
were
not
in
favor
of
increasing
occupancy
by
coming
to
some
sort
of
a
middle
ground
which
we
have
not
done,
and
so
for
that
reason,
I'm
going
to
vote,
no
I
have
one
more
thing
to
say.
Sorry,
it's
about
it's
about!
Martin,
Acres,
Martin
acres
has
a
lot
of
three-bedroom
houses.
AE
AE
It's
just.
These
houses
were
not
made
for
five.
In
my
opinion,
at
least,
we
should
listen
to
all
the
people.
I
have
friends
in
Martin
Acres
that
live
in
five,
and
you
know
I
love
you
guys,
but
there's
a
lot
of
those
small
houses
that
just
can't
take
this
kind
of
occupancy
and
I
just
want
to
stand
up
for
the
people
in
Martin,
acre
soup
field.
AE
Not
listen
to
that,
because
we
do
mostly
talk
about
the
hill
and
I
and
I'm
telling
you
guys
that
I
do
care
and
I
just
hope
that
our
enforcement,
which
is
very
limited
right
now,
does
is
able
to
help
some
of
the
possible
problems
that
we
might
see
there.
AE
I
wish
I
wrote
everything
down,
but
I
just
didn't.
Do
it
I'm
kind
of
glad
I
did
it,
because
this
is
from
the
heart
and
I
guess.
That's
all
I
have
to
say
tonight.
F
So
I
I
think
I
think
we're
missing
an
opportunity
here
and
that's
I
guess
that's
where
my
disappointment
is
I
think
there
is
a
missed
opportunity
when
we
set
out
a
year
and
a
half
ago
to
examine
the
city's
long-standing
occupancy
law.
Our
stated
goal
was
to
increase
housing
affordability.
F
We
heard
that
again
at
the
beginning
of
Carl's,
opening
presentation
and
I
think
that's
a
laudable
goal,
as
certainly
when
I
support,
but
simply
increasing
a
single
number
in
a
city
law
from
four
to
five
is
not
going
to
increase
housing.
Affordability
in
Boulder
now
I
realize
that
some
people
believe
that
the
laws
of
supply
and
demand
will
kick
in
and
they
believe
that
by
increasing
the
potential
for
more
people
to
live
in
Boulder
rents
and
Boulder
will
decrease
automatically.
F
F
Indeed,
the
president
of
the
CU
student
body
acknowledged
a
couple
hours
ago
that
there
are
already
lots
of
houses
that
host
five
unrelated
people
and
the
very
few
new
housing
opportunities
will
be
created.
I
think
he's
right,
so
I
think
we're
deceiving
ourselves
and
our
community.
If
we
believe
that
this
law
change
will
magically
make
Boulder
affordable,
it
will
not
I
say
that
this
is
a
missed
opportunity,
because
there
was
a
way
we
could
have
made
an
occupancy
law
change
that
would
have
guaranteed
affordability
in
highly
occupied
properties.
F
F
The
second
type
of
accessory
dwelling
unit
that
we
planned
in
2018
was
guaranteed
to
be
affordable
in
exchange
for
the
city,
permitting
a
larger
accessory
dwelling
unit
and
waving
off
street
parking
requirements.
The
landlord
of
the
Adu
entered
into
a
contract
with
the
city
whereby
he
agreed
that
the
rent
for
the
Adu
would
always
be
affordable
to
those
making
less
than
75
percent
of
the
area
median
income.
F
F
Had
we
really
cared
about
housing,
affordability,
the
law
that
we
could
have
passed
on
occupancy
could
have
been
could
have
followed
the
successful
model
that
we
piloted
for
adus
five
years
ago.
We
could
have
said
that
landlords
can
increase
occupancy
from
four
to
five
people
only
if
they
agree
to
keep
rents
for
those
five
people
at
a
level
of
affordability
for
those
making
less
than
the
area
median
income,
rather
than
hoping
with
fingers
crossed
that
market
forces
will
drive
down
rants,
we
could
have
guaranteed
housing,
affordability
and
highly
occupied
houses.
F
Likewise,
tenants
could
decide
whether
it
was
better
for
them
to
have
lower
rent
and
more
roommates
or
higher
rent
and
fewer
roommates.
We've
already
seen
this
affordability
model
work
quite
successfully
for
adus.
It
is
a
missed
opportunity
for
this
Council
not
to
apply
the
same
model
to
occupancy.
We
have
missed
the
opportunity
to
guarantee
housing,
affordability
thanks.
A
P
I
support
increasing
the
occupancy,
I
I
do
think
the
process
was
not
perfect
and
I
remember.
Yes,
we
did
all
decide
that
we
were
going
to
put
this
as
a
priority,
so
I'm
very
surprised
to
see
that
some
of
us
here
today
are
saying
something
completely
different
and
as
if
I
guess,
people
are
allowed
to
change
their
minds.
That's
true.
My
only
I
am
going
to
support
this
because
ultimately,
I
ran
on
on
I
ran
on
this
particular
issue
and
when
I
first
moved
here
to
Boulder
I
had
issues
with
affordable
housing
and
I.
P
Remember
that
and
I
ran
on
that
as
a
student,
and
you
voted
for
me
overwhelmingly
and
when
the
ballot
measure
failed,
even
though
we're
not
talking
about
the
ballot
measure.
I
was
one
of
the
one
council
member
or
maybe
two
who
supported
moving
forward
in
trying
to
change
the
occupancy,
and
it
was
not
supported
by
the
council.
But
ultimately
I
know
some
of
us
who
actually
said
hey
I'm,
going
to
take
this
on
as
a
priority
and
I
thought.
Wow.
P
Okay,
council
members
are
willing
to
take
this
on
as
a
priority
so
tonight,
based
on
the
fact
that
I
ran
on
this
and
I
was
supported
by
the
community
and
also
this
particular
issue
did
have
unanimous
consent
from
this
Council.
Even
though
today
we
hear
something
different,
ultimately
I
will
support,
supported.
I
do
believe.
P
P
P
I
can
back
away,
but
we
have
to
make
sure
when
we
talk
about
issues
and
I
know
that
you
know
the
mayor
mentioned
when
I
said:
hey
how
come
we're
going
to
five
when
we've
really
expressly
talked
about
four,
but
you
said
it
was
well,
it
was
more
of
an
open
conversation.
That's
why
we
are
at
five
now
so,
but
ultimately,
I
will
support
it
and
thank
you
for
all
the
work
staff
has
done
on
this
and
thank
you
for
all
the
Advocates
that
came
and
share
their
experiences,
and
thank
you.
A
Thanks
for
that
Jenny!
Well,
if
you
all
will
just
indulge
me
for
a
minute,
I
won't
talk
for
too
long,
but
I
I
am
in
support
of
ordinance,
85
85.
It's
a
step
towards
housing.
Accessibility
in
our
city,
I've
heard
I
hear
the
concerns
from
community
members
about
potential
nuisance
problems.
You
know
noise,
trash
parking
and
such
but
I
think
what
we
need
to
do
is
focus
on
managing
the
problems,
not
the
people
and
so
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
we're
focused
on
some
changes
to
code
enforcement.
A
I
know
we
need
to
staff
that
up
we'll
continue
to
support
that
if
we
need
some
additional
amounts.
That's
fine,
but
fundamentally
I'm
supporting
this
ordinance
because,
as
a
as
a
society
and
as
a
community
we're
failing
our
young
people
right
now,
our
young
people
do
not
have
access
to
housing
that
they
can
afford
or
that
they
can
that
are
within
their
own
communities.
A
There's
a
New
York
Times
article
that
came
out
a
couple
of
days
ago
that
looked
at
gen
Z
and
talked
about
the
incredible
challenges
that
people
in
that
generation
have
of
finding
any
housing
at
all:
much
less
housing.
That's
affordable
to
them
and
there
was
tale
of
Woe
after
tale
of
Woe
and
I,
see
that
in
my
own
family,
my
kids
are
17
and
20.
and
when
they
think
about
you,
know,
moving
out
on
their
own
and
living
on
their
own,
an
apartment
by
themselves
is
kind
of
Unthinkable.
A
But
I
also
want
to
speak
about
the
opportunity
that
this
presents
for
community
community
living
when
I
first
met
my
wife,
we
were
both
in
college
and
she
lived
in
a
house
with
four
roommates.
They
had
five
people
in
this
five
bedroom
house
and
they
had
an
extraordinary
Community.
They
were,
they
were
cooking
for
each
other.
Each
night
they
had
potlucks,
they
were
movie,
Nights,
etc,
etc.
It
was
really
a
social
Center,
and
this
kind
of
community
can
exist
in
a
way.
A
That's
not
impacting
other
people
neg
negatively
and
and
that
Community
is
not
just
for
young
people.
We
heard
some
moving
stories
from
folks
in
their
later
years,
who
very
much
desire
to
live
with
a
chosen
community
of
renters
and
roommates
so
that
they
can
have
Community
as
they
age.
A
One
of
my
favorite
quotes
is
by
co-housing
Pioneer
Jim
Leach,
which
is
that
Community
is
the
secret
ingredient
in
sustainability
and
that's
another
benefit
here,
because
when
you
live
together
when
you're
sharing
resources
when
you're
sharing
the
rent,
you're
sharing
walls,
you're
sharing
utilities,
this
has
a
lighter
impact
on
our
planet
and
on
our
client
climate
as
well.
It's
a
way
to
increase
Housing,
Opportunity
and
accessibility
and
lighter
resource
usage
in
greenhouse
gas
emissions
without
putting
a
shovel
on
the
ground
without
building
anything
without
tearing
anything
down
and
I'll.
A
Just
conclude
by
echoing
one
of
the
the
comments
that
somebody
made
earlier,
which
is
let's
legalize
The
Golden
Girls
and
with
that
I
support,
ordinance,
85.85
all
right
good
enough,
everybody's
had
a
had
a
bite
at
the
Apple
as
Matt
likes
to
say
so
Elisha.
If
we
could
move
to
a
vote,
please
stronger.
D
D
A
Right
well,
thanks
so
much
to
everyone
who
came
out
and
spoke
tonight.
We
appreciate
all
of
your
words
and
an
enormous
thank
you
to
the
staff
members.
Who've
worked
very
hard
on
this
for
a
long
time
and
have
brought
this
to
us.
So
really
appreciate
your
efforts.
Any
final
thoughts
see
none.
I'll
gavel
is
closed
at
11
13
pm,
which
is
actually
remarkably
early.