►
From YouTube: 7-25-23 Planning Board Meeting
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
Sarah
silver,
pb:
dispositions
and
call
ups.
and
we're
going
to
go
to
matters.
we..
The
matter.
b
is
off
the
agenda,,
so
we
don't
need
to
worry
about
that
matter.
A
christopher
is
going
to
present
to
us,
and
we've
set
aside
no
more
than
an
hour
for
his
presentation
and
questions
from
the
board..
So
I
would
really
appreciate
the
boards.
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
Vivian
castro-wooldridge,
cob:.
These
rules,
I'm
sharing,
are
in
place
to
help
us
achieve
a
balance
between
transparency
with
community
members
and
security
that
minimizes
disruptions.
and
sarah
mentioned
planning
board
will
start
with
open
commons
from
community
members.,
and
there
is
one
public
hearing
item
later
today
in
the
agenda.
B
Vivian
castro-wooldridge,
cob:.
We
want
our
participants
to
know
that
the
city
is
really
striving
into
a
vision,
co-
created
by
city
staff
and
community
for
productive,,
meaningful,
and
inclusive
civic
conversations,,
and
that
we
worked
with
community
to
develop
these.
these
rules
of
engagement,.
Our
expectations
for
meetings.
B
B
B
Vivian
castro-wooldridge,
cob:,
there
are
a
number
of
rules
of
decorum
in
the
boulder
revised
code,
and
we
have
general
guidelines
that
are
advisory
in
nature
to
share
with
all
of
our
participants,
this
evening.
first,.
We
ask
that
all
remarks
and
testimony
raised
tonight
be
related
to
city
business.,.
B
Vivian
castro-wooldridge,
cob:
second,.
We
will
not
allow
any
participant
to
make
threats,
or
use
any
other
forms
of
intimidation
against
any
person
in
this
session.
obscenities,
racial
epithets,
and
other
speech
and
behavior.
That
disrupts
the
meeting,
or
or
makes
it
difficult
or
impossible
to
continue
in
the
moment
is
prohibited.
B
B
A
B
B
Vivian
castro-wooldridge,
cob:
there's
no
pre-existing
list
for
signing
up
to
participate..
So
if
you're
in
the
meeting,,
we
welcome
you
at
the
appropriate
time
to
raise
your
hand,
you
at
the
bottom
of
your
screen.
You
should
see
a
horizontal
menu
with
3
clickable
items..
You
can
click
on
the
hand,
icon.
B
B
B
A
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Lynn,
segal:
to
with
with
an
open
space
board
of
trustees
that
is
illegal,
and
julie,
comes.
alice
and
another
person
are
fighting
to
enforce
this
kind
of
a
thing,,
and
there
was
also
issues
of
getting
people
to
open
space
when
open
space
has
their
own
charter..
Unlike
you,
that
that
might
not
have
the
same
objectives
as
the
city
council
and
the
city
council
is
a
higher
order.
B
Laurel
witt,
cob:
is
there
any?
well,,
I
see
laurel
just
has
her
hand
up
something
she
wants
to
clarify
a
point.
go
ahead.,
yeah.
apologies..
I
said
before
that
you
can
talk
about
anything.
That's
on
the
internet
of
public
hearing..
That's
actually
incorrect..
Citizens
can
address
any
matters
not
scheduled
on
the
agenda
for
that
meeting..
So,
just
as
lynn
talked
about
something,
that's
not
actually
on
our
agenda,
any
citizens.
A
lot
to
we
in
on
that.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
E
C
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
apologies.
no,,
I
didn't
mean
to
interrupt
you.
and
I
also
didn't
introduce
myself,
for
at
the
record..
So
I'm
laurel.,
I'm
with
the
city
attorney's
office
at
the
city
of
boulder..
So
under
our
rules.
there's
a
section
called
citizen
participation
in
the
order,
and
it
says
a
citizen
may
address
any
matters
not
scheduled
on
the
agenda
for
that
meeting.
C
C
F
C
G
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:.
I
I
just
want
to
third,
that
that
also
raised
my
eyebrows..
That
has
not
been
our
practice
for
the
year
that
I've
been
on
planning
board.
It
has
been..
People
can
speak
to
any
item,
except
for
the
public
hearing.
item,,
whether
it's
on
the
agenda
or
not.,
which
makes
sense
to
me
from
a
public
participation
standpoint..
So
I'm
wondering
if
maybe
there's
some
some
confusion
or
or
something
mistake
in
the
rules.
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
I
I
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
our
proposed
amendments
to
the
transit
village
area
plan.,
so
we
have
a
preliminary
set
of
those
that
we
would
love
to
get
your
feedback
on..
I
will
quickly
review
the
next
steps
in
schedule
here
for
the
next
couple
of
months,,
as
we
move
towards,
hopefully
approval
of
those
amendments,
and
then
save
plenty
of
time
for
discussion
and
questions
that
you
may
have.
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:.
It
guides
future
changes
in
this
area
of
holder
for
boulder
junction,,
generally
bound
on
the
north
by
belmont
road,,
foothills
parkway
to
the
east,,
the
burnley
to
northern
santa
fe,
railroad
to
the
south,
and
boulder
farmers
ditch,,
and
then
also
thirtieth
street,,
then,
on
the
west.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:.
It
refers
to
a
charming
chaos
with
a
variety
of
building,,
sizes,,
styles,
and
densities..
I'm
also
seeing
this
referred
to
as
messy
vitality..
Just
as
a
side
note,
city
wide
and
neighborhood
scale,
public
spaces
being
included
in
this
particular
area,
and
then
also
references,
something
which
you
know..
Maybe
this
term
is
reflective
of
2,007.,
but
the
notion
of
an
eco
village
that
emphasizes
alternative
energy,
sustainability,,
walking,,
biking,
and
possibly
car
free
areas.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:.
So
this
is
what
the
area
of
the
phase
one,,
which
is
basically
the
west
side
of
the
railroad
track..
This
is
what
it
used
to
look
like
pre.
t.
back
in
2,005.,
and
this
is
all
the
progress
that
has
been
paid
so
far.
and
actually,.
This
photograph
is
a
little
bit
out
of
date
as
much
of
that
development
there
at
the
corner
of
thirtieth
and
pearl
is
reaching
completion..
You
can
see
the
phase.
one
area.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
really
is
substantially
complete,,
as
has
been
mostly
built.
Out.
infrastructure
has
been
included.,
and
so
that
is
why
we
are
now
moving
into
the
phase
2
area,
but
as
I
mentioned,,
the
community's
needs
have
really
changed
over
the
last
15
years,.
And
so
is
it
worth
the
opportunity
to
crack
the
area
plan,
open
a
bit
and
look
at
some
revisions.
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
is
that
this
is
a
fairly
different
animal.
that
phase
one
is,,
as
you
saw
in
those
the
the
image
earlier
phase,
one
was,
there
was
a
lot
of
vacant
land..
Actually
the
city
owned
a
large
portion
of
that
land,
and
then
worked
with
older
housing
partners
to
develop
affordable
housing.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
on
the
phase.
2
side,,
it's
a
much
different
story.
there's,
there's
multiple
existing
properties
and
owners..
There's
very
few
vacant
areas.
there's
a
number
of
vibrant
local
businesses..
The
city
does
not
own
a
lot
of
land
in
this
area,
except
for
the
goose
creek,
greenway,
that
runs
east
west,.
Basically,
through
the
center
of
this
area.
I
I
I
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:,
so
what
we
have
heard
through
the
public
outreach
and
and
activities
that
we
have
done.
there's
been
a
number
of
different
focus
group
meetings..
We
have
4
different
focus,
groups.
that
we
created
one
of
what
we
call
daily
users..
So
these
were
people
that
live
and
work
in
the
area.
Property
business
owners
is
a
second
group
advocacy
groups
and
then
the
fourth
was
the
design
and
development
community.
I
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:,
so
a
very,,
very
high,
level,
summary
of
what
we've
heard
through
the
process.
in
the
phase
one
area,
some
of
the
things
that
people
like
or
responded
well
to
was,,
there's
a
a
range
of
different
residential
types
and
sizes
that
are
offered
at
a
at
a,.
You
know,,
fairly
broad
range
of
prices.,
there's
a
mix
of
different
uses
across
the
area
and
overall.
there's
a
fairly
well
connected
mobility
network
and
walk.
ability
is
pretty
good.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:,
some
of
the
things
that
people
disliked
is
that
it
feels
maybe
a
bit
cold
and
corporate,
and
the
architecture
is
flat.
in
some,
in
some
cases.
there's
a
lack
of
green
public
space
and
tree
canopy,.
So
it
feels
more
urban
than
maybe
it
should
at
that
sort
of
4
and
5
story.
Height
limit.
I
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
really
looking
to
try
to
provide
some
additional
green
space
and
outdoor
areas
looking
for
an
opportunity
to
allow
more
housing
and
excuse.
Opportunities..
The
current
transit
village
area
plan
actually
limits
residential
uses
and
a
very
large
portion
of
the
phase,
2
area.
So
opening
that
up
and
and
making
that
more
flexible.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
continuing
to
build
out
the
like
a
pedestrian
network
and
trying
to
find
a
way
to
make
this
feel
a
bit
more
like
older,,
you
know..
Is
there
a
way
to
create
some
some
more
eclectic,
funky
type
of,
you
know,
type
of
places
where
they
just
feel
a
bit
more
organic
and
feature,,
and
maybe
not
quite
so.
I
I
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
looking
for
ways
to
use
the
transportation
connections
to
not
only
enhance
the
network
within
the
area,,
also
to
external
locations,,
but
also
to
break
down
some
of
the
larger,
larger
blocks..
This
is
a
fairly
sort
of
suburban
landscape
in
terms
of
office,
buildings
and
parking,
lots
and
roads..
So
using
some
of
those.
I
I
I
kristofer
johnson,
cob:.
We
included
a
bit
of
information,
kristofer
johnson,
cob:,
for
you
to
review..
They
are
continuing
to
work
on
much
more
refined
market
outcomes
that
they'll
be
delivering
to
us
here
in
the
next
couple
of
weeks,
and
we'll
be
incorporating
into
the
package
for
any
public
hearings
coming
forward.
I
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:,
considering
actually
portions
of
that
are
still
under
construction
and
not
fully
occupied
yet.
industrial
uses
in
boulder,.
As
I'm
sure,
all
of
you
are
aware
that
the
nature
of
that
is
changing.
you
know,,
pretty
pretty
dramatically
over.
All
the
city
has
seen,
and
then
lost
those
industrial
and
flex
space.
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:,
the
phase
2
area
currently
represents
about
6
or
so
of
the
industrial
space
city
wide..
So
that's
just
kind
of
a
point
of
a
point
of
fact.
there
that
it's
not
a.
it's
not
a
huge
amount
of
of
the
industrial
space.,
but
it's
it's.
It's
also
not
just
completely
and
significant..
I
I
I
I
A
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
all
right.
well,
in
order
to
stay
on
track
in
terms
of
timing,.
I
do
want
to
dive
into
the
proposed
amendments
here,
and
we've
kind
of
framed
this
up
to
express
what
we
heard
from
the
community
through
the
process.
and
then
how
how
we
have
tried
to
address
this
in
the
proposed
changes.
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
supporting
light
industrial
and
surface
uses,
and
then
really
building
in
opportunities
for
more
green
areas
and
gathering
spaces..
So
we've
tried
to
address
that
by
applying
that
m.
you
to
use
some.,
it
is
the
most
flexible
land
use
category
we
have,
and
it's
applied
to
most
of
the
phase.
2
area.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:,
currently
proposing
ny,,
which
is
next
use
industrial
to
the
central
portion
around
world
pearl..
It's
important
to
note
that
this
land
use
category
still
allows
for
residential,,
but
it
does
prioritize
other
types
of
uses
like
light
industrial
and
services
on
the
ground,
floor.
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:,
so
this
is
a
an
overview
from
a
a
graphic
standpoint
of
kind
of
what
that
looks.
Like,
you
can
see
the
mu
to
be
applied
to
the
northern
and
southern
portions.
The
mbi
applied
along
with
pearl,,
where
there
are
a
lot
of
existing
industrial
and
service
uses
in
that
particular
area..
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
pku
pkuo
on
goose,
creek.
and
then
there's
actually
a
tiny
little
sliver
of
open
space
development
rights
or
restrictions
for
a
small
scenic
easement
that
osmp
actually
holds
down
along
pearl
parkway..
So
that's
that's
more
of
a
cleanup
item.,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
to
draw
your
attention
to
that.
I
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:.
If
I
were
to
explain
the
difference
between
the
2,.
I
you
know,
looking
at
the
boulder
valley.
comprehensive
plan,
descriptions.
really,,
the
first
first
sentence,
I
think,,
is
most
most
critical.,
where
in
you
to
the
uses,
say,,
is
that
it
consists
predominantly
of
light
industrial
use
on
the
ground.
Floors.
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
uses.,
so
there's
just
some
nuance
really
in
terms
of
that,
particularly
that
ground
floor,
and
what
you
know,.
What
can
and
cannot
sort
of
happen
there.
in
between
those
2
uses,
and
just
as
as
a
point
of
reference
in
terms
of
some
of
the
estimates
we've
made
from
the
modeling
we've
done.
I
I
G
G
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
for
nui?
actually,,
the
zone
district,
then,
typically
would
apply
in..
There
is
something
called
ims
index
through
industrial
service,.
I
believe,
so
that
that
does
exist..
But
it's
true
that
m.
utod
as
part
of
implementation
of
the
east
boulder
sub-community
plan..
It's
actually
a
project.
That's
going
to
be
kicking
off
in
the
next
couple
of
weeks.,
which
is
great,
and.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
there
currently
is
not
a
zone
district.
That
is
a
perfect
match..
There's
there's
a
couple
that
that
work
pretty
well.,
but
the
hope
is
that,
through
that
implementation
process
to
update
the
form
based
code
would
be
to
perhaps
consider
a
new
district
that
that
could
be
applied
to
that
new
tood
area.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
great.
thank
you.,
so
transportation
connections..
We
have
heard
about,
of
course,
enhancing
that
internal
pedestrian
and
bicycle
network,
using
those
connections,
break
down
larger
blocks.,
and
then
one
thing
that
came
up
as
well
just
with
internal
conversations
with
our
transportation
and
mobility
department
and
others
is
really
to
try
to
balance
some
of
the
ideas
with
with,.
You
know,
real
real
world
feasibility..
When
the
transit
village
area
plan
was
developed
15
years
ago.,
there
are
a
few.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
a
few
lines
on
the
on
the
map
that
really,
realistically,
would
be
very,
very
challenging
from
a
feasibility,,
standpoint,
engineering
or
or
cost
or
otherwise..
So
we
tried
to
make
some
some
key
revisions
there
to
just
present
a
transportation
connections
plan
that
that
we
think
is
reasonable
and
and
can
be
constructed.
I
I
I
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:.
The
final
final
element
is
design
character.,
so
really,
we've
heard
about
utilizing
this
creek
as
an
amenity
in
this
particular
area,.
I
finding
ways
to
identify
gathering
spaces
and
and
really
thinking
about
retail
viability..
I
think
one
of
the
one
of
the
key
comments
we
heard
about
phase
one
is
that
retail
feels
like
it's
spread
throughout
the
entire
area,
as
opposed
to
being
more
focused
on
highly
active
locations
where
that
retail
might
actually
be
a
bit
more
successful..
So
it's
something
we've
taken
into
account.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
and
then,
really,,
just
this
notion
of
trying
to
keep
this
area,
you
know,
fun
and
funky,
and
finding
ways
to
do
that.
Going
forward..
So
we've
created
a
very
strong
pedestrian
focus
along
goose
creek,
with
a
actually
an
opportunity
for
a
sort
of
signature.
sculptural
bridge
crossing
at
that
location,
identified.
Multiple
outdoor
space,
locations.
of
a
variety
of
different
sort
of
sizes
and
and
and
opportunities
for
outcomes.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
we've
identified
a
couple
of
retail
notes,
an
activity
areas
that
that
could
apply
for
or
or
where
retail,
we
feel
like
would
be
more
viable
and
and
not
applied.
It
everywhere.
and
then,
also,
there's
gonna
be
a
number
of
future
steps
to
refine
some
of
the
architectural
character.
and.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:,
so
one
thing
that
we
have
identified
that
we
feel
like
is
very
complementary
to
the
transportation
connections.
plan
is
a
system
of
pedestrian
corridors,,
and
so
we've
identified
2
of
those
lining
both
the
north
and
south
sides
of
goose,
creek,
and
and
also
a
number
down
in
the
very
southern
portion
to
help
break
up
some
of
the
large
parcels
that
are
in
the
southern
portion
of
these
2,.
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
and
it
enhanced
urban
spaces,
with
a
variety
of
amenities,,
materials,
and
landscape,,
and
a
couple
of
you
know,
image,
ideas.
there,,
you
know,
one
more
urban
on
the
top,
and
one
that
perhaps
starts
to
introduce
a
lot
more
trees
and
green..
So
these
are
just
ideas.
but
something
to
help,.
You
know.
get
the
get
the
juices
welling
a
bit.
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
and
then
tried
to
highlight,
identify
in
the
in
the
red
there,,
where
some
of
those
retail
nodes
might
be
most
successful..
I
will
say:
that's
still
a
bit
of
a
an
unanswered
question
at
this
point:
we're
still
refining
our
thinking
there.,
but
when
we
had
the
discussions
with
our
focus
groups,,
the
the
one
area
where
there
was
there
was
alignment
across
all
those
groups.
was
at
that
future.
Rail
station.
that
there
is
certainly
would
be
an
opportunity
for
some,
a
retail
node
back
location.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
and
then,
finally,,
as
you
may,
remember,
from
the
east,
boulder
subcommunity
plan..
There
is
this
concept
of
place,
types
that
help
to
kind
of
further
refine
the
land,
use
categories
and
provide
some
performance
expectations
of
what
those
outcomes
may
look
like..
So
we've
applied
3
of
those
to
this
particular
area.
and
we
think
that's
especially.,
for
if
we
ultimately,
we.
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:,
so
when
we
reviewed
this
with
our
focus
groups
and
then
also
with
the
multi
board
working
group
earlier,
this
month.
generally,,
there
was
an
overall
support
for
the
proposed
amendments..
I
do
think
that
there
is
a
bit
of
a
the
proof
is
in
the
pudding,.
You
know,
feeling
that
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
these
become
a
reality
and
the
programs
in
place
to
make
that
happen.
I
I
I
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
are
moving
things:
forward.,
kristofer,
johnson,
cob:,
so
that's
a
summary
of
the
amendments.
just
in
terms
of
very
quickly
next
steps.
We
are,
you
know,
here
here
this
evening,,
giving
you
a
quick
update
on
on
where,
where
we've
landed.,
our
hope
is
to
return
on
august
20
s.
for
a
hearing
of
those
plan.
Amendments.
I
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:-
and
this
is
really
just
the
first
step.
So
updating
the
plan
is,
is
kind
of
creating
the
menu,
and
we've
got
to
write
the
recipes
and
figure
out
how
to
make
the
menu..
So
there
will
be
future
steps
to
update
the
comprehensive
land.
use
map
congrats,,
a
plan,
land
use
map
and
the
transportation
master
plan..
That
would
require.
I
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
to
really
guide
redevelopment.
and
then
I'd
say,.
A
really
important
point
is,
as
related
to
small
and
local
businesses
is
working
through
with
our
community
vitality,
department..
What
programs
and
what
support
we
can
offer
to
encourage
those
to
continue.,
as
I
mentioned,
there's
a
number
of
local
businesses
in
the
area..
So
if
portions
of
this
start
to
redevelop,,
how
do
we
help
support
those
those
businesses
to
move
into
those
new
spaces?
over
time.
A
A
A
E
E
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
no,
actually,.
We
would
be
just
grab
my
little
spotlight
here..
So
these
these
orange
alignment-
here.,
if
you
can
see
that.
those
would
be,
do
local
roads.
Essentially
those
coldest
acts
would
go
away..
This
would
probably
be
the
only
one
that
would
remain,
but
we
would
add
to
this
grid.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:,
I
will
say
there
was
also
some
discussion
about
whether
this
place
in
this
loop,
and
whether
or
not
there
would
be
an
opportunity
to
actually
make
that
more
of
a
grid.
In
some
fashion,
and,.
You
know,
remove
this
kind
of
parcel
from
the
island
of
of
of
roadway
here..
So
I
think
that's
a
features
discussion
with
our
transportation
team
about
what?
what
feasibility
that
might
look
like.
E
E
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:,
it's
actually
the
opposite.
there
are,
I
believe,
one
or
2
projects
that
were
developed
under
the
form
based
code.
most
were
done
through
site
review,,
and
I
do
know
that
there
was
one
that
technically
went
through
site
review,,
but
was
kind
of
a
test
case
for
the
form
based
code.
E
E
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
yeah,,
it's
a
great
question..
We
we,
I
will
say,,
we
don't
have
a
a
formal
decision
as
to
whether
or
not
we
will
apply
for
base
code
in
the
phase,
2
area
or
not..
I
do
think
that
our
inclination
is
to
do
so,
and
and
really
to
use
the
the
process
that
kathleen
king
will
be
leading
for
developing
form,
base
code
for
east
boulder..
That
has
a
lot
of
similarities
in
terms
of.
I
I
E
E
E
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:,
I
think.
generally,
my
response
would
be,
yes,.
I
do
think
that
there
is
some..
There
is
definitely
still
work
to
be
done
in
terms
of
the
implementation
plan.
as
to
refining
what
those
3
cross
sections
would
look
like,,
and
then
those
will
be
future
steps
for
us
as
we
as
we
move
forward
with
with
hopefully
getting
the
plan.
Amendment
approved.
that
would
be
one
of
those
initial
steps
is,
is
really
that
dive
into
the
infrastructure
improvements
and
what
those
should
look
like.
I
I
E
Mark
mcintyre,,
pb:
safe,,
just
as
safe.
it
may
be
safer,
and
certainly
less
expensive,,
allowing
us
to
use
those
funds
in
other
ways
to
again
enhance
different
modes
of
transport
other
than
the
car..
So
I
I
support
her
comments,
and
I
hope
you
take
those
to
heart
and
thank
you
for
a
great
presentation.
H
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
and
I
I
really
appreciated
your
presentation..
I
thought
it
was
very
balanced
and
acknowledging
some
of
the
strengths
and
some
of
the
weaknesses
and
things
that
you're
looking
at,
and
how
you've
tried
to
address
comments
so
excellent
work
by
staff.
in
my
opinion.
here,
I'm
very
interested
to
hear
what
kurt
has
to
say,.
As
the
representative
of
the
multi
board
working
group..
But
from
from
my
perspective,
really
great
work
here.,
I
especially
love.
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
the
conversation
that
you're
having
about
green
space
and
the
bike
and
pedestrian
network,
and
the
pesos
to
make
this
area
feel
more
active,
more
lively..
That's
one
of
the
comments
we
get
about
phase
one.
A
lot
is
that
you
know
it.
it
it.
It
feels
like
it
has
a
lot
of
potential
like.
if
it
were
in
a.
H
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
more
of
a
draw
to
people
and
have
more
gathering
spaces
and
more
green
space,,
especially
and
more
bike
pet-friendly.,
so
really,
love
that
agree
with
tila
and
mark
about
the
at
at
grade
crossings..
It
feels
like
under
passes,,
have
some
disadvantages,
and
are
very
expensive..
So
if
there's
not
a
compelling,
safety
need
for
underpasses.
H
H
H
But
that
concern
about
losing
light
industrial
and
service
activities
and
businesses
was
really
prominent
in
the
east,
boulder
conversation,
too.,
and
I
think
we
really
need
to
honor
that
that
we
don't
want
all
of
those
uses
to
go
away,
and
if
we
don't
zone
for
them,
residential
is
a
a
use
that
creates
higher
profit
margins.,
and
so
it
will
go
away.
If
we
don't
specifically.
H
H
Sarah
silver,
pb:,
those
are
my
comments.
thank
you.,
I'm
gonna
call
on
myself,
and
then
I'll
call
an
ml,.
So
I
want
to
build
on
what
laura
just
said
about
the
not
so
much
and
ui,,
but
that
protecting
the
light
industrial.
I
had
concerns
with
east
boulder
subcommittee
plans,,
and
I
have
concerns
here
that
even
in
ui
will
result
in
the
disappearance
of
certain
types
of
light
industrial.,
because
there
are
certain
types
of
light..
Industrial
people
are
not
going
to
want
to
live
on
top
of.
A
A
A
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
having
mixed
use,
sarah
silver,
pb:
that
the
only,
and
not
setting
aside
some
space.
That
really
is
for
light
industrial..
So
that's
comment.
Number
one,,
common
number
2
is
what
I
always
comment
about
with
these
area:
plans,,
which
is,
please,
please,
please,
some
free
range
trees,,
not
just
graded
trees..
It
is.
A
A
A
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
yeah,
that
that
that's
a
great
question.
and
I
think,
well,
a
couple
of
thoughts..
We
there
has
been
a
few
property
on
there
that
has
reached
out
to
us
and
express
some
interest.,
you
know,,
obviously
in
the
process.
but
also,
you
know,
learning
about
what
could
be,
and
and
I
think,
starting
to
have
some
ideas
about
some
redevelopment
potential..
So
I
do
think
there's
a
couple
of.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:
a
couple
of
projects
that
could
you
know,
conceivably
be
be
a
bit
of
a
catalyst..
I
also
think
that,
as
part
of
this,
you
know
the
next
phase
of
this
work,
and
where
we
work
through
the
implementation
of
what
those
infrastructure
needs
are..
What
are
the
capital
improvements
that
the
city
can
get
behind,,
that
those
will
be
discussions,?
You
know,
with.
I
I
I
Kristofer
johnson,,
cob:,
privately
and
ownership
scenario,
here.,
there's
gonna
need
to
be
some
partnerships,
and,
and
the
city
is
not
going
to
be
able
to
do
a
lot
of
these
things
on
their
own..
And
so
I
do
think
that
there's
going
to
be
some
opportunities,
for
you
know,.
If
there
happens
to
be
a
larger
redevelopment
project
coming
in.
I
Kristofer
johnson,
cob:.
What
opportunities
is
there
for,
you
know,
a
developer
or
a
for
a
public
private
partnership
to
do
some
of
these
things..
So
these
are
all
great
questions
and
things
that,
unfortunately,
I
don't
have
answers
for
at
this
moment,,
but
but
certainly
things
for
us
to
be
keeping
on
the
radar
as
we
forward.
A
Ml
robles
pb:
thank
you,
so
much,
christopher.,
sarah
silver,
pb:
okay,
thank
you.
ml,,
so
lisa.
and
then,
george,
and
before
you
start
speaking,
leave
that
we..
Now
I
just
want
to
remind
people
who
are
waiting
to
speak
to
the
public
agenda.
item,.
When
we
go
above
15
people,
we
will
be
having
mint
2
min
comments,
not
3
min.,
so
just
prepare
yourselves.,
okay,,
lisa.,
you're,
next.
and
then
george.
and
then
kurt.
K
K
K
K
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
and
the
way
that
those
spaces
are
or
aren't
activated,
the
way
that
the
plaza
I,
in
my
opinion,
is
not
activated
the
way
that
we
thought
it
isn't
really
legible.
from
major
thoroughfares,
or
people
know
to
go
there,
you
know,.
If
there's
activity,
you,
you
can't
see
it
all
that.
well,
the
way
that
the
bollards
keep
getting
taken.
Out,
you
know..
I
I
think
we
have
some
really.
K
A
Pb,
jorge
boone:
thank
you,,
lisa,
george,
and
then,
kurt,,
and
if
we
keep
on
scheduled,
we
will
actually
be
done
at
7,
60.
great!
I'll
make
mine
super
brief.
thanks
for
the
great
presentation..
I
just
wanted
to
throw
my
weight
behind
the
the
comments
that
lisa
just
made.
as
a
as
as
well
in
particular,,
is
what
ml,
made
about
the
the
the
light
industrial
and
really
considering
how
how
that's
mixed
in
verse.,
making
sure
that
it
has.
L
G
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
great!
thank
you.,
thanks
to
all
my
fellow
board
members
for
their
insightful
comments
just
quickly
about
the
multi
board
working
group.-
we
had
a
great
conversation
last
week
talking
quite
a
bit
about
transportation
design.
We
talked
about
some
of
the
other
elements
of
design..
We
talked
a
little
bit
about
the
park.
Spaces.
there
was
also,.
I
believe,
some
discussion
about.
G
Kurt
nordback,
pb:,
but
it
was
a
it-
was
a
good
conversation..
I
thought
it
was
very
useful
to
get
input
from
a
bunch
of
different
perspectives.
and
hopefully,
staff
felt
the
same
way..
I
also
have
some
mark
up
on
the
the
maps
that
I
think
is
too
difficult
to
try
to
relate
verbally.
but
christopher,.
If
I
can
just
send
you
those
to
get
my
comments,
in.
would
that
be
appropriate?.
I
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:
up
on
the
slide
is
the
problem.
Statement,
that,,
I
think,,
is
really
applying
to
many
of
the
code
change
projects
that
we're
working
on
now,
among
other
endeavors,,
basically
to
address
the
rising
cost
of
housing
in
the
city
of
boulder..
This
is
something
that's
being
experienced
across
the
entire
country.
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
we've
been
focusing
on
on
a
number
of
different
communities
to
to
see
how
they
they
address.
Occupancy..
We
talked
with
planning
board
about
this.
In
april.
we
did
an
extensive
review
of
60
communities.
The
board
will
remember,,
so
that
has
informed
our
our
advancement
of
this
project..
So
the
purpose
of
tonight
and
and
the
chair
read
the
title
of
of
the
ordinance.,
but
it's
basically
to
hold
a
public
hearing
on
ordinance,
85,
85,.
M
M
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:
so
just
wanted
to
start
at
the
high
level?.
I
believe
the
board
has
been
monitoring
the
the
state
bill
that
was
being
considered
in
colorado
relating
to
land
use
issues.
It
touched
on
a
lot
of
things
that
we're
working
on
now,,
locally,
related
to
housing
types
allowed,,
allowing
more
types
of
housing
types
in
the
in
areas
that
are
typically
single
family,
looking
at
a
to
use
as
well
as
occupancy..
So
we
just
wanted
to
start.
M
M
M
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
and
you
know
I
think,
it'll
take
time
to
see
what
the
what
the
changes
are
going
to
be..
But
what
lot
of
the
studies
do
say
that
I
think
resonates
is
that
zoning
restrictions
do
a
greatly
limit
housing
availability?
and
that
what
they're
a
lot
of
the
studies
say
is
that
by
loosening
up.
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:
communities
in
the
bay
area.
obviously,
limited
land
area
with
open
space
in
the
bay.
things
like
that,
and
a
high
demand
for
living
in
that
community
makes
it
even
harder
to
address
housing
costs.
so
in
communities
like
boulder,.
I
think
the
the
key
here
is
to
remember
that
there
has
to
be
a
multi
pronged
approach
at
trying
to
affect,
or
basically
try
to
resolve
the
housing
crisis
by
adding
availability.
M
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:
re
eliminated
their
occupancy
rules,,
but
most
of
the
communities
have
been
responding,,
saying
that
the
the
changes
are
still
relatively
fresh.,
so
they've
not
gotten
any
data
that
speaks
to
a
lowering
housing
cost.,
but
there
are
some
analogs
that
we've
looked
at,
that
that
do
say
it..
So
we've
seen
kind
of
across
the
board.
it.
it's
different
in
different
communities.
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
just
gonna
start
again
at
what
is
occupancy?.
I
think
a
lot
of
us
are
familiar
with
these
signs
that
you
see
in
buildings.
and
you're
walking
around
the
community
about
maximum
occupancy
that
that's
really
relating
to
building
code..
So
the
building
code
for
safety
purposes
has
occupancy
limits.
just
so
that
in
case
there's
like
some
sort
of
emergency,,
there
needs
to
be.
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:
adopted
additional
occupancy
limits
in
their
their
zoning
codes..
A
lot
of
the
stated
purposes
of
these
occupancy
codes
is
to
avoid
an
over
concentration
of
people
to
mitigate
any
kind
of
impacts
from
parking
or
noise.,
but
we've
also
heard
some
motivations
are
also
rooted
in
discrimination
against
people
of
color
and
different
lifestyles
from
occupancy
regulations..
It's
something
that's
stated
in
the
city
of
boulder
racial
equity,
plan.
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:
so
I'll
briefly
go
over
the
current
occupancy
limits
of
the
city
of
boulder..
It's
very
much
like
other
communities
where
there's
basically
there's
you
can
have
a
family
in
a
dwelling.
Unit.,
there's
no
limitation
on
how
many
members
of
a
family
by
a
court
ruling
in
the
19
seventies?,
and
if
it's
not
a
family,,
then
there's
a
maximum
number
of
unrelated
persons
per
unit..
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
karl
guiler,
cob:,
there's
also
separate
regulations
for
accessory
dwelling
units
and
co-ops
and
group
living
uses.
we're
not
making
any
changes
to
that
section.
so.
there
are.
there
are
certain
specified
specifications
in
the
code
that
you
can
check.
but
we're
not
proposing
any
changes
to
that.
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
I
also
want
to
just
highlight
the
definition
of
family.,
it's
very
broad.
in
the
city
of
boulder
code.
It
does
include
domestic
partnerships
and
same
sex
marriage..
It
does
go,
you
know,
deep
into
like
family
relations.,
so
our
assessment
is
that
there
don't
need
to
be
any
changes
to
the
definition
city
council
had
highlighted..
This
is
something
we
should
look
at
and
see
what
the
community
thought.,
but
we
don't..
We
don't
find
that
there's
any
changes
that
need
to
happen
to
the
family,
definition.
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
we
went
to
city
council
on
march
ninth,
and
we
presented
them
with
a
number
of
options
as
they
requested.
it's.
When
we
also
talked
to
the
council
about
all
the
different
other
communities
that
we
looked
at..
We
also
presented
all
this
to
planning
board
in
april,,
but
but
gave
them
a
number
of
options..
What
council
had
told
us
to
do
is
move
forward
with
option
b,,
which
is
exploring
an
increase
to
4
or
to
5
unrelated
citywide..
So
that's
what
we've
moved
forward.
On.
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
looking
at
impacts
from
occupancy.
obviously,
you
know,
there,.
There
are
some
valid
concerns.
of
increasing
occupancy..
What
we've
heard
from
the
community
is
on
street
parking,
availability,
increased
activity
in
the
neighborhoods.
maintenance,
issues,
parties
and
noise.,
particularly
in
areas
around
the
university..
This
is
not
uncommon.
M
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:
and
finding
out
exactly
how
many
people
actually
live
there,
who's
related?
who's,
not
there?.
There
are
a
number
of
challenges
that
they
have
to
deal
with
in
these
complaints..
So
a
lot
of
communities
have
been
kind
of
moving
away
from
that
and
just
kind
of
focusing
on..
If
there
are
specific
parking
impacts.,
how
do
you
address
that?.
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
we
do
still
address
complaints
in
occupancy.,
so
if
there
are
accounts
where
there's
over
occupancy
in
an
area,
it
does
have
to
be
addressed.
if
there
is
a
complaint.
and
it's
something-
that's
typically
a
remedied
at
the
next
leasing
cycle,
so
that
people
don't
have
to
be
booted
out.,
while
they're
living
in
the
unit.
M
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:
the
sentiments
from
the
community
on
this,
this
particular
topic..
We
know
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
hot
topic
in
the
city
or
boulder,
and
has
been
for
many
years..
We've
continued
engagement
with
a
number
of
neighborhood
groups.,
particularly
around
the
the
university.
so
university
hill,,
martin
acres,.
We
actually
went
out
to
aurora
east
block
party
to
talk
to
people
there.
we've
met
with
plan.
Boulder.
we've
gone
to
a
number
of
meetings
with
the
hill.
Revitalization.
Working
group.-.
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:
to
get
a
can
even
broader
perspective.
we've
been
talking
to
the
community
connectors
and
residents.
we've
reached
out
to
a
number
of
neighborhood
representatives
and
and
different
groups
that
have
been
suggested
to
us.
As
stakeholders.
we've
had
office
hours,
virtual
and
in
person
to
help
answer
questions,
we've
heard
feedback
at
a
housing,
advisory
board
and
planning
board
meetings
in
the
past.
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
we've
said
this
before.
we
use
be
heard
boulder,
a
lot..
It's
we,
we
do
recognize.
it's
it's
a
questionnaire.,
it's
not
a
statistically
valid
survey..
It's
just
one
tool
that
we
use,
among
others,
to
receive
feedback
and
try
to
get
a
general
gauges
of
what
the
sentiments
and
trends
are.
in
the
community.
we've
been
able
to
to
broadcast
it
pretty
widely.
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:
not
sure,
based
on
other
questionnaires.,
but
we've
we've
received
a
pretty
historic
amount
of
responses
about
over
2,000
we
received
over
a
thousand
written
comments.
on
these
topics..
We
do
also
acknowledge
that
there
are
multiple
submissions
from
the
same
computer..
This
could
be,
if
you
know,,
there's
members
of
a
family
that
are
using
the
same
computer.,
but
it
also
might
be
people
that
are
submitting
more
than
once.,
so
we
acknowledged
that.
M
M
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
when
we
talk
to
aurora
east,,
which
is
more
of
a
student
mixed
with
property
owner.
neighborhood.,
we
we
have
heard
from
students
that
were
largely
in
support
of
more
housing
options.
when
we
talked
to
homeowners,
they
weren't
necessarily
concerned
with
occupancy
per
se,,
but
they
were
concerned
with
additional
parking
impacts.
that
particular
neighborhood.
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
when
we
talked
to
the
dean's
leadership
and
values,
committee.,
obviously
students,
there
were..
They
felt
that
many
students
are
very
much
affected
by
the
the
the
lack
of
affordability
and
housing,
and
many
have
to
hold
jobs
or
multiple
jobs,
to
pay
for
their
housing
to
be
in
boulder.
There's
a
lot
of
housing
and
security
for
students..
They
don't
know..
Some
of
them
are
living
in
over
occupied
conditions
and
could
be,
you
know,
evicted..
If
there's
a
complaint.
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
they
didn't
spend
a
whole
lot
of
time
talking
specifically
about
occupancy,,
just
that
they
acknowledged
that
there
were
some
discriminatory
history
related
to
occupancy
when
it
first
came
online
in
the
1960
s..
We
broadly
heard
support
from
them
that
that
the
occupancy
limit
should
be
removed.
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
when
we
talk
to
some
of
the
community
leaders,,
we
also
heard
from
someone
who
was
actually
in
the
middle
of
a
of
being
evicted..
They
were
living
in
a
unit..
There
was
a
complaint
about
it
being
over
occupied,
and
they're,
now
struggling,
or
we're
struggling
to
find
housing
after
that,
instance.
M
M
M
M
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:
for
changing
the
occupancy
regs,
and
you
can
see
the
bullet
points
for
the
reasons
they
they
supported.
It.
there
were
2
members
that
I
would
say,
were
firmly
against
increasing
occupancy
limits,
based
on
impacts
to
neighborhood
character
and
some
of
the
points
that
I've
already
gone
over,
and
I
would
say
that
there
were
2
planning
board
members
that
were
in
the
middle
on
the
topic,
and
that
there
needed
to
be
more
data,
to
support
making
changes.
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:
1.,
one
thing
they
brought
up
that
was
relatively
new,
was
a
concern
related
to
non-conforming
uses,
particularly
on
the
hill,,
where
you
have
densities
on
certain
sites
that
are
more
than
what's
allowed
under
their
current
code..
There
was
concern
that
if
the
occupancy
were
increased
in
each
of
those
units
that
that
would
greatly
increase
the
impacts
on
that
neighborhood,
and
that's
something
that
they
asked
us
to
look
into.
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
here's
the
last
scenario
that
I
was
just
talking
about..
So
this
is
in
a
non
conforming
use..
This
is
where
the
number
of
units
on
a
site
exceeds
what
is
allowed
by
the
code..
So
even
if
you
have,
in
this
case
a
6
unit
building,,
maybe
where
2
units
are
allowed,,
it's
considered
a
nonconforming
use.
and
even
if
the
occupancy
and
each
unit
is
3.
M
M
M
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
this
is
the
language,
that's
actually
in
the
code.
that
I
wanted
to
illustrate,,
and
I
wanted
to
highlight
the
the
first
sentence
in
subsection,
one,,
because
it's
a
little
bit
different
than
what
is
in
the
code..
We
wanted
to
basically
say
that
there
might
be
a
higher
occupancy.
That's
allowed
per
unit.
M
M
M
M
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
we've
we've
included
a
in-depth
analysis
in
the
code
that
speaks
to
that,.
We
find
that
what
we've
prepared
in
the
ordinance
would
meet
the
the
project,
purpose
statement
and
the
goals
and
objectives
by
limiting
the
amount
of
impacts
that
can
happen,,
particularly
in
areas
that
are
nonconforming.
M
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:
and
preservation
and
support
for
residential
neighborhoods
by
having
that
freeze
and
then
also
meeting
our
housing
policies
by
including
local
solutions
or
preserving
existing
housing,
stock.,
obviously
increasing
occupancy
allows
the
use
of
existing
housing
stock..
We
think
it
meets
all
these
policies.,
so
we're
recommending
approval..
This
is
the
staff
recommendation
that
we've
included
in
the
packet.
M
M
M
A
A
A
G
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
sure,,
I
just
wanted
to
disclose.
I
own
2
rental
properties
in
boulder.
Both
of
them
are
2
and
3
bedrooms,
and
they
are
in
multi
family
zone,,
so
they
are
currently
allow
for
unrelated
people..
I
never
rent
to,
even
for
unrelated,
I
rent
to
2
or
3
unrelated
at
most.,
and
so
any
increase
would
not
affect
me
in
any
way.
C
A
G
A
G
E
E
C
K
K
K
K
Karl
guiler,
cob:
how
many
like,,
how
how
common
is
it?
for??
What
what
do
you
mean
by
conforming
with
density,?
I
guess.?
Could
you
start
there,
please??
If
it's
not
a
non
conforming,,
you
say
it
could
go
up
to
the
5
per
unit..
I'd
say
the
vast
majority
of
rl,
2
is
developed
in
the
seventies
and
is
conforming.
so
I'd
say:
there's
a
high
likelihood
that
it
would
be
conforming.,
okay,
okay,!
That's
what
I
think,
too,
that
all
those
would
be.
L
L
Pb,
jorge
boone:,
that
w.
was
there.
Was
there
majority
support
for
for
5,
for
4.?
I
I
know
you
covered
it,,
but
you
could.
you
just
dive
into
that
background,
a
little
bit
more
in
detail,.
As
on
the
public
engagement
relative
to
this,,
I
mean,
with
respect
to
the
questionnaire
again,.
We
don't
look
at
the
questionnaire
like
like
a
statistically
valid
survey.,
so
you
know
you
take
it
with
a
grain
of
salt..
I
I
I
think
we
looked
at.
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
A
A
H
H
H
M
H
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:.
It
is
not
in
any
way
tied
to
affordability,
right?
that
this,
the
idea
that
it
would
just
directly
be
a
per
bedroom
charge,
and
if
you're
paying
$1,200
for
a
bedroom..
Now
you
would
still
pay
$1,200,
except
there'd,
be
5
of
you.
Instead
of
404
of
you
in
a
unit.,
I'm
not
sure
that
that's
exactly
how
it
would
work..
But
let's,
let's
assume
that
that
is.
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
did
staff
consider..
I
know
you're
trying
to
make
this
a
simple
ordinance
change.,
but
did
you
consider
or
see
any
models
of
where
increased
occupancy
could
be
tied
to
affordability,
whereby
you
couldn't
just
add
a
bedroom
and
charge
the
same
amount
that
you're
already
charging
per
bedroom.?
We
we
looked
at
that
when
we
were
looking
at.
M
M
M
M
M
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
okay,.
I
I'll
just
note
that
I
know
that
we
did
do
something
similar
with
our
a
to
to
say,.
You
know,.
If
you
make
it
an
affordable
80,,
you
get
extra
benefits
by
doing
that.,
and
I
didn't
know
if
there
were
any
creative
ideas
about
how
to
apply
a
similar
model
to
occupancy,
that
if
you
do
affordable
occupancy,,
you
get
you
get
additional
occupancy,
or
something
like
that..
M
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
yes,
yes,-
I
just
was
thinking
in
terms
of
we
already
have
a
rental
licensing
process
where
there
are
certain
requirements
that
a
homeowner
has
to
meet
or
a
property
owner
has
to
meet
in
order
to
rent
out
their
property,,
including
some
very
stringent
environmental
standards..
I
might
add
for
sustainability
reasons.
so
it
seems
like
if
we
were
super
motivated
to
try
to
tie.
H
H
F
A
G
G
M
M
G
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
okay,,
so
let
me
ask
a
specific
question.:
there
is
a
an
rl,
one
lot
that
has
a
house,
and
a
lot
size
is
6,000
square
feet,,
which
is
less
than
the
minimum
required
7,000
square
feet..
So
that
is
a
lot
or
parcel
that
does
not
meet
the
density
requirements
of
chapter
9..
We
would
consider
that
a
non-standard
parcel
in
the
definition
of
non
conforming
use.
it
doesn't.
it
doesn't
include.
G
M
G
G
G
M
G
G
G
G
G
F
F
F
F
F
F
A
A
J
M
M
J
Karl
guiler,
cob:
yeah,,
we
we
talked
to
bar
about
this,
and
they
brought
this
particular
issue
up
at
their
board
meeting,.
So
the
feedback.
M
J
J
J
E
E
M
M
E
E
E
E
E
M
A
A
A
A
A
A
M
A
C
C
C
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
you
know,
to
the
out
of
the
house,
or
or
how
do
we
enforce
that
with
staff??
It's
just
so.,
it's
another
level
that
we
don't
currently
have
the
ability
to
do.
and
and
brad
or
charles
can
chime
in
on
the
actual
enforcement
piece
more
than
I
can..
So
legally,,
it's
possible.,
but
it's
a
little
bit
more
of
a
a
difficult
thing,
with
the
enforcement
side
of
things.
F
F
F
Brad
mueller,
cob:
to
impact
neighbors
because
of
that
change
that
kind
of
thing..
So
we
we
have
significant
administrative
concerns
with
that
approach.
and,
charles,.
Maybe
you
can
elaborate.,
I'm
not
sure.
I'm,
particularly
in
that
robot.
That's
that's
perfect.
again,!
My
head
immediately
goes
to.
P
P
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
that
to
me
I
I
appreciate
the
explanation..
I
will
wait
for
comment
commentary
later.,
but
if
we're,
if
we're
not
specific
about
a
family
with
a
child
of
some
age,,
then
we
have
to
talk
about
parking
needs,,
and
I
realize
that
there
are
a
number
of
people
on
the
board
who
like,?
Who
cares
where
no
one's
going
to
have
cars,?
And
that
may
be
true
someday..
But.
A
A
A
A
F
F
F
F
F
A
A
A
A
L
L
A
A
B
Q
Q
Rosie
fivian
aia:
mark
was
so
eloquent
at
the
april
eighteenth
meeting
about
the
role
of
government
and
planning
board,,
and
I
hope
everyone
remembers
his
comments
on
this
new
code.
Edition..
It's
going
against
the
whole
idea
of
simplicity,
simplification
of
the
codes,
and
exactly
why
we
need
statewide
rules.
Q
Q
Q
Rosie
fivian
aia:
I,
a
reality.
some
of
the
concerns
I
heard
raised
at
the
last
meeting
on
april
eighteenth
to
5.
logic?.
If
no
one
questions
the
infrastructure.
when
a
family
of
5
moves
into
a
house,,
then
why
would
we
make??
Why
would
it
make
sense,
or
even
be
fair
to
question
the
infrastructure??
When
5
people
live
together,
however,,
they
wanted
to
find
their
relationship.
5
is
5.
it's
time
to
remove
any
judgment.
Q
Q
Rosie
fivian
aia:,
I've
heard
even
more
delay
to
tactics
tonight..
The
codes
have
requirements
for
bedrooms
for
safety..
So
that's
not
on
the
table.
Right
now.
parking
be
addressed
with
neighborhood
parking
permits,
and
is
a
separate
issue,.
Probably
best
handled
by
other
boards.
complaints
have
been
few..
The
naysayers
have
failed
to
provide
any
data
to
support
their
fears.
Q
Rosie
fivian
aia:
earlier
this
year,
I
testified
at
the
state,
capital
and
strong
support
of
sb.
23
to
13,,
which
proposed
to
eliminate
occupancy
in
its
entirety..
I
was
also
asked
by
aa.
colorado
to
write
an
opinion
piece
in
support
of
the
bill
that
was
published
in
their
newsletter..
I
believe
that
this
is
the
future
for
colorado.
it's
time
to
act
on
this
simple
change
that
can
really
help
people.
Q
B
B
R
R
R
R
R
B
S
S
S
Eric
budd
(he
/
him):-
I
was
also
down
to
the
capital,
and
testified
in
favor
of
a
sb.
23
to
113
to
end
these
and
these
laws
entirely,
because
they
are
entirely
based
on
the
relationship
between
the
people
living
there..
This
is
nothing
about
safety..
This
is
nothing
about
health..
This
is
nothing
about.
S
S
Eric
budd
(he,
/
him):,
and
about
the
particulars
of
this
proposal.
you
know,,
I've
listened
to
this
entire
process..
That
city
council
has
talked
about
what
they
want,,
and
you
know
they
said
very
clearly
that
they
wanted
a
policy
that
was
simple
and
that
could
be
implemented
citywide.
and
if
there's
a
majority
of
support
for
5
people,
and
what
I
see
was.
S
Eric
budd
(he
/
him):,
you
know,
they.
They
basically
said
that
they
were
not
looking
for
exclusions
for
certain
part
of
town
like
the
hill.,
but
with
this
this
non-conforming
use
provision,.
It
essentially
is,
eliminating
a
number
of
units
on
the
hill.
specifically
on
this.,
and
it's
really
listening
to
the
presentation.
Tonight..
It's
just.
It's
not
clear
to
me
why
that
should
be
a
policy.
S
S
B
T
T
T
T
T
B
O
O
O
Janmorzel:
we
are
moving
too
slow..
We
used
to
pride
ourselves
to
be
a
leader
in
in
many
areas
to
create
a
great,
livable,
welcoming
city..
Now
we
are
limping
behind,
and
I
believe
it's
just
a
matter
of
time
until
the
state
will
actually
outlaw
this
like
it
should
be.,
it
should
be
simply
illegal
to
limit
and
make
a
distinction
between
whether
you're
married
or
not..
It
makes
absolutely
no
sense.
O
Janmorzel:
versus
the
impact.,
we
can
certainly
work
in
the
impact..
I
just
want
to
quickly
mention
my
street
that
I
know
really
well,
and
you're
welcome
to
come
to
upland
on
the
side
of
nineteenth
street..
I
know
every
household.
we
have
about
64
residents
right
now..
21
of
us
are
non
code
compliant
now..
They
could
probably
apply.,
but
I'm
telling
you
a
third
of
the
people
that
live
there
do
not.
B
U
U
U
U
B
V
V
Chelsea
castellano:
one
in
boulder.,
we
often
site
that
addressing
climate
change
is
important
to
us..
According
to
the
united
nations,
buildings
are
responsible
for
more
than
40%
of
global
energy,
use.
and
one
third
of
global
greenhouse
gas
emissions,,
making
it
illegal
for
people
to
live
in..
The
bed,
bedrooms
and
buildings
that
already
exist
is
unacceptable
for
a
city
that
wants
to
be
a
leader
on
climate.
V
Chelsea
castellano:
to
boulder's
current
occupancy
limits
reduce
the
positive
impacts
that
were
just
passed
with
the
a
to
use,,
because
occupancy
limits
are
set
at
the
property
level,,
but
increasing
the
limit
to
5
at
the
property
level,.
We
can
ensure
that
people
who
are
unrelated
have
more
equal
rights
to
have
and
benefit
from
ads.
V
Chelsea
castellano:
3
of
you
are
concerned
about
health
and
safety
of
those
who
are
sharing
housing..
These
are
clear
and
definitive
answers
to
those
well-meaning
concerns,,
as
staff
have
reiterated
to
several
times,
health
and
safety
codes
always
take
precedence
and
supersede
occupancy
limits.
for
example,
right
now
we
have
many
studio
apartments
across
folder,
where
the
occupancy
limit
is
for.
and
we
are
not
currently
worried
about
health
and
safety
in
those
cases,,
because
health
and
safety
goes
our
take.
President.
V
Chelsea
castellano:,
once
these
insidious
laws
were
enacted.,
they
were
disproportionately
enforced
in
chinatown,,
where
low
paid.
single
working
chinese
men
had
no
choice
but
to
share
rooms.
since
1,870
occupancy
laws
have
to
continue
to
be
used
as
a
tool
to
limit
housing
options
for
immigrants,,
lgbtq,
people,
communities
of
color
and
working
class
people,,
and
it
is
beyond
time
to
end
the
harm,.
The
cause.,
and
I
just
want
to.
Please
encourage
you
all.
V
B
W
W
Lisa
spalding:
requires
an
approach
that
acknowledges
neighborhoods
across
the
city
are
different,
and
any
proposed
changes
demand
a
nuanced
approach..
The
city
council
majority
is
proposal
for
a
one.
size
fits
all
increase
in
occupancy
to
5
unrelated
occupants
per
dwelling.
Unit.
citywide
does
not
reflect
thoughtful
city,
planning.
W
W
Lisa
spalding:
this
or
other
conforming
units..
Sorry.
This
would
prevent
the
other
problems
that
would
occur
in
down
zone
neighborhoods
throughout
the
city.
option.
B.
would
only
apply
to
neighborhoods
surrounding
the
university,,
which
would
be
better
than
nothing.,
but
we'd
be
a
less
efficient
way
of
dealing
with
this
problem.
W
W
Lisa
spalding:
are
subdivided
into
multiple
units.
they're
in
poor
condition..
If
occupancy
is
increased,,
the
health
and
safety
of
tenants
will
rapidly
deteriorate,
and
the
caring
capacity,
the
neighborhood
will
be
overwhelmed
also..
We
can't
talk..
I
haven't
enough
time
to
talk
about
it,,
but
there
is
no
affordability
linked
into
this,
and
that
is
crucial.
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:,
the
all
right,
we're
going
to
take
a
if
it's
okay,
we'll
take
a
5
min
break,
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
board.
discussion..
We
are
going
to
really
try
to
end
by
1030
tonight..
So
get
your
comments
like
super,,
clear,,
super,,
concise,
and
and
we
will.
I'll,
try
to
manage
this
meeting
so
that
we
end
at
a
reasonable
time.,
we'll
be
back
in
5
min.
A
A
A
A
A
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:
and
I
I
also
look
at
look
to
the
states
like
california,,
oregon
and
washington
and
our
governor
and
his
legislation
that
would
have
simply
simplified
this
even
more.,
and
I
respect
staff
and
and
and
our
council
for
saying,.
I
want
a
simple
solution
that
is
understood
and
enforceable.,
and
it's
funny.
when
it's
a
moral
issue.
E
E
K
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
we're
enacted
in
very
interesting
ways.,
often
racist
way
is
often
very
intentionally
in
university
towns
to
control
a
bunch
of
other
things
that
aren't
directly
related
to
occupancy,
and
that
they're
a
very
broad
brush
thing
that
I
don't
particularly
enjoy..
So
I'm
I'm
open
and
amenable
broadly
to
the
idea
of.
K
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
than
than
this
is
pb,
lisa,
smith:
because,.
As
I
see
it,
you
could
literally,
you
know,
and,
and
I
don't
think,
you
know,.
I
don't
think
people
like
kurt
are
going
to
do
this..
I
don't
think
local
landlords
will
be
incentivized
because
they
are
local,,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
banks
that
own
rental
stock
and
boulder..
We
have
a
lot
of
absentee
landlords.
K
K
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
square
footage
and
number
of
occupants,
or
you
know,.
I
think
I'm
always
asking
some
interesting
questions.
and
I
I
appreciate
what
bark
just
said
about
like,,
you
know,.
How
do
you
legislate
or
control
what
a
family
is??
How
do
you
define
what
it
is,
or
how
people
see
themselves.
and-
and
I
think
that
that's
a
really
good
point.
K
K
K
L
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
A
N
J
H
H
H
And
I
do
think
it
is
supportive
of
laura
kaplan,
pb:
housing
for
a
full
range
of
households..
That's
one
of
the
explicit
goals
in
this
occupancy
reform
is
that
there
are
people
who
are
finding
creative
ways
to
live
with
each
other
that
do
not
fit
our
our
current
occupancy
definitions.,
and
this
would
be
expanding
that
a
little
bit,.
For
you
know
what
people
have
mentioned:
polyamorous
families.
g,
l.,.
H
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
in
order
to
be
able
to
afford
housing
here.,
so
I
think
it
does
help
provide
housing
for
a
full
range
of
households..
It
does
help
preserve
existing
housing
stock
and
provide
local
solutions
to
affordable
housing..
I
think
it
is
supportive
of
existing
neighborhoods
that
are
less
likely
to
get
redeveloped
if
they
can
be.
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
you
know,,
we
make
more
efficient
and
fill
use
of
our
existing
housing
stock,
and
I
do
think
it
provides
more
housing
for
people
that
might
have
jobs
here
and
help
contribute
to
that
jobs.
Housing
balance..
So
I
appreciated
staff's
analysis,
here,
and
also
agree
with
mark
and
ml.
that
this
is
broadly
supportive
of
the
ppc.
vision.
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
great
laura,.
Thank
you
very
much.,
sarah
silver,
pb:.
So
I
stand
with
lisa
and
george..
On
this
I
have
a
different
take,
then,
staff
on
the
bbcp
alignments..
I
don't
believe
this
advances,
7.0
one
local
solutions
to
housing,
affordability,
or
7
dot.,
o
2
for
have
affordable
housing,
goals.
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
because
there's
little
to
no
evidence
that
from
cities
that
have
increased
occupancy,
that
it
actually
either
addresses
affordability
or
availability.
in
fact,
there
was
recently,
I
think,.
In
june
of
this
year
the
urban
institute
published
a
still
published
research
that
looked
at
zoning
reforms.
A
A
A
A
A
H
H
H
Laura
kaplan,,
pb:
landlords
would
have
to
agree
to
some
measure
of
affordability,,
and
I
don't
know
what
that
looks
like,,
but
I
know
that
we
can
do
it..
It
sounds
like
we
can
do
it.
and
so,.
If
people
are
really
concerned
about
the
affordability
aspect
of
this
and
the
idea
that
landlords
or
investors
are
going
to
snap
up
houses
and
then
start
charging
exorbitant
amounts
by
the
bedroom.
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
we
can
handle
that
problem
through
our
rental
licensing
program..
Every
homeowner
that
wants,
or
or
investor
who
wants
to
rent
out
a
property
is
required
to
get
a
rental
license
to
put
that
rental
license
number
in
their
advertising
for
their
for
their
rental
units,,
and
there
are
lots
of
restrictions
on
what
that
has
to
look
like.
their
health
and
safety
restrictions,,
their
environmental
sustainability,
restrictions.
H
And
it
feels
like
we
could
potentially
put
some
affordability
restrictions
subject
to
any
kind
of
legal
review,
right?
like,.
If
we
can't
do
it,,
we
can't
do
it.,
but
I
would
suggest
at
least
exploring
it.
if
that
affordability
element
for
rentals
is
something
that
the
city
is
quite
worried,
about,,
and
that
does
seem
to
be
one
of
the
major
objections
that
we
have
heard.
H
J
J
J
M
J
J
M
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
A
J
J
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
you're
not
opposed
to
3..
If
it's
a
family,,
you
know,
one
adult,,
2,
kids
or
2
adults,,
one
kids,,
it's
the
3
unrelated
adults,
that
concerned
you.,
yeah,
and
that,
and
even
the
related
adults..
I
think
the
fact
that
3
adults
is
just.
and-
and
you
know,
carl
kind
of
spoke
to
this,,
that
the
intent
was
to
support,.
You
know,,
a
small
family.
J
J
A
K
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
I
I
don't
think
we're
necessarily
gonna
get
there
on
this,
and
we're
more
on
like
how
we
would
modify
it..
But
I
would
just
say
that
in
a
perfect
world
that
sure
like
to
get
another
couple
of
years
of
data
from
other
cities
on
how
this
is
actually
going?,
because
I
have,
I
have
my
doubts,
and
if
I'm
proven
wrong,,
then
great.,
maybe
I'd
be
super
pro.
I
also
just
want
to
say.
K
K
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
so
you
know,.
I
would
recommend
some
kind
of
a
modification
around,
you
know,
a
minimum
number
of
square
feet..
Maybe
it's
not
even
a
bedroom,,
but
just
like
a
certain
number
of
square
feet
that
you
have
to
have
per
adult
living
in
a
house,
and
I
would
recommend
that,
not
from
an
occupancy
limit,
or
trying
to
legislate
what
a
family
is
or
isn't,
or
who
should
or
should
be
living
with
each
other,,
but
strictly
from
a
health
and
safety
and
public
welfare..
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
a
matter
which
should
be
top
line
for
any
planning
body
to
be
thinking.
About..
We
just
survived
a
pandemic
more,,
maybe
coming.
you
know,.
We
haven't
been
hit
by
flu
and
over
100
years.,
we're
bit
overdue.,
sorry
to
traumatize.
Everyone
again.,
you
know.,
but
but
you
know
it
it
there..
There
is
a
certain
point
at
which
I
think
it
becomes
an
issue
in
terms
of
how
many.
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
people,
and
I
think
the
sides
and
age
of
people.
it
does
kind
of
start
to
matter
as
well.
and
then
protections
for
families
are
are
also
quite
robust,.
You
know.
it's
not
legal.
and
I'm
not
saying
that
landlords.
Don't
do
a
legal
thing
sometimes,,
but
it's
not
legal
to
discriminate
against
a
family,.
You
know,
who's,
seeking
housing
and
so
without
us
necessarily
getting
too
involved
in
it.
in
a
city,
way.
there,.
There
are
federal
protections
for
families.
you
know,.
If
people
are
housing,
multiple
small
children
in
a
room
or
something
like
that.
K
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
E
E
E
E
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:,
you
know
this
person
that
he's
a
big
17
year
old,,
so
he
can't
be
in
an
eu
with
his
parents..
It
it
just
it
just
doesn't
work.
and
it
it
would
be
that
wouldn't
comport
with
federal
federal
law
you
couldn't
do
that.,
is
that
correct
girl.
I
mean,
I'll
I'll
defer
to
the
attorneys
on
on
the
point
of
an
ellu,,
because
I
know
that
the
code
is,
is
pretty
strict
about.
M
M
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:,
so
did
you
want
me
to
chime
in?
sorry,,
just
to
clarify
a
little
bit.?
I
totally
agree
with
karl.
what
carl
said,
the
difference
here,
is,,
even
in
other
areas
where
families
are
part
of
single
family
homes
or
whatever
they
solve,
to
meet
building
code
requirements
and
safety
requirements.,
so
you're
still
allowed
to
have
that
like
overly
on
top,
right?,
but
but
there's
not
a
yeah,
anyway.
okay,.
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
that
we
can't
go.
E
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:,
making
code,
that
that
violates
federal
law
as
much
as
it
seems
attractive
to
at
times.
in
a
as
as
far
as
suggested,
changes..
I
concur
with
my
suggestion,
change,,
and
I
noted
this
when
our
our
conversation
about
occupancy,
like
so
many
things,
devolved
into
a
conversation
about
parking
and
cars.
E
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:
and
I.
my
request
would
be
that
we
apply
this
level
of
effort
and
thought
to
parking
reform
and
take
it
away
from
community
vitality
so
that
we
can
have
this
level
of
reform
on
on
car
storage
that
we're
we're
talking
about
for
a
house..
So
that's
my
only
suggestion.
thank
you.
alright,
thank
you.
mark
george
and
me.
and
then,
laura..
L
L
L
L
L
L
Pb,
jorge
boone:,
I
I
pb,
jorge
boone:,
it's
it's
on.,
it's
unclear
that
it
will
create
any
affordability.
it
may
on
a
per
person.
Level,
create
some
affordability
for
students,
for
instance.,
but
at
the
same
standpoint
it
will
make
those
same
things
less
affordable
for
families,,
because
now
they
have
to
compete
against
that.
L
L
L
L
Pb,,
jorge
boone:,
we've
got,
we've
got
to
balance
all
these
concerns.
and,
to
that
point
I
think
that's
the
moral
issue
that
we're
facing
is
we've
got
to
balance
all
the
concerns
and
not
just
weigh
one
group
over
another
and
and
try
to
create
something
that
will
work
for
our
entire
community..
Thank
you.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
thank
you..
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
question
in
line
with
kurt's
comments
about
building
code,
health
and
safety..
So
my
question
is
for
carl,
with
the
el
use..
If
it
went
to
3
people
unspecified
just
3
people
per
eu.
would
that
run
into
any
problems
with
health
and
safety
codes
as
we
define
it.
M
M
M
G
G
A
A
E
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:
and
then
we've
been
discussing
option
a
and
option
b
tonight.
and
I
I
find
them
slightly
confusing.,
but
I'm
not
gonna
delve
back
into
this,,
although
we
have
some
an
awful
lot
of
time
on
e.
o's.
and
like
4
or
5
people
in
the
you,
anyway..
My
question
is,
in
the
last
paragraph
below
option
b.
E
E
E
E
E
E
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
process.
Suggestion.
that,,
I
think,
is
probably
where
you're
going,
sarah,,
but
I
just
wanted
to
put
this
on
a
table..
It
seems
like
the
big
decisions
before
us.
and,
sarah,.
I
really
appreciate
what
you
said
at
the
beginning
of
we
don't
have
to
have
unanimity..
We
can
send
something
to
to
counsel
with.
a
clear
signal
of
this
was,
you
know,.
This
was
3
to
4..
This
was
5
to
2..
I
think
that's
fine..
H
H
Sarah
silver,
pb:
an
increase
in
rental
occupancy
to
some
kind
of
affordability
provision
the
same
way
that
we
did
with
the
a
to
use
and
do
that
through
rental
licensing,
and
see.
If
there's
support
for
that.,
I
would
support
that.
whether
we
go
with
4
or
5,.
I
think
that
should
be
researched.,
so
I
think
I
don't
know
if
there
were
other
things
that
people
wanted
to
add
or
condition.
A
A
K
A
K
M
A
K
K
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
in
a
conforming
use.,
yep,
okay.,
so
this
would
only
apply
to
the
non-conforming.
okay,
thank
you.
thank
you,
karl,
for
repeating
for?
pdf,.
I
can
just
say,
as
I'm
understanding
it.
the
problem
is
that,
like
in
areas
around
the
university,.
You
might
have
a
lot
that
was
originally
a
single
family
house,
and
then
it
was
subdivided
into
4
or
5
units.,
and
now
it's
a
non
conforming.
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
lot
in
that
zone,
and
each
of
those
4
or
5
units
could
then
go
up
to
5
people,,
and
that
was
an
a
concern
that
was
expressed
both
by
the
public
and
by
city.
Council.-
city
council
asked
you
to
look
into
this.,
and
so
this
is
the
solution
that
is
proposed
specifically
for
those
nonconforming
sort
of
subdivided
lots
that
are
already
over,
occupied
according
to
their
zone.
A
J
J
M
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
that's
correct.,
so
one
is
city
wide,
and
one
is
exactly
like.
It
says:
right:
here,,
city-wide.
and
well,
this
just
I'm
sorry.
small
clarification,,
though,
karl,.
I
think
you
said
it
applies
anywhere.
You
have
these
zones..
These
are
the
zones
that
are
adjacent
to
the
university.,
but
there's
rl.
one
in
other
places
of
the
city
that
are
not
near
the
university
or
may
not
have
non-conforming
use.
yeah,.
We
just
included
the
zones
that
are
around
the
university.,
but
if
that
zone
elsewhere
in
the
city
would
also
be
limited.
H
A
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
so
just
want
to
call
to
everybody's
attention
and
clarify
that
with
this
motion,
we
would,
as
planning
board,,
be
recommending
a
4
person,
occupancy,
limit,
citywide,
rather
than
a
5
person
as
city
council,,
as
staff
to
explore
and
city
council
kind
of
already
rejected
the
4
person
by
a
majority
vote..
But
we
could
make
a
different
recommendation
as
planning
board.
K
K
K
K
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
in
a
city
that
has
the
green
belt
and
a
high
restriction,
and
I'm
not
getting
into
all
of
that,,
because
I
think
there's
good
reasons
why
we
have
those..
You
know.,
I
I
I
I
guess,
I'm
I'm
I'm
just
going
to
raise,
and
I'm
not
saying
I'm
in
the
boarding
order
against
it,
or
anything
yet.
K
A
A
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
and
I
don't
know.
I,
laura,.
I
don't
want
to
put
words
in
your
mouth,,
but
but
above
whatever
it
was,
the
old
documents,.
Your
apartment
are
above
3
or
something,
and
and
again,
and-
and
I
don't
want
to
turn
this
into
a
bedrooms-
are
for
people
a
referendum
or
anything..
But
there
wasn't
elegance
to
that
notion
right
to
the
idea
of
you
have
the
square
footage.,
you
have
a
bedroom..
There
are
concerns
about.
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
maybe
tie
it
and
say,
hey,
you
know,.
If,
if
you're
gonna
try
to
get
a
bunch
of
people
into
a
small
area.,
well,
then,,
you
shall
not.,
you
know
I
I
and
I
don't
know
what
we
tie
that
number
to,,
but
you
know
it's
going
to
be
cheaper
for
them..
I
think
that
that
would
have
something
of
a
chilling
effect
on
on
speculative..
You
know.
K
K
K
L
Pb,,
jorge
boone:
yeah,,
I'm
kind
of
pushing
myself
here
to
get
some
kind
of
compromise
that
I
could
agree
to
on
the
table..
And
so
that's
that's
why
I
seconded
this
motion
from
my
perspective.
obviously,.
I'm
not
the
motion
maker,,
but
I
would
also
be
supportive
of
some
kind
of
affordability
that
we
could
put
in
here.
that
wouldn't
be
uterus,,
but
would
sort
of
balance
that
concern,,
because
that's.
L
L
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
whatever
happens
with
this
motion
or
subsequent
motions,,
I
am
going
to
offer
a
separate
recommendation..
I
have
some
draft
language.
Here.
planning
board
recommends
that
staff
and
city
council
explore
revising
city
rental,
license
requirements
to
require
affordability
in
exchange
for
additional
occupancy
for
rental
properties.,
something
like
that.
H
H
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
probably
some
folks,
will
disagree
with
me
and
want
simplicity,
and
not
to
complicate
things
and
just
go
ahead
and
pass
additional
occupancy,
and
I
can
support
that..
But
I
do
think
that
it'd
be
worthwhile
for
staff
and
city
council
to
explore.
hey,.
Is
there
some
way
that
we
can
tie
some
affordability
to
this
for
me,
my
votes
not
contingent
upon
that.,
but
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
to
really
look
into.
and
I
think
we
want
that..
So
I
don't
know
why
we
wouldn't
look
into
it.
E
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
but
anyway,,
I'm
I'm
just
saying,,
you
know,.
If
we
put
something
like
that
in,
then
I
think
I
would
be
more
like,
okay,
fine,,
like
whatever
I
don't
know,
for
versus
5,
really
matters
that
much.
provided
that
we
have
something
in
there..
You
know
that
that
tries
to
just
the
supportability
issue
and
speculative.
K
A
A
A
K
K
C
C
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
okay.
sarah
silver,
pb:,
so
you
may
be
able
to
see
sara,,
but
I
just
want
to
mention
that
kurt
has
his
hand
up.
oh,,
sorry!
correct.,
your
your
wall
is
yellow..
I
didn't
see
your
yellow,
hand.
oh,.
Sorry,
I
need
to
repay
my
walls.
yes,,
just
just
the
upper
corner.
yeah,
right?.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
I
think
what
laura
is
suggesting
is
intriguing..
I
I'm
certainly
I'm
a
hundred
percent
in
support
of.
G
G
A
A
A
A
A
A
G
K
G
H
H
A
A
A
J
K
G
A
H
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
and
they
have
some
real
issues
with
nonconforming
properties
that
are
already
a
source
of
increased
density
in
their
neighborhoods.
that
that
some
folks
are
finding
problematic
for
all
the
reasons
that
they
have
talked
about,.
And
if
you
have
multiple
units
in
a
building,
that's
already
non
conforming,,
and
then
you
let
them
have
additional
occupancy.
it..
It
does
have
an
impact
on
their
neighborhoods,
and
I
think
we.
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
as
board,
have
compassion
for
those
things.
not
for
me.
personally,.
I
don't
think
it..
It
impacts
my
view
on
occupancy
citywide,,
but
I
think
that
we
can
be
responsive
to
that
particular
concern
in
a
smart
way,,
and
I
think
this
does
respond
to
that.
Concern.
I,
personally
am
not
super
concerned.
About,
people?
voluntarily
signing
up
to
live
in
super
crowded,
conditions..
I
don't
think
a
lot
of
people
will
do
that,
and
I
don't
think
that.
H
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
when
I
was
a
student.,
I
lived
in
one
dorm
room
with
my
roommate,
and
and
we
had,
you
know,
significant
others
that
spent
a
significant
amount
of
time
with
us,
and
that
that
was
fine
for
a
period
of
my
life..
I
would
not
choose
that
for
the
rest
of
my
life,,
so
I
think
that
we
can
have
flexibility
for
people's
different
housing
arrangements.,
but
I
do
think
that
option
a
responds
to
that
specific
concern
in
a
smart,
way,
and
then
addressing
the
specific..
H
I
do
think
that
that's
something
that
city
council
will
be
amenable
to
to
looking
into,
and
that
if
we
can
make
it
work,
we
probably
will..
I
know
they
want
to
do
something
simple,
and
do
it
now
with
the
council
that
we
have
in
place,,
but
I
think
that
the
new
council
will
probably
also,.
I
can't
imagine
anybody's
going
to
get
elected
in
boulder
that
doesn't
care
about
housing
and
affordability..
So
I
do
think
that
this
will
get
followed
up.
On.
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:.
I
think
it
was
just
the
way
that
this
board
of
very
diverse
people,,
who
were
appointed
by
very
diversity
councils,
and
we
come
with
very
different
perspectives..
We
all
kind
of
recognize
this
affordability
problem.
and
if
we
can
find
a
way
to
solve
it
in
a
smart,
way,
we're
going
to
do
that.,
and
so
I
think
making
this
recommendation
for
me
is
sufficient.
and
I
wouldn't
want
it
to
be
a
required
thing,,
because
I
do
think
that
we
need
to
increase
occupancy,,
no
matter
what..
That's
that's
where
I'm
coming
from.
E
E
E
A
A
H
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
karl,
are
you
with
us?,
laura
kaplan,
pb:
yeah,
thank
you.,
so
my
question
is,.
If
we
did
include
this
language,
about
exploring
the
revising
the
city
rental
licenses,
in
your
opinion.,
would
that
require
a
delay
in
implementing
the
occupancy
change??
If
we
also
approved
an
occupancy
change,
or
could
it
be
retroactively,
a
change
to
the
rental
licenses?.
M
M
M
M
L
J
J
J
J
C
C
Ml
robles
pb:
you
causing
any
issues
under
any
other
state
or
federal
law..
So
I
don't
have
the
answer
right
now.,
but
it's
something
we
would
explore.
thank
you.
yeah..
I
think
we
we
had
had
a
question
about
the
same
law
being
interpreted
differently
under
different
circumstances,
as
not
being
a
a
good
way
to
proceed.
but,
anyway,.
Those
are
my
2
comments
on
on
this,
as
as
it
stands.
thank
you.
thank
you.,
ml,,
okay.,
so,,
george.,
then
kurt.
and
then
I'm
gonna
call
the
motion,
and
let's
see
what
we
get.
L
L
L
L
L
L
A
A
G
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
the
the.,
the
occupancy
changes
contingent
on
that,
because
we
don't
know
what
is
possible,
and
what
you
know
is
legal,
and
so
on.
so
to
to
me..
Those
are
separate
things.
if
we
can
get
the
affordability.,
that's
great.,
but
I
I
have
no
idea
whether
that's
possible,
and
who
would
require
a
ton
more
thinking.
G
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
and
setting
forth
related
details
with
the
following
conditions,
option,,
a
regarding
nonconforming
uses
city
wide,,
and
that
staff
and
city
council
explore
revising
city
rental,
license
requirements
to
require
affordability
and
exchange
for
additional
occupancy
beyond
existing
allowances,.
As
of
july
2,023
for
rental
properties.,.
A
A
A
A
E
E
A
E
E
E
K
K
Sarah
silver,
pb:
and-
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
rate
that
I
I
don't
want
to
put
a
big
damper
on
it..
You
don't
necessarily
need
me.
got
quorum
without
me.,
but
just
heads
up,,
and
maybe
we
can
move
some
voting
along
a
bit
without
stephen.
conversation
too
much.
okay,.
Thank
you
so
much,
lisa
kurt..
I
don't
want
to
cut
you
off,,
but
in,.
If,
if
it's
not
something
you
said,
before.
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
and
setting
forth
related
details.
additionally
planning
board
recommends
one
against
adopting
either
option
a
or
b
regarding
nonconforming
use
to
additional
enforcement
of
behavior
by
any
city
residents
that
violates
our
code
with
specific
attention
to
code
violations
for
noise,,
trash,
and
parking.
3..
That
city
council
explore
revising
city
rental,
license
requirements
to
require
affordability
and
exchange
for
additional
occupancy
beyond
existing
allowances,.
As
of
july
2,023
for
rental
properties.,.
A
K
H
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
yes.,
sarah
silver,
pb:
planning
board,
recommends
at
city
council.-
I'm
going
to
notice
in
my
sleep
by
the
end
of
it.
planning
board,
recommends
that
city
council
adopt
ordinance,
8,585,
amending
chapter
910,,
the
standards,
brc.
1,981,
and
preaching
the
number
of
persons
that
may
occupy
a
dwelling
unit
and
setting
forth
related
details.
additionally,
planning
board
recommends
one.