City Council - Regular Meeting

2026 regular meeting of the Boulder City Council. I hereby call this meeting to order and ask Alicia to do a roll call, please. All right, sir. Give me just a second. I have to pull something up. Thank you everyone for your patience. We'll start tonight's roll call as usual with Council Member Adams present. Benjamin present. Mayor Brockett present. Council member Kaplan present. Marquis Shuhard here.

Spear Wallik here. and mayor pro Tim Wer present. Mayor, we have our quarum. Thanks so much. Uh to get started, I would ask for a consideration of a motion to uh remove item 4E from the consent agenda. That item was consideration of a motion to cancel the study session on June 11th and call it an in-person special meeting. So my ask is that we have a an amendment to remove that item for E.

So moved. Motion to second. All in favor, raise your hands. That passes unanimously. And so that means that June 11th will be a study session per usual. All right. Now, we're going to go to open comments. So, Elisha, if you can go over the public participation guidelines, please.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for joining us. And we also would like to thank you for your participation at tonight's council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the border revised code. This includes participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Only audio testimony is permitted during open comment. No attendee shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting room or refrain from addressing the council. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. And lastly, obscinity, other epithets based on race, gender, or religion, and other speech, and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the meeting will not be tolerated. Thank you so very much again for joining us, and thank you for listening.

Thank you, Lee. Appreciate that. I'm going to call three names at a time and designate whether the person is in person or virtual and each person will have two minutes to speak and I will be strict about that time limit in the interest of fairness. So our first three speakers are Paul Given and Josh Gould in person and then Alejandra Batty virtually.

Should I just start? Yes.

All right. Thank you, council. Um, I came here today to talk about what I've heard about cuts to tipped minimum wage. Um, and I wanted to open up with starting that, uh, I used to work in a kitchen. Um, and that was one of the most financially difficult parts of my life. Um, I remember driving home late one night in the winter. Um, and I couldn't afford snow tires, so I was driving balds. And I went around a corner, hit an ice patch, and just started spinning. And I'm only here today because somebody wasn't on the other side of the road. Um, so I wanted to express that cutting minimum wage is something serious. It's something that people depend on to, you know, survive. And MIT says that the living wage in Boulder now is $279. Um, and any move to reduce that minimum wage materially affects people in Boulder. Um, and I want to say that as a council, I kind of expect you guys to address the real villains in our county, and those are the corporate landlords who are making our buildings vacant and driving up rents. Um, we shouldn't punish or we shouldn't force small businesses to push workers. we should push back on those large landlords. Um, I also don't want you to abandon the progress that you all made. We all agreed as a community to increase the minimum wage and we should keep it like that. Um, I basically want you to stand like don't stand by while these oligarchs take over our community and take over our country. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we have Josh Gold in person then Alejandra Batty and Jackie Richardson virtually. Good evening. Apologies for reading, but I need to stay in my two minutes. I'm here to highlight a situation where some overly rigid provisions of the land use code are pushing us to development solutions that are at odds with what we believe the city's overall planning goals are. My wife and I have owned a parcel in North Boulder for 40 years. It's a third of an acre. We'd like to split it, which is normally pretty easy to do. Um, it is a 100 square feet short. the parcel is 13,900 square f feet instead of 14,000. My neighbor said that we have an agreement for a 1-ft easement. Unfortunately, by engaging the neighbor in that way, it pushes us into a formal three parcel subdivision process. staff's been helpful in explaining the restrictions and after working on this for eight months with engineers and architects, there's no way to economically deal with the extensive storm water retention, other modifications would be required on all three sites. If not for the one foot, I'd be able to simply split my lot and move ahead. So, the box that we're being forced into has extensive requirements in order to prevent developers from avoiding necessary improvements of part of a larger development like the Shining Mountain uh project to my east. Um, it clearly wasn't meant to prevent a single lot split from happening. My only option at this point is to sell the parcel to be developed as a single family home. So, instead of two modestly sized homes, the result will be a house of likely five or six thousand square feet. I'm just trying to split the lot so I can build a house for my son and his wife, sell the other one, um, which is our retirement. We thought it would be helpful for council to see this example of how the provision of this particular provision land use code inadvertently incentivizes large luxury homes while creating insurmountable challenges for the creation of smaller lots. Every other lot on our block is same size as

what we're trying to do. Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll go to Alejandra Batty and Jackie Richardson online and then Douglas Hamilton in person.

Hello, this is Alejandra Batty, president for Boulder Li Labor Council representing multiple families in the Boulder and wider area. Uh I want to urge you all to reconsider your path on considering uh cutting tipped wage workers wages again. Uh we all worked really hard to build a better community in a better economy and this is going to set us backwards. Uh right now I am on a third round of attempts to cut wages both at the state level and now here at the Boulder level. And I just want to put this warning out to everybody. more of these attacks on wages of workers is just going to continue to make things worse. You're not going to help these small businesses. You're not going to help these small restaurants by attacking the wages that workers use to go spend in these economies. We knew this from the same study that we carefully went through and analyzed. So, any attempts to look at adjusting tipped credit is just going to make things worse. Now we're on another attempt where our Boulder count Boulder um CU campus workers are also having their wages attacked. This has opened the door and I think that Boulder is not helping any by be by participating in your own effort. I need your help to help shut this door and to make sure that workers are protected. So on behalf of the many workers who don't have time to come to these kinds of meetings to beg for the little bit of dollar uh an hour that they desperately need, I'm advocating on their behalf. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Jackie Richardson online and then Douglas Hamilton and Trisher in person. Hey there, city council. Can you all hear me? Okay. Yes.

Great. Thank you. Um, my name is Jackie Richardson and first of all, I'd like to second everything that Paul and Alejandra just said about the minimum wage. Um, but the main reason I'm here tonight is to urge you to place a residential vacancy tax on this year's ballot and to strengthen it by increasing the proposed tax from $2,000 to $5,000 per vacant unit. Boulder is facing a housing crisis that affects nearly everyone who lives and works here. teachers, service workers, young families, graduate students, and even longtime residents like me are struggling to find housing they can afford. At the same time, we have homes sitting empty for most of all or all of the year. Not because they're uninhabitable, but because they're being treated as investment assets instead of places for people to live. Housing is a basic human need. When homes remain vacant in the middle of a housing shortage, it drives up prices, reduces neighborhood vitality, and weakens the social fabric of our city. A vacancy tax is a practical proven tool to encourage property owners to either rent out unused homes or contribute financially to solving the housing shortage that their vacancies help worsen. But for this policy to work, the tax has to be large enough to change their behavior. A $2,000 annual tax may sound substantial, but in Boulder's housing market, it's too small to influence many property owners who can already afford to leave homes empty. For some, that amount is less than a month of appreciation on the property. A $5,000 tax would send a much clearer message that vacant housing carries a real community cost. Importantly, this is not about punishing people with legitimate temporary absences or hardships. Exemptions can and should protect those situations. This is about discouraging long-term speculative vacancies in a city where housing is desperately needed. Cities around the world have shown that vacancy taxes can help return homes to the market and generate revenue for affordable housing programs. Boulder has an opportunity to lead with a policy that reflects our values here. Please give voters the opportunity to decide this issue and please make the proposal

strong enough to matter by setting it at 5,000 instead of 2,000. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Now we'll go to Douglas Hamilton and Trisher in person and then Aiden Reed virtually.

Should have brought my my greeting glasses. Um hello, my name is Doug Hamilton. Today I want to speak to you about three things. First, I urge you to advance the housing vacancy tax when it comes before before you next week. Boulder is winning our war against the working class in Boulder. Since 2007, Boulder has added 2100 housing units and 5,500 additional students. Yet, the population has declined by 2500 people, and we have lost over 5,000 BBSD students. A a contradiction of Boulder, growing housing, shrinking population. We have successfully pushed out families. We are su and now we are successfully pushing out small businesses. Boulder has twice the commercial vacancy rate as Longmont. More than 6 million square feet in 2025, up from 1 million square feet in 2016. The issue is eroding our tax base. Without more revenue, Boulder needs to be looking at at what services it can cut, not what it can have. Sorry. South Boulder Rec Center. Why why would some council members pursue raising property taxes on Boulder residents and not focusing on the one area causing decreased tax receipts vacancies? Homes are for living in, not assets on balance sheets. We urge the city council to put a housing vacancy tax on the ballot, increase the amount to at least $5,000 a year, and hold a public hearing on the measure. We paused our measure and told our 100 volunteers to hold their petitions to give the city time to advance the second home tax and work on a commercial vacancy. Second, do not increase the tip minimum wage offset. Our policies already forced many service workers to share rooms or move out of town. Don't lower wages as well. And finally, do not take FFA grants that would commit the city to maintaining the airport forever. Let the people who use the airport pay for the airport. We are

Why are we funding a hobby airport with a little or no public use? Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll go to Trish Trish Emor in person and then Aiden Reed and Annne Wilson virtually.

Hello Trish Mer here on behalf of Bike Boulder and a first quarter update. So, you all got a deck earlier and in there you'll find bike security information from the Boulder Police as well as bike theft numbers through March. Numbers are honestly about the same on bike theft as they were last year. But it's very important to know that every bike stolen has a profound effect on the person who owned it. So, we don't like to focus on the statistics. We like to focus on keeping bikes. My focus this evening is on how we can register more bikes. At the front of the deck, please see a quick registration guide. In it, you'll notice that right up here is a QR code. So, Bike Boulder worked with Bike Index last year and we provided an easier to use form. Boulder Police helped install the updated form in January, and this QR code is scannable, so you can pop open the form to the city site. Once you scan it, it's easy to fill in essential info along with an email address. This quick step initializes registration and has been a gamecher for engaging with busy people like at the farmers market last weekend. Once you click on the form and register, this is really the magic thing. It's a sticker and the sticker proves not only ownership, but it enables recovery. Once this is on your bike with a unique QR code tied to your registration, you can hold your camera up and know that somebody owns the bike and it traces you right back to them. So what we feel at Bike Boulder is we really need to engage with more people to make this happen. We're planning on setting popups in different places like coffee shops on Pearl, the libraries, and getting more

people engaged. Just last weekend, we registered 50 bikes near the farmers market. If you guys have additional ideas or want stickers, let me know. Thank you for your testimony. Now we're going to Aiden Reed and Annne Wilson online and then Rob Smoke in person. Good evening, council. Are you able to hear me? Yes.

Okay. Good evening. My name is Aiden Reed and I'm here this evening uh to urge you to not further cut tipped workers base wages. Cutting workers wages will not actually support the local economy or small businesses. It will degrade consumer purchasing power and even create a situation in which workers simply leave our community. they leave the labor market which is going to harm the local economy even more. We are staring down the barrel of a catastrophic economic crisis as a result of the war in Iran and the closure of the street of hormoons and reducing workers wages at a time like this is among the most short-sighted and damaging choices we could make. I also want to urge you as a number of other speakers have to please put a residential vacancy tax on the ballot that holds landlords accountable for vacant units left unoccupied for over half a year. our group pulled our measure uh with the hope that you would take this up and deliver on it. And then finally, the city must never accept FAA grants that commit Boulder to maintain the airport in perpetuity. Boulder should maintain its autonomy and should be able to retire the airport when it determines it's best for the city. All these issues are interrelated, even if they don't seem like it. Economic dignity, municipal autonomy, and an honorable quality of life. These are the cornerstones of a decent community, and you have unique honor and obligation to make them possible for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll go to Annne Wilson online and then Rob Smoke and Pete Salace in person.

Can you hear me now? Yes.

Thank you, council, for the opportunity to speak. In a shocking display of bad faith, Boulder City Council gave the middle finger to voters on April 23rd when they decided in a barelyannounced closed study session to move forward with dedicating 175 acres of city property to the FAA and the aviation industry forever. You based this decision on information provided by staff and airport supporters that was unverified, unvetted, incomplete, and biased. No public input was allowed. Some examples. I have a reference to the city's own 2018 memo that valued the land at 2.2 million per acre, not the 1 million that was cited at the meeting. Another one. Encar flies planes out of RMMA, not Boulder. Neon calibrates planes by flying endless loops in a loud twin engine plane over Boulder, but calibration can be done elsewhere. No emergency response has come from Boulder for many years. Also, 10 million to 120 million for remediation. Based on what? In this scenario, it is most likely that airport traffic will grow. The FAA's entire purpose is to promote flight for those few that can afford it and profit from it, and the FAA will have complete control. Current airport users have said they don't want growth at the airport. But under FAA rule, limiting any aspect of airport operations is disallowed because the FAA calls that discrimination. It is unbelievable and heartbreaking that city council would vote in this manner to encumber our city with this forever. And yet you did. Boulder City Council and staff have been captured by the aviation industry. This is an utter

betrayal. It reeks of bad faith. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Now we'll go to Rob Smoke and Pete Salis in person and then Lara Gonzalez online.

Good evening. My name is Rob Smoke. I live in Boulder and um I just um celebrated my 70 70th birthday uh 10 days ago. And uh hold the applause because I'm about to read some information relating to divestment from the genocide that's going on um in Gaza. And this is uh just a quote from Caitlyn Johnstone, her um excellent um newsletter that she puts out. She says uh to be clear, every relevant humanitarian institution on earth has said that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza. These groups include one, the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian territory. Two, the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Three, Betsum, an Israeli organization. Four, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, another Israeli organization. Five, Amnesty International. Six, Doctors Without Borders. Seven, the Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. Eight, Human Rights Watch. Nine, the International Federation for Human Rights. 10, the Lumpin Institute for Genocide Prevention. And uh just to be fair, the list of humanitarian institutions who say Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza includes one, nobody, two, no one, three, zero. Four, nothing, five, nada, six, zilch, and so on. uh also a complete absence diddly squat and bupkus and um I'm saying this not to embarrass anyone but the fact is that we um we counterfeit a lot of the good stuff that we try to do whether it's with city council or other people in the city when

we uh fail to recognize the suffering that our actions can lead to and do lead to. Thank you. Thank you. Right now we have Pete Celis in person and then Lara Gonzalez and Eric Gross virtually.

Good evening council. My name is Pete Solless and I'm here as representative of the Boulder Area Labor Council and I want to echo uh what you've already heard many times. There are people who work at our communities. They work downtown. They work out in the fields. They work just enough trying to just save their dignity for such low wages. And the thought that you might consider cutting tipped wage workers wages is beyond comprehension to me. These are people who are the backbones of our community. They work uh you know most some don't have health care. They have to uh scramble to find daycare for their children. You all know because you you deal with human service agencies. The burden that is being placed upon our human service agencies and that burden transfers down to those people who can least afford it. They are tipped workers and they they rely on so much and they get so little and you all believe it or not from my perspective you have a lot and you would not be able to live under the conditions that most of the people who who are tipped work uh wage workers uh have. You know, I hear this talk about equity. And I work in the Chuco Latino communities and I see what's going on and I keep hearing this talk about equity and there's a thing called economic equity and just trying to to grab that and to let people live with dignity and have the economic freedom that they need is a is a a task that uh you are responsible for

at some regard. So, I'm just I'm just asking you to consider those people who are the backbone of our community. Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. All right. Now, we'll go to Lara Gonzalez and Eric Gross online and then Matt Kelly in person. Can you hear me? Yes.

Call me an anti-seat for critiquing Israel and for calling sanmism what it is, Jewish supremacy. Call me an anti-semite semite just for demanding to divest $ 38 million that you continue investing to murder children like Hindu who would have been eight years old this weekend if Israel would just have allowed the paramedics to come rescue her after killing her family members inside the car in front of her and was bleeding from her mouth. Not only did they not allow the paramedics to come in and help her, but they did they shot more than 300 times to her car, just like they didn't allow the paramedics to go in in the double tap at bomb attack to journalist Amal Khalil, where Israel's starting a second genocide in Lebanon. Israel has call me an anti-semite for saying that Israel has killed over 800 people since the so-called ceasefire in October. The life sentence today that was given to Muhammad Saleoman plus 2,000 years is so unjust. He committed an anti-sionist attack, not an anti-Semitic attack. And he made that clear during the day of the attack and he made it clear during the police report and he made it clear today. I quote him, "Yes, I am against is Israel and I can't deny that and that's my right." He also said he accepted being described as a coward, but he said, "I do not accept being accused of hatred, especially towards the Jewish community." Stop lying. You released a press release today that it was an anti-semitic attack. It's not. Call me an anti-semite for critiquing the local media for spreading lies about us demanding justice to end the modern Holocaust by doing such a small action as divesting $38 million a year. You have that power for lying about how Muhammad is portrayed as anti-semitic and he's made it clear that he's not. Sayionism is a death cult. Every time

the media lies, another child is murder in Palestine. Journalists like to say that he's an anti-semit or that I'm an anti-semit. But while they stay silent on the 206 journalist killed in if we can mute the mic. All right, we're going to go now to Eric Gross online and then Matt Kelly and Mary Hanowski in person.

Mayor, I do not see Eric online at the moment. Right, we'll go to Matt Kelly and and then the rest of our testifiers are in person. So that's Matt Kelly, Mary Hinowski, and Andy Hashman.

Good evening. My name is Matt Kelly and I am a resident of the city of Boulder. I'm here to speak against cutting wages for tipped workers. I am an adjunct lecturer at CU and I am very sensitive to how expensive it is to live here. So, I was disheartened to hear that the city was considering cutting wages for other lowincome earners in the area. Affordability is already the main focus of the midterm debates and Boulder, a city known as welcoming and progressive, is considering becoming less affordable. According to the city's own data presented by the city staff on April 2nd, the median bartender earns just over $17 an hour. In a city where the minimum w minimum living wage is $27 an hour, minimum wage should be increasing, not decreasing. I'm a recent arrival to Boulder and I was happy to learn about the city's increases to minimum wage in 2024. The city should build on this progress by protecting wages for its workers. Boulder can still become an affordable, economically democratic city and resist the path taken by places like Vale, a place of steep economic segregation where servers have to commute long distances to get to work. I do not deny that restaurants and small businesses are in trouble. The city should expend every effort to help them without making life harder for workers. One way to do this is to refocus the city's attention towards filling empty commercial spaces. This should go alongside plans to tax empty residential spaces. Why isn't the city studying these other options with as much detail as went into the 2024 minimum wage increase study? And why is the city turning against this 2024 decision when it hasn't even been two years since that decision was made? I asked the city not to cut wages for tiff workers. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much. And the next person is Mary Hinoski in person. Is she here? Okay, I don't see her. How about Andy Hashman?

Hi, thank you. My name is Andy Hashman. Um, I thank you council and the mayor for giving us, you know, the two minutes to speak. And I'm going to try to be brief. I'm here because I feel there's an epidemic going on in Boulder of contractors and homeowners building without permits because of the red tape laid out by the building and planning department. Um, I have here and I'm going to read you an excerpt from one of the responses that we got back for building a 15 by 15 covered space on the back of a home that has plenty of lot coverage. In fact, the calculations that we have left for lot coverage to use on this is roughly the size of this room. Um, so here here is what we got back. Okay. Uh the underlying issues of the survey plan preclude using the document to confirm to move forward. Please provide two items. Fresh freshly prepared site plan which is verbally based off a current and legible survey product drawn only to one scale with a measurement setback distances, lengths, whatever. There's there's a lot of that going on. And then also properly completed by a survey engineer the area declaration form. Um, I brought I'm sorry I was late. I couldn't figure out how to run the parking machine outside. Um, but I did bring some of these items which we did submit and they denied because frankly I don't know if the planning department has people that know what they're doing. Um, when we did the calculations two different ways, we were literally 1600 ft left of lot coverage, but we have to do a lot declaration form. the client, the homeowner, the Boulder taxpayer has to pay for a new survey, which is

roughly a thousand dollars, which we already had one. It's frustrating and you're missing out on a lot of tax dollars. Thank you. All right. Now, we'll go to Michelle Rodriguez, then Lucy Carlson Koff, and Leo Dornbush. Hi guys. First I want to say I I kind of resent that Lonzales is standing outside yelling in people's faces with a bullhorn right now on the way coming in. My blood pressure's out of whack. I think I mentioned last time I was here. I got a thing going on with my heart. I wanted to elaborate on that. It's it's not just with my heart. It's with my um mind remembering to breathe at night. couple hundred times a night I'm not breathing. Um and then I've got some procedures coming up pretty soon um that I'm not sure I'm going to be able to be sedated for. I know this is all I'm just back on the sedation thing, but this one outside starts yelling in front of these young children. I don't want to be part of everybody's trauma. I really need some time to speak with you guys. um if we can somehow set that aside. I know y'all are busy, but um I I've got a procedure I need to be able to have done in July. Um I had 12 precancerous polyps removed last July, and when they sedated me, I um is when I learned that I couldn't be sedated anymore because of that, I think the chemical sedation. And they said, "You got sleep apnnea and you're stopping breathing a couple hundred times a night." And then with that second sleep study, they said, "Uh, you got two things going on with your heart. So, forgive me when I come in here and I can't complete what I'm saying." And then I started some blood pressure medicine. But, um, yeah, there

just really needs to be further discussions on that. And I I really wish they would stop the harassment outside the building. Everybody has a right to be heard. And I I get it. I get her plight. Everybody's got their own things going on. And I apologize to this young lady and her baby that were had to go walk past that to get in here to speak tonight on the agenda. Thank you guys. Thank you. Now we'll go to Lucy Carlson Crackoff, Leo Dornbush, and Julie Xanheiser. Hi, I'm Lucy. Uh, first I'd like to discuss Boulder's minimum wage. By lowering wages, you may think that you are lowering restaurant and small business owners expenses, but you're actually just offloading them onto workers and in turn consumers in the whole community. The best way to support a thriving local economy is to pay people a living wage, which in Boulder for a family of two parents with two children is actually $38 an hour, expanding upon the 27 Paul had mentioned earlier from the same study Princeton and MIT. If you go through what is a wage cut, it will have the effect of further stressing already burdened workers and could have the effect of simply driving them out of Boulder's labor market, which constrains our ability to serve the community's consumers. Second, I'll address the airport. The city must never accept accept FAA grants that commit Boulder to maintain the airport in perpetuity. Boulder should maintain its own autonomy and be able to retire the airport when it determines it is best for our own city.

I find these two issues important because I am an optimist in our city's future and its present. Right now, just a few blocks away on Pearl, perhaps many tipped minimum wage workers are cooking, washing dishes, perhaps later even making your dinner and serving you. I care about these people and I'm rooting for them to have access to the life everyone in Boulder deserves. The dignity to work and then in turn the dignity to be able to be self-sufficient and thrive. I also support the vacancy tax. Thank you, Lucy. Thank you. Our last three speakers are Leo Dornbush, Julie Xanheiser, and Evan Rabbitz.

Just start peeking.

Uh, hi. My name is Leo Dorbrush. Of late, I've gotten quite interested in local politics, such as the two things I'm here to talk about today. the South Boulder Recreation Center and Mustard's Last Stand, both of which are possibly losing some things and possibly closing. My family is really into sports for so for the largest part of my life, I've been looking for a sport to stick to. I really fell in love with swimming at the South Boulder Rec Center. And just this year, I've started swimming year round, not at South, but at East. And still, I'm firmly against taking away the pool from the South Boulder Rec Center. The South Boulder Rec Center is a hub for our city, full of people living all around Boulder. I live in North Boulder, but plenty of my swimming learning has been at South Boulder Rec Center. And one day, I hope to swim for Fairview. I remember my parents telling me about the new city council's goals and I remember specifically the city council wanting Boulder to be a 15minute city. When I think about that, I think of all the stores andor facilities you go to on a regular basis being nearby. I can imagine you see it similarly. But doesn't that mean that the South Boulder community should have a rec center nearby with a pool and not have to drive to the East Boulder or North Boulder Rec Centers? I feel closing the pool at South Boulder Rec Center would be going against your own goals. It's confusing for me as a 12-year-old who is actually making the decisions about what happens to the South Boulder Rec Center. Is it city council or the city staff? So if you could clarify that I would be quite grateful. Also it feels like we have been debating this decision for a

long time. Is there any idea when we a decision will have clarity? With my time remaining I would like to have talk about the possible closure.

I'm afraid your time is up but thank you so much for your testimony. That was great. Okay. Uh now we have Julie Xanheiser and then Evan Ravitz. And I understand that Eric Gross is now online. Hi. Uh, I'm Julie Zheiser. I live in South Boulder, pretty near the South Boulder Rec Center. First, I want to thank you for all the work you do. And um I'm here to give a shout out to the climate initiatives department for hosting the fun, inspiring, and informative Earth Day community storytelling night with a great kickoff by Council Member Adams. I want to share a story from that night. Chargebug and the power of small shifts. Chargebug is a free renewable energy forecast app for iPhones and now available for Android created by an inspired Boulder mom engineer. Chargebug explain the Chargebug story explained why it matters when we use electricity. Did you know that Colorado's grid can go from nearly 90% renewable to nearly 90% fossilbased in a single day? This variability is an enormous opportunity. We can dramatically reduce our emissions simply by shifting some of our electricity use to times that are mostly from renewables. Did you know that midday is the cleanest and cheapest time to use electricity thanks to abundant solar energy? and that evenings from about 6:00 to 9:00 are the dirtiest and most expensive because renewables aren't usually available and natural gas is the main source of power at that time. Did you know that if EVs charge when the grid is dirtiest between 6:00 and 9,

they can double their emissions compared to charging at 10:00 a.m. or when the wind is blowing at night? The Chargeblug app shows if electricity is a clean or dirty. I'm not asking people to make huge changes, but I hope you will check out ChargeBug and consider shifting some of the time that you use renewables and thank you for your work. Appreciate it.

Thank you. All right. Is Evan Rabbitz here? All right. Doesn't look like it. So, our last speaker will be Eric Gross online. Hello, council. Okay, so you can hear me. Um, I want you to hear this very closely. Everything Lara Gonzalez said before was true. Uh, Israel was built by people that literally called themselves Jewish terrorists. And in light of that, and in light of the fact that next Friday is Nakba Day, which memorializes the basically mini genocide that Israel created in 1948 when it forced 750,000 Palestinians off their land permanently with no right to return. This is an article published on April 17th in Haret about statements from Israeli soldiers today, right now. I was sitting there in the command room. Suddenly, the soldiers on watch noticed five Palestinians crossing the line they weren't allowed to cross, heading for northern Gaza. Everybody went crazy. There was a big mess. The battalion commander gave an order to overwhelm them with fire, even though they hadn't been confirmed as armed or anything like that. A tank started shooting at them with its machine gun, hundreds of bullets. Four of the five Palestinians were killed. A few hours later, a D9 Caterpillar armored bulldozer buried them in the sand. So, your investments are directly responsible for helping murder and hide the murder of Palestinians by IDF soldiers. One more. One night, a Palestinian managed to get near the outpost. We set off on two Hummers. I commanded one of them and the American officer, the other. We got to the Palestinian and he immediately held up his hands. It was obvious he was unarmed. The officer came near him,

waited a few seconds, and just fired without asking questions, without the suspect doing anything. "This is murder. Just murder," one of the older officers said. "But they decided to do nothing, and they just swept it under the rug. They reported to Brigade HQ that a terrorist had been killed. This officer went on serving as if nothing had happened, and I didn't say anything to him." So they kill innocent people and then they report it as that they have killed.

All right, that brings us to the end of open comment. I want to thank the folks that came out to speak to us today and we also always really appreciate hearing from youth. So big thanks to Leo Dornbush for coming and addressing us tonight. Um I'll turn to city staff to see if you have responses to what you heard here tonight.

Thanks so much, mayor, and thanks to everyone who spoke. a couple of responses of things I heard. I know that um later on in the year you we will be talking a little bit more about tip credit and wages and so I'll wait until it's more appropriate time as we think about that. Um Trish, I want to thank you for the information you've provided. Um I know you've done tremendous work and worked a lot with uh Boulder PD. It made me think uh perhaps based on a recent uh meeting we had with our um with our uh youth board uh to think about ways in which students um can even get involved as well um particularly around downtown. So I'll follow up with you on that. Um I want to say Michelle, I'm always sorry to hear uh of your uh health issues. I'll make sure that we find some time real soon. Um I'll have Amy reach out um to know a little bit more about your situation. Um, but hoping you're keeping healthy as healthy as you can be. Um, I will say um to uh Andy who I think has left uh oh there you are Andy. Um my commitment I don't know the details of your situation but my commitment is to take a look at it and meet with staff see what's going on and council I'm happy to um let you know what that situation is but I'll be following up directly with you. Um, I will say we also heard a little bit about the airport. I know um that we committed um at the study session to come back to council and think about um additional ways to talk about it. I will tell community we are uh and I said so at the study session we are not immediately have a FA grant in mind. we are not immediately looking to do um to receive a grant but the financial our financial ability to support the airport is important to know uh and that is dependent on what the future use is going to be. So we will continue I think

to have conversations about that. I will say as I think about the conversations and perhaps some comments I hear about staff whether it is the airport or I've heard it from parks or perhaps permitting tonight. We have staff that are inordinately professional are really working hard to make things work in the city to serve its community. I realize that we may not always agree on where we come out, but our staff is so committed to public service, so committed to you, and I caution um everyone from thinking that we are trying to skew or bias or uh not provide the totality of information. That is not who we are. Uh and we will continue to try to provide as much information as we have at our disposal at all times. And I just to staff out there that's listening, know that I see you. I know what amazing public servants you are and I appreciate what you do each and every day.

Thanks, Teresa. I just echo Nura's um thanks and sentiments. Thanks. Any uh questions for staff from council members? I got Matt.

Yeah, I have a clarifying question. I know Nur you mentioned that we'll obviously be talking about tipped uh minimum wage later on, but I just wanted to clarify because I've been hearing uh comments tonight about that somewhere where there's proposals to cut uh the wage and I just wanted to sort of clarify that of the proposals that we've as a council have asked to move forward for consideration. Do any of those proposals actually cut the tipped minimum wage from what it is today? Uh no. uh they uh there is a status quo option, there is a desire to look at different um tip offsets um and so with regard to your question about um reducing tipped credit that would not be accurate. Thank you.

Just that last thing you said n I believe it was there was nothing that would reduce the tipped minimum wage. Sorry that is correct. Great. Yeah. Change but a change to the tip credit is under consideration. Yes. Okay. Um, I have a I've got a question for you. We had one of the the people who spoke talked about a a desire to split a lot with um, but the the numbers were just slightly off. Could we follow up with that individual and see if is there an opportunity to apply to BOSA or any other flexibility? I'm happy to. We will send an email and we'll follow up.

I appreciate that because um, it's always good to have some flexibility if possible. Any other questions for city staff?

No, I just qual on that comment, mayor. I was going to ask that as well. You know, we have so many conversations here around making adjustments for height modifications. I think it's rather ironic that I see lots of those getting passes passed. But then something that is um you know related to the the the scenario that the gentleman had recom had had proposed um going back to flexibility um and certainly if that flexibility accelerates our current goals um around moving away or moving towards uh more def more affordable more family friending familyfriendly ho housing uh certainly want to make sure that that's on the table. So, I appreciate that question and I too am interested. Thank you.

Great. Um, we now council members have the opportunity to speak for 30 seconds if they would like to anything that in open comment. Does anybody want to do that? Ta.

Um, I just wanted to say thank you again to those uh who came to speak on the tip tipped wage offset or whatever the appropriate terminology is. You know what I'm talking about. Um, again, we continue, we the city continue to have a disproportionate amount of data as it relates to the impacts on restaurants versus tip, those who actually make um their money on tipped. So the um anecdotal information that you're sharing is critical, especially since the council agenda committee on a vote from 2 to 1 is my understanding approved a public um hearing that's going to happen in July when many of our or rather this summer when many of our university students whom um many of whom are also tipped owners uh will not be there and although the option to give testimony virtually is available. Um we know that that is not as reliable and valid as having the in-person option. So again, it's going to be really really critical um that you continue to share your ex lived experience with our fellow council members in writing or via public comment. Thank you.

Thanks. Um I will go ahead and speak. Uh, one of the people who spoke tonight um spoke in what I heard as defense of the person who committed uh the uh firebombing attack that killed one of our community members last year and severely injured many others. And I just want to say that I'm uh glad that that sentencing happened today and I feel like speaking in support of him on today was a really unfortunate and um to me unacceptable thing to do. That's all I got. All right. Seeing nothing else, then that's the end of our open comment period. I'm I'll call a 10-minute recess and we'll reconvene for the business portion of our meeting at 8:00 PM.

here. All right. Our next item is a declaration item 3A, the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Declaration to be presented by Council Member Adams. Taiisha, if you would please. Okay, thank you so much. The National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons, May 5th, uh, 2026. The city of Boulder acknowledges the city is on the ancestral homelands and unseated territory of indigenous peoples and tribal nations who have traversed, lived in, and sorted lands in the Boulder Valley since time immemorial. This includes the Apache, the Arapjo, the Cheyenne, the Comanche, the Kawa, the Panei, the Shosonyi, the Sue, the Ute, and the Utto Natal peoples. The city refutes past justifications for the colonization of indigenous lands and acknowledges a legacy of oppression that has caused intergenerational trauma to indigenous peoples, tribal nations, and their homelands as well as the ecosystem. Indigenous people are at a disproportionate risk of experiencing violence, murder, trafficking, including sex trafficking or going missing. make and making up a significant portion of the missing and murdered cases reported to the Colorado Division of Criminal

Justice. On this missing and murdered indigenous persons awareness day, we we re reaffirm our commitment to honor the lives of m of murdered and missing indigenous persons, including women, girls, and two spirit individuals and continue to shine a light on egregious and unconscionable treatment towards and against indigenous peoples. More than four out of five indigenous people have experienced violence in their lifetime, including more than half who have experienced sexual violence and as many as 85% of indigenous twospirit individuals who fulfill one of many mixedgender roles traditionally found in many indigenous groups have been a have been a victim of violence. Many indigenous people continue to experience systemic and individual discrimination. And indigenous women, girls, and two spirit individuals experience highly disproportionate levels of life-threatening and gender-based violence, trauma, and exploitation. Surrounding indigenous nations continue to experience the loss of loved ones. and we stand in solidarity with the families in Colorado and across Canada and the United States who have missing and murdered family members. We the city council of the city of Boulder, Colorado declare ma May 6th, 2026 as the national day of awareness for missing and murdered indigenous persons in the city of Boulder and encourage uh in the city of Boulder and encourage we in the city of Boulder encourage all residents to educate themselves and increase their awareness of the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous people in Colorado as well as we encourage Boulder law enforcement to learn about Colorado specific missing and murdered indigenous

people's issues, history, and be proactive in timely searches, responses in their duty, and investigations with cultural sensitivity. Finally, through this declaration, we hope to inspire city departments and staff to take active steps to recognize the root causes and ongoing harms of the missing and murdered indigenous people's crisis and solidify processes and policies to address the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous people. This declaration has been signed by our mayor, uh, Mayor Aaron Brockett. Thank you so much. and we have comments from representatives of um Harvest of All First Nations as well as Community Connectors and our incredible DASA group. I'll go ahead and turn it over um to Andrea to talk first.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Good evening to each each and every one of you. Um, I first want to call up and honor the ancestors of the land here. Uh, that we're mentioning that land acknowledgement, but also explaining my background as an Aztec Mishikica woman and how we were related to the Shosonyi and the youth people as well. So, thank you for that and thank you uh, Boulder County Commissioners for recognition and awareness of the murder and missing indigenous people and women. We appreciate the acknowledgement but the acknowledgement is not enough. Let this not to become another checkbox that the land acknowledgement the land acknowledgement has become. We must recognize that it was until 1819 that the first boarding school was enforced to implement the kill the Indian save the man mentality and with that changing completely the women's role into the home the family and tribes where women became a tool of abuse sexual objects and property indigenous lives especially indigenous women cannot become symbolically talking points I have personally experienced myself domestic violence inequity practices until this day seeing the oppression that takes place in this county and despite the great efforts that are trying to open up a path of reparations erasure and lack of sense of place still remains with us within the county and the city we are living in times that demand stronger allyship equity and encourage encouraged and it's time to take action that could be demonstrated through system change. We need to create accessibility for indigenous people in Boulder County through financial accessibility, economic opportunities,

spaces where indigenous communities feel safe, speaking the truth, cultural community spaces, land access, healthy food. The call is for real action beyond ceremonies and proclamations because I'm going to let you know that Boulder people love to play shaman and ceremony without the blood and shed that sacrifice that caused our people to make them prevail. My community enders a personal case close to our heart where a white man actually sexual abuse conducting a ceremony from our people to an indigenous woman and that indigenous woman didn't dare to even try to charge any press any charges because she thought and she know that she wasn't going to be heard with that. Boulder County is unfortunately vast of multiple false shamans and healers, exploitation of indigenous culture, abuse of women of color and indigenous women through misuse of spiritual power. And again, thanks to the ma, thanks again to the mayor that created this acknowledgement and for creating awareness and acknowledgement. And at the same time, I ask, what does real enforcement and accountability looks like? Let's think about that. What true reparations look like. I encourage policies and actions that are not patronizing but transformative. Representation matters. More indigenous people in leadership. More people of color in positions of power. More voices for impacted communities in councils and decisions making places. We must start creating consciousness and understand that awareness must become in action. Equity must be structural. Indigenous communities deserve safety, dignity, and

true inclusion. I believe that we are the right at the right time where a true path of reparations can be made which may not heal 200 to 500 years of harm and ongoing genocide. But believe on I believe also on the way that you all can learn more to make it right at this time. So I thank you so much for the intention for the efforts and I really hope that this is an opportunity for us to not be silent anymore but actually to be heard. So thank you. And there's going to be actually um an opportunity for other indigenous people to participate in a self-defense class that is held by hear us now um see us now and that's going to be at the indigenous um Indian center on May 16. So thank you for your attention.

Thank you so much. Oh no you can stay up here. Stay up here. also the executive director of harvest of all first nation uh which has lots of volunteer opportunities had the opportunity to volunteer at growing gardens where they have a plot um but again it is about deepening those relationships so thank you so much for that um also now turning over to Gabby one of our community connectors and a member of the Dansa community

actually before I go on I want to hear more of your story because you know I've worked in policy here in the city of Boulder and in the local area and we've seen the government kind of co-op and say yes this is something that we did and I just want to clarify that story because it's you and the work govern Milar Chakon in Commerce City if you could share on on why

how this all happened very briefly happy to share that um uh former council member Renee Chakon in Commerce City created um a a similar dem declaration A couple of years ago, um a community member last month asked for our city to consider something like that and submitted not only um that declaration as an example, but also the city of Longmont um also approved a declaration in 20 uh this past year in April. Um and so again, just to acknowledge one um the leadership of Renee Chaon as well as um the our fellow council members for their approval um on this declaration and to your comments around moving up uh moving beyond acknowledgements. You'll notice in this declaration a specific call out to the Boulder to the Boulder Police Department in making sure that they are getting the necessary training. As a former commissioner for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, I was very happy to hear that our officers did receive that training and was surprised to learn that the city of Boulder has yet to receive that training. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you all. Good evening. My name is Tonalito or Gabriela Galindo. Um quite honestly, it's it's hard to be on this side. I've interacted with many of you with you just last week and council member Nicole Spears, she's not here today and and you from time to time. So, um but it's still challenging to be up here and just recognizing the absence of other native and indigenous relatives here and our two spirit relatives. Um our community had done that tonight, but they're in prayer with us tonight as well. Um as well as midwiffery justice. Um, Tuesday was midwife uh midwife day and they were at the cap also to call for more justice and more equity and reparations towards the tradition of w of midwifery um that has been here for tens of hundreds of thousands of years um to bring life in a much more natural and sustainable and earth-based way. Um I'm a commu community connector. I'm also a nonprofit leader with FLOs and have worked mostly with the city around climate and environmental and social justice. And it's been challenging because, you know, this is this is great. It's bittersweet, but it's also just one of hundreds of thousands of initiatives that the city of Boulder needs to take to reconcile and to repair and to restore and restorative justice and all of the ways that a settler colonial nation needs to do to repair their ongoing harms and genocide against native and indigenous people here. And it is challenging to be up here because as I've I've mentioned and I'm not shy to say that the reason that this building exists is because of the displacement and the genocide of native and indigenous peoples. And anytime that we have an opportunity to repair that harm, whether it's here or in Palestine

or anywhere, uh we must we must take that. That's a challenge for all of you. Um, and I just want to reference the conversation that we had to last last week. It was very challenging, but we dove into really really important topics uh that are really sensitive to our hearts. And I remember that I was talking about the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and how much uh reparations and land back to indigenous peoples was not in there. We have a lot of other good things in there, but we still need that. and we started talking about flock or rather we've been hearing that concern about flock in our communities and it was mentioned that the Boulder community feels safer right but for communities who are targeted for indigenous and native communities and black communities that means more criminalization more persecution and more state and city sanctioned trafficking of indigenous women and you brought up well you know, we really need this. If somebody gets kidnapped, we want to be able to track them easier, to find them easier. And I really want us and encourage you to shift that to see that these systems are going to perpetuate more trafficking, more disappearances, more criminalization, more putting our people that have long been here as an indigenous Mexican woman who has my indigenity from here has been erased. That that's what these systems do. That's part of this proclamation here for justice for murdered and missing indigenous women and two spirit relatives. And I encourage all of you and all of you here to be mindful of what is the safety for you is the harm and further persecution and criminalization and disappearance and erasure of our people.

So I ask us all for that mindfulness and this bill has some teeth in it. Let's use that action. Let's listen to the most impacted community members and um stop these injustices. Thank you. Thank you very much. I know that it's very difficult to have those conversations, but there's no other way around it. Thank you for my council members for holding space for those hard conversations. I don't believe that there's another way around it. Um, and again, I appreciate the city's commitment to do our best to um reduce the incidences of missing and murdered indigenous people and uh two spirits. Um, and again, thank you very much for coming um and being a part of our communities. Um, I look forward and we look forward to continued efforts to make sure that everyone um feels seen, valued, and heard and most importantly safe. Thank you.

Right. Thank you. Thanks to you both for coming and for speaking today. Thanks for

appreciate you. Usually somebody takes a photo. Thank you, city manager. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thanks again. All right. We are going to move on to our consent agenda now. Please, if we could.

All right, Elish, if we can go to the consent agenda, please. Yes, sir. Thank you. Our consent agenda is item number four on tonight's agenda and it consists of items 4 A through D and F through L and item E was previously removed. All right. Any questions or comments on the consent agenda? Go ahead. Is this the best opportunity to talk about the ATB or should we do that at the second reading? Um well, we will have a public hearing on the second reading, so we can address everything at that time if that works. That works fine.

Okay. I I'll just make a quick comment um about item I, which is amending the rules of procedures for the beverage licensing authority. Uh that seemed like a common sense change to make that process smoother and more efficient for both staff and applicants. So, I wanted to appreciate the um board and staff for bringing that forward. Anything else? Or perhaps a motion.

I move the consent agenda. Second. We got a motion. Second. If we can do a roll call, please see the show. Second. Thank you, sir. We'll start the roll call for the consent agenda items 4 A through 4 D and F through L with Mayor Brackett. Yes. Council member Kaplan, yes. Shuhart, yes. Wallik, yes. Mayor Pro Tim Winer, yes. Council member Adams, yes. And Benjamin, yes. The consent agenda is hereby approved unanimously.

Great. Thank you. All right, it's time to move to item five, our call-up check-ins. We got a lot of them. So, buckle in and let's start with the first one.

And I have water on standby, too, sir. Our cons our call-up check-ins are item number five on tonight's agenda. 5A is the consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application to construct a new approximately 800 square foot accessory building at 409 Mountain View Road. This is referenced under HIS 2026-000035. a non-contributing property in the Mapleton Hill historic district pursuant pursuant to section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 and under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3 quasi judicial hearings of the BRC.

Any questions or comments or desire to call this one up? Seeing none, I'm going to move through these pretty quick. Let's go to item B, please. Item B is also a landmark alteration certificate application consideration to relocate a building, the Chestnut House at 21106 Arapjo Avenue referenced under HIS 2026000045, a pending individual landmark. It is also pursuant to the sections of the voter revised code as previously noted in 5A. Questions or comments? We're wanting to call this one up. Seeing none, let's move on, please.

5C is the also a consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application to relocate a building, the Arapjo House at 21106 Arapjo Avenue referenced under HIS 2026-0046, a pending individual landmark, pursuant to also the sections listed in the Boulder Revised Code under 5A. Anything on this one? Not seeing any. Let's go to the next one, please.

5D is the consideration of a site review for a height modification only for an addition to an existing detached dwelling unit at 1039 Mapleton Avenue. Anything on this one? Don't see any. Move on, please. 5e. Consideration of an outside city utility permit request for the property located at 1420 Cherryville Road. Case number LUR 2024 00000058. Anything on this one? Seeing none, let's go to the last one, please.

Last but not least, sir. 5F. the concept plan review and comment on a proposed redevelopment at 1050, 1004, 990, 986, and 976 Arapo Avenue for permanently affordable senior housing. The existing Presbyterian Manor building at 1050 Arapjo Avenue would remain. The project would involve combining four existing lots with the larger parcel and constructing a new 60-unit, three-story structure. This is reviewed under case number LUR2026-00001.

Questions or comments on this one or desire to call it up? Matt, I haven't decided whether to call it up. I think there's some outstanding questions to to bring up and I wonder if staff could help answer some of those questions in in preparation for any sort of deliberation on whether to call it up or not. Is that fair?

Sure. Yeah. Ask ask a couple questions. So, what's been made sort of clear about this project is one a timing question regarding perhaps some low-income housing tax credits as well as a demo permit and how that maybe plays in to the overall process planning and timing and execution for this project. Um, and knowing how sensitive low-income housing tax credits are and demo and displacement, there's just a lot of those curiosities. So, I'm just wondering, and I believe maybe the applicant also sent an email that maybe sort of addressed some of those issues or at least posed them. So, I'm just wondering if staff could answer a process question about would calling up or not calling up add any added benefit to creating any remedies to these issues or are these issues perhaps code changes that calling it up or not is largely independent of that. And so, I just sort of want to get some clarity before we make a decision.

Uh, thank you for the question. Uh, Council Member Benjamin Brian Mueller, Planning and Development Services Director. um those really are independent items. We recognize that there are, you know, timing issues that can come up, but given that the application's already in place, any changes to the code and such would not be applicable to the case at hand. Uh there are a number of other things that um you know are being facilitated in sensitivity to that. Uh I might ask uh Marcy Garrick to to speak to that and and elaborate on that a little bit if if you have additional questions.

Well, I guess there's a question if if that is an if the issue with a um demo permit and having a year in which to um do that demolition when the project itself may be, you know, two three years out. Is there in any situation, I get that changing that would be a code change, but is there any scenario in our process that maybe allows an extension of that demo permit or anything to kind of give a little bit of of wiggle room or are we really talking about this is going to be sort of scraped land for a few years until the project gets underway? Mercy, can you maybe speak to the history of the recent code change that was done

this six months? Uh good evening, council. Marcy Gering, uh principal planner in planning and development services. Um so one clarification is that the historic preservation demolition approval is valid for one year and that's what it states in the code and then you have one year to apply for the deconstruction permit and then you have a year or two to actually take the buildings down. Um so the code does provide one year for that. So it would be a code change to extend that beyond a year.

So if I understand there's extensions. So to do the demo, you'd still have to dis you'd have to vacate the premises within those years regardless of any extensions you get. Do I understand that correctly or or not? I I think extension is not the correct term because there's two separate approvals. The historic preservation approval is valid for one year. You have one year to then apply for the deconstruction permit which then has its own timeline. Okay. So whether we call it up or not, this is not in the remedy of of that time frame. Correct. Independent of the concept plan call up. Okay. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Um any other questions on that? I'll I'll put in one comment which is um I thought the planning board's review was excellent on this. They had some great comments. Uh this is a very promising project and I understand uh it has the landmarking approvals to move forward although we'll see one of those on the call before too long so I won't speak to it in the substance but um seems like it's on a good track so I don't see the need to call this up. I have a followup.

Yeah. Um if we do not call this up are we then is it no longer in a quasi judicial state? That's maybe a question for our city attorney. I'm just wondering if there'd be a place to make a comment about that because I I don't want to make a comment if it's inappropriate during a quasi judicial phase. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar enough with the procedure that we're in. I understand that right now there's a call-up decision, but I think there's other matters pending before this council. It if I might say that we will have a quasi judicial decision about the landmark review that's also on this project. So you you might stay.

That's what I was referring to. Okay. Yeah. So that's what I was referring to. I'll hold my comments till following that landmark decision. Thank you. Okay. So does anybody want to call this one up? All right. Seeing no one, then we won't call that up either and we can move on to our first public hearing, please.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Our public hearings are item number six on tonight's agenda. 6A is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8741 designating the property at 745 University Avenue, City of Boulder, Colorado to be known as the polls and registration house as an individual landmark under chapter 9-11 historic preservation BRC 1981 and setting forth related details. Thank you so much. And for this item, we are going to go uh straight to Marcy Gerwing, who's our principal historic preservation planner.

All right. Thank you. And good evening, council members. Um this is a timely landmark designation as May is historic preservation and archaeology month. And I would like to extend a thank you for Mayor Brockett for um supporting a national register nomination for the OT and Sadi Jackson house which will be going forward to the state review board in a couple weeks. Um and uh with that let me move to tonight's landmark designation hearing. Uh so as I said I'm Marcy Gerwing, principal historic preservation planner in the planning and development services uh department. I'll begin by going through the quasi judicial uh process. First council members will note any exparte context you have with this uh project at 745 University Avenue. And I'll pause here. I have been inside that house and visited with the residents. Uh but that will not affect my ability to make an impartial decision. It was not related to this landmark hearing to be clear.

Thank you.

All right. Hearing no others. Uh staff will then give a presentation followed by the owner's presentation. The public hearing is then open for community member comments. And after the last public comment, the owner will have the opportunity to respond to anything that was said. Council members may ask questions between each of these steps. After council questions, the public comment portion of the hearing is closed and council discusses the decision. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least five members to pass and motions must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. Finally, a record of the hearing is kept by staff. The criteria for your decision this evening is found in section 9116 of the Boulder Revised Code and that is focused on whether the designation meets the purposes and standards in subsection 911A and section 9112 of the Boulder Revised Code in balance with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Looking at those two code sections, the first defines the purpose of the historic preservation code, which is to preserve, protect, and enhance historically significant buildings in areas of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, or people, and to develop and maintain appropriate settings to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage. The second provides the types of designations council may pass, including individual landmarks on a single site containing spe a special character in historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. And the third part of the criteria for your decision asks whether the designation is in balance with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which sets a vision for future development and preservation in the city of Boulder and Boulder County. The options in front of you this evening are to approve the designation, modify and approve the designation, or deny the

designation. If designated, the property will become Boulder's 22nd individual landmark, and future exterior changes will be reviewed through a landmark alteration certificate. The owners will receive a bronze plaque and be eligible for state uh historic preservation tax credits. This property was nominated by the owners Celeste Landry and Eric Cornell who purchased the property in 1999. They raised their family here and after 25 years in the house reached out to historic preservation staff to learn more about landmark designation. Celeste and Eric are truly stewards of this house. As Celeste welcomed us into their home, she referenced a notebook where she has recorded their own history in the house. Maintenance and improvement, but also when past owners have come and knocked on the door. Each member of their family is accomplished in their own right. And one of the most fulfilling parts of this process was making connections between Celeste's own work and her role that her own house has played in that history. So, this application came in near Thanksgiving of last year and on May 7th, the landmarks board unanimously voted to recommend landmark designation of the property. First reading of the ordinance was on April 2nd and that brings us to the public hearing tonight. The property is located on the north side of University Avenue, midblock between 7th and 8th Streets. The house is on the north side of the street with Gregory Creek running along the east side of the property. The area has a number of other turn of the century houses nearby and is located within the boundaries of the potential expanded Highland lawn historic district. The house was constructed in 1907 and is example of the Eduardian vernacular style popular in Boulder at the turn of the 20th century. Has a front gabled roof with flared eaves, a shallow gable roof spor gable porch that spans the width of the facade and includes half

timberine and stucco in the gable end. The upper story is clad in painted scallop shingles and the windows have stone sills and arched headers. The property is eligible for individual landmark designation based on its historic, architectural, and environmental significance. The house has had a number of owners over its last 118 years. A remarkable piece of its history is that it was used as a municipal polling place for two decades before voting booths were centralized at the county courthouse. This is especially meaningful to the current owners as Celeste is actively involved in state and local politics, especially with the League of Women Voters. In addition to being the place neighbors came to vote, the House was also the location for caucuses, both Democratic and uh Republican, and as a registration day location where young men entered into service for World War I. In 1917, the House hosted no fewer than four municipal elections. The first to ask voters if the city should develop a charter, the second to choose committee members to draft the charter, and a third to ask voters to adopt the charter. The charter created an atlarge council elected through the hair system of preferential voting, now commonly called proportional ranked voting and in Colorado statutes as a single transferable vote. After the city charter was adopted, new council members were elected in the fourth mun municipal election of 1917 in which Ida may Ida M. Campbell was elected Boulder's first female council member. The house is architecturally significant as a good example of Eduardian vernacular architecture and its pressed red brick and quality of the masonry is notable. And as for environmental significance, Gregory Creek follows the east property line at the front of the property, creating an unusual and unique site with this stone retaining wall. The

surrounding area retains its historic character, and as I mentioned, is included in a potential historic district. Staff in the landmarks board recommend that the house be named the polls and registration house to recognize the property's use as an election location for ward 3 precinct three for two decades and that the boundary be established to follow the property lines of the lot which is consistent with current and past practices in the national register guidelines for establishing landmark boundaries. Uh staff in the landmarks board recommend the city council adopt ordinance 8741 and designate the property as an individual landmark to be known as the polls and res registration house. That concludes our staff presentation and I welcome any questions you may have. I'd also like to welcome the owners Eric who is here in person and uh Celeste who's here online. Um and with that thank you.

Thanks so much Marcy. Any questions for city staff? Not seeing any. Um, does the applicant or the owners want to speak at all tonight? I believe Celeste would like to if she is here online. She is online and I can promote and uh I can ask at least to promote her. Great. She's been promoted.

Hello everybody.

Hello. Uh actually two of you have been in my home at least because Tara Winer was also in the house when when Mayor Brockett was there. So um and I showed them the language in an old copy of the city charter that talked about the preferential voting uh known as the hair system. and the benefits of it and um I'm very happy that the city council is considering this uh landmarking. Um I I will say that uh yes two days ago uh Lafayette had a an item on their meeting agenda, their council meeting agenda to consider moving to a proportional voting method for their council elections. No, no votes, just learning about it. And uh Longmont also uh is looking into moving to a proportional ranked voting for some of their council seats. Um the city of Boulder was the second city in the nation to adopt proportional ranked voting. Um, and we did it from 1917 to 1947. Uh, we stopped using it the same time New York City stopped using proportional ranked voting and that was the time of the uh, Red Scare, the McCarthy era, and people were worried about political diversity, particularly communists getting elected. So, there was an effort to get rid of diversity on city

councils. Um, the the city council description on the city's website talks about uh rank choice voting being used for the first time to elect the mayor in 2023. Um but uh actually rank choice voting was also used. I mean rank choice voting is an umbrella term and it includes this proportional ranked voting and it was used and people voted in my home using that voting method. So um I'm happy to answer any questions about this. Uh, I'm very excited that the city is um seems inclined to uh mark this house as a historic house. And um that's what I have to say. I'm sorry. Uh Nicole Spear is not in the council chambers because she and I wrote uh a guest opinion in February suggesting we adopt proportional representation for county commissioner elections. So you can see I'm kind of passionate about this topic.

Thanks so much for that, Celeste. Um any questions for the owners? Not seeing any. Then we're going to go to our public hearing next. We have two people signed up to speak. Each of them will get three minutes. And they are Lynn Seagull and then Tim Plass. So serendipitous. Stunning. Um, yes, of course. And you know, to preserve our democracy, proportional voting, runoff, elections, and voting reform. The best thing we need to do is to free Palestine.

Okay. Please speak only to the landmarking designation. This is the subject matter. It is absolutely the subject matter of proportional representation and runoff voting and democracy in the world which is at the expense of the Palestinians and that's not okay. I'm going to end your time because you need to speak to the matter and only you are quiet in the audience. Quiet in the audience here. You can quiet in the audience. Quiet in the audience. Your time. But we're going to move on to the next speaker now.

All right. Quiet in the audience. All right. So Tim Plass is our second and final speaker. Leave me alone. Leave me alone.

Hi, Tim Plaz. I'm executive director of Historic Boulder and I'm here tonight to support the city council making 745 Arapjo I'm sorry 745 University uh our 22nd individual landmark and I want to extend our gratitude uh at historic Boulder to the homeowners Celeste Landry and Eric Cornell for coming forward to landmark their house and while it's clear that the architecture and the level of integrity of this house merit landmarking I was really taken with the history associated with it. And I I've known Celeste for quite a while and many of our connections involve voting, not surprisingly. Uh whether it be her involvement with the Boulder uh County Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, or advocating for rank choice voting, or as a candidate for Secretary of State, now asking for votes. So, there's a lot of voting that's involved with this. And I think just listening to her comments tonight, you could tell how passionate she is about that. So the association of this house with elections and voting seems just such a good fit. Even the proposed name, the polls and registration house seems so fitting. Um I think one of the underappreciated benefits of landmarking is how much you can learn about the history of your house and its previous inhabitants. And I'm also wondering whether this is the first landmark in the city where a Nobel laurate has lived. don't know. Uh it's very exciting to see this move forward and I hope you pass this tonight. Thank you.

Thanks so much. Well, that ends the public testimony portion of that agenda item. So now I'll bring it back to council for any discussion or even a motion on the matter in front of us. Mark, uh this is an easy one. um delighted to have an easy one for change and uh I support it entirely.

Yeah, I know. I think this is a great one. I I think what wasn't mentioned really that clearly, but I just want to give credit to Eric, one of our Nobel Prize winners here in our community. So, you know, bring putting physics on the map and continuing that great legacy in our community is is exceptionally important. Um so, thank you for being part of the legacy not just in Boulder, but for those home as well. So, appreciate it. Since I was at Celeste's house, can I make that motion then? Please. Awesome.

I want to make a motion to adopt ordinance 8741 designating the property at 745 University Avenue, city of Boulder, Colorado, to be known as the polls and registration house as an individual landmark under the city of Boulder historic preservation ordinance and setting forth related details. I'll second.

Great. Do you want to speak to your motion? It was a privilege. I'm looking up here at Celeste, but I know you're not up there, so forgive me, but that's where our camera is. It was a privilege to be at your house with Mayor Brackett that day and to hear all about it. It was really exciting and I'm excited to be a part of this as well.

Great. Um, did you want to speak to the second? I'm just really excited to have another house like this in Boulder that's just so historic and is so rich in history and I'm really grateful that you brought it forth to the landmark uh commission to have it registered. Thank you so much.

And I'll uh call on myself and to say that I very much support this uh both for the design quality of the house, the rich history associated with it, uh the voting history in particular, and also for being the uh residents of eminent community members Celeste Landry and Eric Cornell. So, thanks so much the two of you for bringing this forward. And with that, I don't see any other hands raised. So, let's go ahead and have a roll call vote, please. Elicia. Yes, sir. And as your election official, I'm honored to take this roll call. We'll start the roll call for the adoption of ordinance 8741 with council member Kaplan. Yes. Shuhard,

yes. Wallik, I. Mayor Pro Tim Winer, yes. Council member Adams, yes. Benjamin, yes. And Mayor Brockett, yes. The adoption of ordinance 8741 is hereby approved unanimously. Fantastic. Well, thanks again and congrat congratulations to Celeste and Eric. Really appreciate you. All right, that brings us to our last agenda item, public hearing 6B.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Item 6P on tonight's agenda is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8745 amending title 7 vehicles, pedestrians and parking, title nine land use code and title 10 structures BRC1 1981 to fix errors, clarify existing code and amend certain height use form and general land use code standards. and setting forth related details.

Thank you so much. E, we call this uh the omnibus code amendment. It is a place in which we uh do some clarifying, some cleanup, um some really sort of housekeeping things that are important but in our code. I I want to say that it is unfortunate that there was an article in the paper that spoke about today's item as changing our height restrictions. It caused a great amount of concern in community. You all received a lot of emails. We received a lot of emails. I want to make sure that the public and community knows that that is not uh part of this ordinance. You will hear a little bit about um some ability to shift uh the height of certain of our three-story buildings that are currently at 35 ft up to 55. There is no change nor desire to change anything in our charter about our height of limit. So please everyone rest assured with that. I will pass it over to Lisa, I think, uh, for the presentation.

Thanks, Naru. Good evening, council. My name is Lisa Hood. I'm a principal planner with Planning and Development Services. I, um, will give the presentation on ordinance 8745, the omnibus code amendment. So, we're calling it the Omnibus because, um, omnibus means something of many parts. And so, if you saw your packet, there's a number of different topics that are addressed in the omnibus. As Nuria mentioned, um about every year we do kind of a cleanup ordinance. This one includes both cleanup clarifications and then also some discrete substantive changes that I will go over through this presentation. The proposed changes in the omnibus um include, like I said, corrections, clarifications, issues of consistency, making sure that we're consistent with state requirements or our own existing city practices. And then also there's lessons learned. So um there are some issues that have emerged as we've implemented previous ordinances to actual development projects um that we wanted to address through this ordinance as well. Um as you all uh might be familiar council has adopted 25 different ordinances in the last 5 years that have amended the land use code. Um, and so there's been a lot of work that's been done um, over the last few years and inevitably that means that there will be some cleanup and clarification um, corrections that need to happen just when you're amending anything. Um the way that I have um organized this presentation and also in the memo is um just so it's not just a total smattering of random topics is I've grouped them by a few of the kind of major ordinances that were adopted in the last few years. Um so I'll go through them like that and then I've also on the slides you'll see the little triangle next to some of the topics. Those are the ones that are kind

of more substantive or substantial. The others would be the clarifications, corrections types of things. So, I wanted to make sure you're aware of every every different change that's in the um the the package. So, I'm going to go through each one of them briefly. Um but if you have any more questions or clarifications that you want on any of them, I'm happy to elaborate. So, we'll start with the use table and standards project. Um many of you were on council when we adopted um three different ordinances that changed our use table and standards. Um so one of the changes related to the use table that's in the ordinance before you tonight is removing some combined floor area limits for office uses. This was something that was adopted by council in 2019. Um it it was a related to a concern about too much office use in our business districts. Um and so we added this combined floor area limit. We've now had seven years of implementing this um combined floor area limit and have found that it it isn't really working as intended. Um although it had good intentions. Um essentially the what it really does is create this um burden for essentially small business owners that are coming in for their business license. They might be opening a 900 foot office, but because of this rule, they have to figure out how many um how much leasable space is used for office uses in an entire shopping center or office space um or office building. It's a really big administrative burden that we have to put on these small business owners. Um and that's really the main outcome of this. And so, um and it's also a big administrative burden on staff to check those numbers. And so it's really just not working as intended. Also, it was something that was passed in 2019 before there was a very significant shift in office and commercial leasing. Um so staff is

recommending that that combined floor area limit be removed and that's the um one of the main substantive ones in this um topic. Also, this isn't a substantive change, but um the omnibus amendment includes clarifying a requirement for accessory dwelling unit or ADU utilities. Boulders allowed ADU since the early 80s. Um and we've always required that the utilities are shared between the ADU and the principal dwelling unit. Um, we did a major update of the ADU uh regulations in 2018 where we removed an explicit requirement that was in the land use code that said that because it was duplicative, we have that requirement in our design and construction standards, which is our engineering requirements. However, that's caused some confusion. Um, so we do think this is one of those lessons learned where it does make more sense to have that in the land use code as well. Um, so again, not substantive, but maybe a little more substantial than a cleanup. uh related to corrections, cleanups, things like that. Uh relocating some standards for service of vehicle uses from a definition to um the actual use standards. If you've ever read our mobile food vehicle or food truck standards before, you'll know it's one of our most complicated parts of the code. Um and so we're anticipating future work on that, but just for now, um reorganizing it so it's at least easier to read. Um and then finally aligning a uh small cell wireless communications facility process with a state bill that was passed last year just to make sure that we're in alignment with the state. The second group of topics um is related to the site review criteria which was another major ordinance that was adopted in the last few years. Um Nuria gave a great uh intro to this as it did cause um this particular change did cause some concern. So, I want to make sure to give it some extra time. Um, so the proposed

change in the omnibus code amendment is to allow a height or allow height modification requests for three-story buildings for certain uses. The way that height modification requests, so that's somebody ask an applicant asking to exceed the zoning district height limit but still meet the city maximum limit that's in our charter. Um, so the way that that works is in the site review process, there are currently nine different scenarios or circumstances where somebody is even allowed to request a height modification. So it's not just allowed for any type of project. You have to meet one of these um scenarios in order to even request it. So it might be something related to design like they need additional height to allow for a pitched roof or it might be something with a use like an industrial use or manufacturing use needs to have additional height to allow for their equipment. Um you know they need higher floor to ceiling ratios to do that. Um or it might be something to do with the site like the topography is unique or they need uh additional height to make sure they're meeting their flood protection elevation requirements. Um so there's a number of different scenarios. There's nine that are in the site review criteria already. This would just add a tenth um option um for asking for height modification um and it's for community cultural or educational uses. So things like museums or recreation or entertainment uses like theaters uh to be able to in most zoning districts the maximum height limit is 35 feet and three stories. So, if you have a three-story building um and need to have higher floor to ceiling um space, you could get additional height. You can you can request additional height up to 55 ft. So, you can see in the graphic it would be a taller building in terms of feet, but it's still only a three-story building. Um so, it's not adding

additional floor area or things like that, but it is adding um uh height in terms of feet. Uh just a couple changes, corrections related to site review. We've tweaked the site review criteria um many times in those different ordinances, but just clarifying an exception there um to there. We added some new um exceptions that are projects that are accepted or don't have to go through site review. So this just clarifies that they wouldn't also have to go through concept plan review if they don't have to do site review. And then um very technical but we have some footnotes in the uh site review threshold table that would make more sense in the actual table. Third topic group is related to a slightly more recent ordinance the access management and parking strategy the amps project specifically the parking ordinance that was adopted last year. Um so that was the ordinance that eliminated the minimum parking requirements. Um one of the things this is also a lessons learned category. So as that as those new rules were applied to projects um we identified an issue which was that um as you can see in the the image in this kind of similar uh common scenario where maybe you have a singlecar garage and folks want to convert it to um living space. Um the way that the the ordinance was drafted last year would require that that the the driveway that led to that parking space um once it's converted to living space would have to be removed and the parking would would not be allowed to be located there. So what's in the omnibus ordinance um is addresses that issue by saying that that driveway that used to lead to a garage now leads to living space. It can stay there. uh the parking can remain there even though it doesn't

technically lead to a parking a garage space anymore. Um so in essence the parking that's occurred in those driveways for probably decades can remain even if they the owners convert the garage space to living space. And then there's also some corrected references in the parking section as well. So those are kind of the ones that can be grouped thematically. There's also a number of clarifications and just miscellaneous items that are included make it an omnibus amendment. The first is removing unique non-residential sideyard upper story setbacks. This is a rule that's been in the code since 1999 or 2000. Um it's always been a little bit confusing. We've tried to tweak the language a number of times and when we looked into it um at this round we looked into the history a bit more and it actually was really tied to the what the building code was in 1999 and the building code has changed and evolved over time and so it didn't really make sense anymore that we were holding on to this land use code rule when the building code had kind of moved past it. um it essentially said what the setbacks needed to be for upper stories um even when a building is built at um zero ft on the ground floor. And so staff was recommending just removing that setback requirement. Um you might remember the process simplification changes that happened two years ago. We uh introduced a new process called the minor use review process that's been working really well. It's really um improved uh how fast uh approvals can happen. Um there's a number of site improvements that can be made under the minor use review process um like landscaping and bike parking and things like that that you can still do a minor use review. uh staff recommends based on just seeing some proposals come through um with um

that just want to add fencing and just allowing those projects to go through the minor use review process which can be months faster than the typical use process. Some updates on graphics just for clarity for our recent water wise landscaping update. just um changing some language to make sure that the scope of that water wise landscaping update is in alignment with the state landscaping requirements. Reorganization of some standards related to utilities to make it easier to read. Um updating our enforcement fees so that it aligns with similar case types. And then regarding definitions, a couple changes in the definition section. one clarifying the definition of accessory structure to reflect existing practice especially in COVID accessory structures started to be used for many more things than they used to be used for like gyms and offices and things like that. So it just kind of aligns with the current current use um as well as updating our building coverage definition and make sure that matches what when folks are required to get a building permit. And then similar to the small cell changes that I um mentioned earlier, just aligning our definitions with other parts of our code related to that. So those are the changes that are in your packet tonight. There was an additional request um from Mayor Prom Winer. Last week uh related to oh sorry I got ahead of myself. Planning board on March 24th um planning board has to reviews every change to the land use code. So they reviewed these changes on March 24th. They unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance. They did have a recommendation um to add a requirement for community benefit for those height modification requests. We discussed this um at first reading of this ordinance that staff did not make any changes to the ordinance um in reaction to the planning board um recommendation. It's

explained in the memo, but um the recommendation would require a significant work plan effort um in order to implement um a community benefit requirement with those height modification requests. Now we can talk about Mayor Prom's additional um um request. This is related to outdoor seating for breweries. So, the request had been to increase the maximum size allowance for breweries um or for tap rooms for breweries from 1,000 square ft to 2,000 square ft. In looking to in looking into that request um we've um re we're recommending something slightly different but ends up at the same result which is um just entirely removing outdoor seating from the tap room or tasting room size limits. So rather than increasing it from a,000 to 2,000, just don't have a don't have outdoor seating included in the size limit. We don't include outdoor seating in size limits for anything else. So it makes sense um to remove that. And then the one, two, and three on this slide just are explaining the changes that would need to be made in order to implement this. We'd need to revise the definition of tap room and tasting room. Revise the use standards for breweries, wineries, and distilleries. And then the third thing is just as I mentioned that planning board reviews all changes to um the land use code because planning board did not review this topic at that March 24th meeting. We would have to add a section suspending the requirement for planning board to make a recommendation because it's a topic that wasn't um in the ordinance that they reviewed. So if you want to see the red line changes, it's really pretty simple. It's just striking these references to um outdoor seating that happen in tap room, tasting room, and brewery uh use standards. So staff has if if council um if it's the will of council to add that

additional change to the omnibus. Um this is how you would be able to amend the motion. So um we've provided that you'd add amendments to remove the size restrictions for outdoor patios, etc. as set forth in the presentation. That leads me to the end of my presentation. This is the suggested motion that was in the original packet. Um so you'd have to amend that to um make that additional change. But I'm happy I know I went through each one of them pretty briefly. So if there's something you want more information on, I'm happy to do that or answer any questions. Thanks.

All right. Thanks so much for the presentation. That was super helpful. Lots of information presented quickly and clearly. Um, any questions for city staff? I don't actually, but I do need to leave. Um, I'm not feeling well, so I'm going to leave right now. But thank you so much. I appreciate all of this. I don't have any issues with anything that's been presented, and I um I I uh believe my colleagues will be able to make the appropriate choice. Thank you. Okay. Hope you feel better soon.

Any other questions? Yeah, we got I'm going to Matt, then Rob, then Mark. Um yeah, I've got two questions. One is um obviously w with the amendment that uh Tara proposed that didn't go through planning board, is there any other like outreach or engagement that the overall omnibus went through in in before it arrived here other than obviously landing at planning board? We determined since these were um either clarifications, corrections or something related to a previous ordinance where we had um already had public feedback, we did this as an inform level of con of um engagement. And so um planning, you know, the public hearing, the formal public hearings are kind of the main um uh aspect of engagement. And then there was also a notification um in our planning and development services newsletter about these changes and it's been on our website.

Okay. And then my other question is if we made this amendment, would we have to go to a third reading? Yes. Okay.

My question might be a little bit in the weeds, but I've just had a little personal experience with this one. Um, the staff memo says, um, this is about the $250 investigative inspection fee. And the staff memo states uh the city does not track nor project a consistent volume of in investigations nor is there a target quota for the enforcement activity. Um that's a significant admission um to pair with a new feat. My question I've got four questions actually. What currently triggers an investigation? Is it complaint driven, staff initiated or both? And if a neighbor files a complaint about one property, what determines whether that complaint results in an inspection?

Sorry, Brad. No apology needed. Turns out uh code compliance also falls under me. So, uh Brad Mueller, Planning and Development Services. So, um, uh, I might need you to repeat those in order, but, um, just in terms of, uh, well, maybe if you could repeat again, it what what triggers an investig an an investigative inspection? Is the complaint uh, driven by staff, initiated,

right? So, so many of our uh code compliance cases are complaintbased uh simply because we want to make sure we are following up on all the complaints that come up. Uh those always result in some sort of investigation. That investigation may show there is no violation, but we do always follow through on that. Uh staff does also uh conduct a number of uh staff initiated ones too and we we do that as time allows. And it's really across all the different types of violation uh instances whether it's short-term rentals, long-term rentals or the more physical ones on properties or or in buildings. Um but but that is not the we strive for about 50/50 but it depends on the load of of complaints. Um every complaint is uh investigated and resolved. If there is an actual violation, it it gets resolved. Um that can happen fairly quickly just by voluntary compliance. And our philosophy is that we are compliance driven. We're not looking to um be punitive. We're not looking as as was alluded to in the memo to meet a quota of fines or such, but they're an important tool to make sure that we get compliance and um and it's one of the later tools in the toolbox, but it is is part of what uh is necessary to be effective with code compliance.

Okay. Second question, and this is a fairness question. If two neighboring properties have the same violation, but only one was complained about, is it city policy that only one complained about property gets inspected and assessed for this fee, or does a complaint about one property take a look trigger a look around surrounding properties for the same issue?

Yeah, it it's a good question. Um, I would say uh well, I don't need to complicate it. Yes. If there's um a violation on a particular property and there's another one that's known, observed, seen, and certainly complain, if it's been complained upon, we'll of course do the investigation as I just indicated. But if it's noted or seen by the uh by the officer, then we will follow up with a violation there, too. Um you know, how to do that systemically can be challenging. Do you do it for the neighboring buildings? Do you do it for the block? Do you do it for the neighborhood? Do you do it for a square mile? So, you know, there's a practical administrative reality there um in making sure that we're following up on on the complaints that happen, but certainly there is a desire to be as equitable as possible. Uh if uh if we know about it, if we see it, we're going to act on it. And did that answer your question? Make sure I'm being clear.

Yeah, I think you did actually. Okay, thank you. I I think I'm good. Thank you. We got um Mark and then uh Brian.

Um other than with respect to say hospitals and museums, what is the need that we're we're trying to serve here? And who was the what was the origin of this proposal? Is this just coming from the creativity of planning board or is there something bubbling up in in the community that that is causing difficulty?

I think that um it's something that we you know we're talking to developers and applicants about changes all the time. Um, so I think it's something that has just been request or you know like asked about what happens if we have a three-story building that um needs a higher floor to ceiling ratio sim very similar to how an industrial building can request a height modification um in order to accommodate manufacturing or things like that. Um, so I think we've had, you know, um, inquiries about how how procedurally someone would be able to request that and currently we just don't have an option to even request it. And so this is the solution um that's been established as you know it's not a it's not a sure bet. It has site review and um planning board and opportunities for public hearing and each um uh project would be reviewed on its individual merits with all the site review criteria and things like that. But this at least gives the option for folks to have those designs with the taller floor ceiling.

So would it be correct to say that that in essence this is being developer driven?

No, I'm happy to add to this a little bit uh if I may. Uh, council member. So, I would say in, you know, in the sense of the awareness that that Lisa speaks to is a broader awareness of just appreciation and understanding of culture and arts in the community and and you'll see that reflected in the draft comprehensive plan, for example, but it's reflected in uh the vote for for additional arts funding. It's uh I would say there's a bit of a renaissance in the community in terms of space and desire for space. And so in talking to uh museum administrators and arts people, whether they're affiliated with buildings or not, they've helped us appreciate that there are exhibits that sometimes exceed the Florida Florida ceiling height, for example. and uh and be a person who's been involved in the theater, appreciating the fact that you want to fly scenery, for example, as part of a performance and that necessarily is going to um uh benefit from having a floor to to ceiling height. So, I I would say, you know, it's all of those things and we're constantly getting input from a variety of factors, not just developer uh interest, although certainly they build buildings.

Okay. Um what was the genesis of staff's recommendation um that if we want to pursue this uh we ought to remove it and and study it as a separate matter in paragraph one

that was related to the planning board recommendation. So, planning board had recommended um that there would be if someone if a proposal um asked for a height modification for this particular type of use um they would have to also have community benefit um which is what we require when uh folks are requesting a fourth or fifth story. This is not a fourth or fifth story because it's a three-story building. Um so what planning board was recommending was establishing some kind of requirement or mechanism related to community benefit. Community benefit was a very complicated project um which was informed by a lot of economic analysis. And so what staff's recommendation was that if we if council wanted to move forward with something like that, it wasn't something that could be in the scope of an omnibus amendment. would need to be pulled out and be something that would be a longer term um work plan item.

You and I'll piggy back on that just to say that it's a little bit I think we determined too it's a little bit of an apple and an orange. So the whole community benefit in the context in four and five stories seemed much different than the third story and certainly wasn't part of the focus. I'm you you've actually quite lost me because I'm just reading that paragraph. Um and there seems to be a recommendation that if we want to move forward on this uh that a separate study would be required. Um so am I reading it incorrectly?

If if I may. So um they're saying if we wanted to move forward with considering adding a community benefit requirement for a thirdstory building that goes above 35 ft. Okay. Okay. If we wanted to pursue that, it would need to be pursued as a separate um work item. Okay. Good enough.

Y right. I have a few and I might risk being a little redundant with Mark. Um and I'm just so my first question is I'm trying to get at the the sort of goals overall and I see there's um corrections, clarifications, consistency, and lessons is learned. The first three of those are self-explanatory. Lessons learned seems to get at substantive goals. Um, and then I but the sentence after it says addresses it essentially says addresses issues which is the thesis. So I'm just wondering is there a way to summarize what are the goals from a you know what what what will be improved um in the lessons learned category or what are the substantive goals of of this on the bus of changes? Sure. Um I think it if I were to highlight I mean it's hard because they're all different topics. So um there's goals for each one. So related to the driveways change that would the goal would be that folks are able to keep driveways that are existing uh you know if they parked there for forever. Um maybe even use it for electric vehicle charging things like that. Um so the the goal would be to accommodate that and also support folks um when we don't have a parking requirement converting uh parking space to living space. So that would be the goal for that one. The goal for the height modification request would be to provide the opportunity for folks to request it because there's just not even that opportunity right now um for that to be evaluated. Um the others are mostly you know the consistency corrections and clarifications. So those um substantive changes um and some of like the upper story sideyard setback I'd say is a substantive change but it's you know keeping with the times that the building code is update been updated 27 years ago. Um so it's an omnibus so it's lots of different goals. Um but primarily

clarifications okay and corrections. And if I could add one thing, um Carl Gyler, Planning and Development Services, one one example is like the changes to offices. Also lessons learned is that we recognize that times change. Back, you know, before 2020, before COVID, there was, you know, concerns about expanding offices, but I think since COVID, there's a lot more people that are working from home. So, the demand for office has actually changed. So the need for those restrictions is is less so in the in the era that we're in now. So it just it it prompts us to reook at the code when things like that change.

Okay. Thanks. Um and then a related thing I was just channeling a little bit the um one of the speakers at open comment talking about having a hard time keeping up with you know ch changes in code. Um to to what extent do these changes represent us having reflected on what we've heard regarding the need to simplify and to cut red tape. Yeah, I think that we're constantly, you know, I we've done cleanup ordinances every year for the last three years and those always include simplification and clarification and highlight parts of the code that we run into as issues um either as staff or that um property owners um applicants tell us are confusing or things like that. as well as I talked about the minor use review process being a really um successful streamlining of a process that we made. So, um I think we're constantly reflecting on these changes and seeing how that's why it's called lessons learned is seeing how they apply when they're applied to specific projects. So, it's constantly iterating I would say.

Got it. And sorry to be like really focused on this, but um I'm just thinking about the user experience and you know um making things consistent or clarifying could be for various parties benefit. So what I'm getting at is like are do are these changes in this policy proposal being driven to to cut red tape and improve the experience for developers and builders? Like is that is that contemplated?

Um I think that I mean a lot of these are just clarifications. A lot of these would apply also for just a homeowner doing a project. Um, so it's not necessarily for developers um or larger projects. Um, in fact, yeah, I would say most of these are more like the driveway change would definitely more impact just your average homeowner um more than kind of larger projects intended to to make the experience better for those using it. Yeah. For any user who benefits from this. So for all users. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um, that's it. Thanks.

All right, I think that's all of our questions. So, we'll go to the public hearing now. We have two people signed up to speak. Each of them will get three minutes. Uh, just a reminder to speak to the ordinance in front of us. The two speakers are Lynn Seagull and Jocelyn Dus. I don't think we need any more office uses in Boulder. We got too many already, so that shouldn't be in there. Um the community benefits of threetory is very debatable in this community. People like me don't see community benefit in more density. Most of the council, most of the planning board, most of the administration of this city government promotes density and therefore would see the community benefit as increasing density or increasing making it easier for people to develop stuff. and Boulder Community Hospital being able to because of their the way their floors work have to, you know, not propose to go to 55 ft but just get it by default. No, I don't agree with that. If people want to go up higher in this community, they need to fight for it. You know, I think after 1971 when Ruth Wright made the height restrictions, the fact that tonight it

was said in the um callup check-in for Presbyterian Manor that it could remain is telling because I don't think it should remain. But I don't have a choice, do I? 1971, they put it up before then. They get it by default. I mean, you all know I think it's a complete sin that we take down these four bungalows for this developer element and LITC with the federal government. I don't support my federal government, you know. So, I kind of say in spite of Lisa's good work and everything, I kind of say no, I don't think the omni omnibus bill or, you know, the separation of some of these elements of it. Um, I'm happy that I happened to buy my house um when the garage was already turned into a bedroom and I can park my car in the garage. I mean, in the driveway. Shucks. I didn't know that was going to be a problem. Maybe some of the people that seem to really hate me in this town, like Erin, who complains when I talk about anything related to international.

Time's up, but thanks for your testimony. Okay, your your time is up. All right, our second speaker is Joselyn Dles or Dials. Is she um in the room here? It doesn't seem like it. So, I will close the public hearing and uh bring this back to council for discussion and I might turn to Mayor Prom Winer to speak to your proposal. Tara, you sent out a a hotline about that. Could but could you maybe uh speak to it here at the meeting?

Uh so, that was about a particular brewery that reached out to me. Actually, they're new and you know how I like to support new businesses, small businesses, and they wanted to use their patio space and there were all these complicated, how do I even put it? Rules from who knows when way back that didn't allow for him to use uh his patio space in the way it was. So, who doesn't want that? We all love outdoor patio spaces. So, I tried to help and staff was nice enough to come up with this option. Um, and that will not not only help him, but it'll have help all breweries that might want to in a struggling industry, wine tastings, etc. that um might want to take advantage of the change in this code. And so, I think it's a great way to support small businesses. So, that's what that was about. The other thing is, can I speak to one other thing um in regards to that? the uh ordinance or is this not the time?

Well, let's start with the patio and then we'll come back to the rest of it. So, since Tara just spoke to the question of the patio, I'd like to go ahead and just see if there's council support for pursuing that change, which would take the current thousand ft restriction for outdoor patios for breweries and remove that restriction. So, if anybody wants to speak to it, you can. Or we could just do a straw poll about whether people support it. But Matt, you got a question? Yeah, my question is knowing that this has to go to third reading, I mean there's a lot of changes in here, some of which will impact folks, you know, 30 days from tonight if we were to pass it. Not knowing what CAC looks like um on what the 22nd, which is I think which is the Thursday of our next business meeting. I mean, is it reasonable to assume the third reading could come back then? Uh, I'm just trying to get a sense because we run quickly into recess and if this is if this is coming back in July all of a sudden because of scheduling that then I would not be very interested in this amendment. Right.

Uh, anything that if it were to come back on third reading, it would likely come on consent and so we would um put that on accordingly. Um, so reasonable it could come back in the next business meeting. Obviously not speaking for CAC but reasonable and for staff that Yeah, that's what we were Okay. Thank you. Yes. And we don't we don't need CAC's to weigh in on that. You would just bring it back automatically. Again, I'm just not making any assumption whatsoever. All right. Yes. I think Brad was going to answer that. Well, I was just going to uh further clarify. I think we have it teed up for May 21st. Yes. With respect to Terara's proposal, my response would be yes.

Very good. Well, I'm going to go go ahead and strapple. Um who is supportive of terrorist proposal? Raise your hand. Okay, that's unanimous. So, nice work. So, then now let's go to comments on any of the rest of the ordinance. And um I'll go to Matt and then Mark.

Appreciate it. Um you know, some of these comments and some of the things that that come about these big changes come from variety of different people or groups. Some come from our building community who faces and has to navigate our, you know, incredibly complex uh Title 9. And some of them come from just regular people in our community, not to say developers on regular, but just, you know, homeowners that live in a ranch style home in South Boulder raising two young kids. And the fix to amps came directly from a community member who just by happen stance has a mutual friend between them and myself. and he was explaining his his plight of trying to um take half of his garage to make it a office because they live in a 1,800 square foot ranchstyle home with uh two bedrooms. Their two kids share a room, they have a room, living room, and they're trying to work on top of their kids. And they thought, well, why don't we just take half our garage, make it our office. We'll leave the other half for our two ebikes, and we can plug in we can keep our 240 plug in there to charge our uh EV in the driveway. Well, what should be a really modest project of just really consuming half a garage, they're not popping the top and not changing any of their footprint turned into an excruciating project because they were then told, "Oh, if you do this, you now have to rip out your driveway and you can no longer charge your EV at your home." That was an absurd outcome for what should be a simple project. Um, and if it weren't for a mutual friend, it wouldn't have been raised to me. I wouldn't have been able to raise it to staff. And credit to staff, they not only saw the issue and they went, "Yep, that's insane. That's absurd. Um, and we're going to work on trying to get it fixed. And here we are eight months later and the fix is here. Um, and so unsure whether this family will be able to benefit from this. Um, I think that's an open question that this family has to raise to planning staff based on where they are in their project. But something so simple that maintains affordability and keeps our families in here now has a fix so that that can be done. They can

now charge their car. They can now keep their EVs in their garage. So anyway, those are the things that happen and impact people's regular lives, not just big housing developments, but homes in our community. So, uh, I just want to tell that story because that's an important one and it's a credit to how these changes come about and who they impact and how they can now benefit many, many other families going forward. So, just want to share that and thanks again for staff for getting this fixed in a timely manner. Appreciate it. Uh, I'm I'm supportive of most of the u the new ordinance, but I am troubled by um the change in height limitations. I do not think the community by and large thinks that we're changing the charter. The issue is that we are increasing the universe of structures that can go from 38 to 55 and I think they find that to be troublesome. Uh in fact I went to the trouble of of looking at all of those emails and we had 63 people who contacted us and um expressed that concern. uh and in terms of people who um were supportive of the change rounding up to the next integer the number was zero. So I I think there is concern in the community about what we are doing. Um my particular concern is the scope. Um if we look at um uh I guess it's paragraph three the the ve the variety of uses that would be able to take advantage of this change. I think it is way too broad. Um I see it absolutely with respect to hospitals. I see it with museums. I certainly don't

see it with cemeteries. Um I I don't think we should be doing it for uh private schools. Um uh and I don't want to spend a lot of time arguing each each item, but I think we need to prune that down uh and only be looking at those things that are of particular value to the community. Um temporary events. I mean, if you have a pop-up event, that's nice, but I don't know why uh it has to have a different height limitation. Um an indoor athletic facility, I know why people would want to go to 55, but I'm not sure I see the community benefit of uh of going to a higher structure. So, I would like staff uh to at least look at this and um come up with a more um rational and frankly conservative list of uses um for people with three-story buildings who want to go a little higher. Um as I said, hospitals, museums, first of all, that there aren't that many hospitals and there aren't that many museums. it's not going to have a major impact on Boulder. And I understand why the need exists. Um I would like us to have a list um that can take advantage of this um where there is a real need um not simply an opportunity. So that that would be my request of staff. Um, and at that point I would be much more supportive of this um, than simply having 20 different uses um, some of which really don't relate to this problem at all.

Okay, thanks for that Mark. I'm going to go to Ryan and then Tara. I am supportive um of the proposal and I thank everyone for their work and um I just have one comment which is I um I like the substance of the measures but I don't find the reason to do this very compelling. Um I would like to see more of the purpose spelled out in terms of outcomes that this kind of omnibus work is doing. I think what I'm hearing is we will seek to increase the adoption of EVs, shorten permitting processes, make it easier and more predictable for homeowners and business owners to do improvements to increase middle- inome housing, maybe to increase fire resilient landscapes. There was something about keeping up with the times that I I don't have enough architectural knowledge to to talk to. So um I would just ask that uh staff to the extent you have time consider um trying to catalog these outcomes these substantive outcomes that um I was a little bit getting heartburn not hearing um come up when I when I asked about them so that when we go forward we can make it known this is what we're trying to do and then beyond that we have some language to work from for future omnibus type work and um the next stage of this super important work which I'm grateful you're moving forward. Thank you.

My mic was on the whole time. Oops. Um, I support this. And one thing I want to just take a second to do is read Deve Don's email to us. I feel like the um the Daily Camera article gave did a big disservice because it didn't really explain what the purpose of this was for. So, I'm going to read what Davidid said. Oh, sorry. He is the chief curator of the Museum of Modern Art. But do we call it the Museum of Modern Art? It's the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art.

Sorry. Oops. Yet again. Okay. Anyway, Davidid, a friend of mine, I didn't know the name of his music. I'm kidding. It's been a long week. Um he said this is not about maximizing building size or intensity. It's about accommodating a museum's basic functional needs spaces that require greater volume for exhibitions, structural spans, and building systems. We also explored alternatives like pushing more of the building below grade, but that approach is in feasible given the site's location within the female flood plane. So, I know that this is a community that values B-Moga and museums and also our hospitals and other nonprofits. And so, I'm excited about this change. Whether or not gyms, what was it that was on that list?

Indoor recreation. Indoor recreation. I can't speak to that. But is there a reason why that is on that list? I'm just curious. Is it because of climbing gyms or something? Um so the way the use table is organized is by use category. And so um those are the categories of uses that would include uses like museums and arts uses and um theaters. And so rather than uh identify specific use types to council member Wallik's point um we are using the use category which is just a simpler way to use the code.

Is that it chair? So in other words, you picked the the categories that happen to contain some uses like say cemeteries which probably don't need that but um it's just part of the category which is a simpler way of exactly looking at it. Okay. Thanks for that clarification.

Um I'll go ahead and call on myself and say I fully support this. I really appreciate staff's efforts on this. Um the the code cleanup updates you've been doing every year I think have been really moving our city forward in terms of making the city codes and regulations easier to work with. And I really appreciate how every year you find certain things that just aren't quite working like those office um combined office maximums uh and then bring forward things to us to fix that and make things uh easier to work with. Um also appreciate Matt for being the uh connector to discover that um really unfortunate uh side effect of amps and so I'm really glad that we're fixing that and I hope it's in time for that family to be able to make that change that they're desiring.

It is mayor.

Oh fantastic. That's great news. Um, so again, appreciate staff's responsiveness to that as well as to Tara's request. And then just in terms of the the height um question, uh, we did get a lot of emails. Uh, Mark, you mentioned that we got 63. I wrote back to about 45 of those folks to because I think they got upset because of some inaccurate information that was contained in a in a newspaper article. And while a couple of them wrote back and said, "No, I still think it's a bad idea." I did have like six or seven or eight come back and say like, "Oh, well that's good to know that. I appreciate the clarification." So once once we some of them were told what was going on, they they seemed fine with it. Um and I do feel, you know, you can currently ask for 55 ft modification for four or fivetory buildings. So, it makes um total sense to me to add certain categories of uses like museums and hospitals and some other arts and other categories um to be able to ask for that for a three-story building as well and u for reasons like you um read for Bamoka. So, um enthusiastic about this, appreciate everybody's work and looking forward to voting yes on this here in a minute. Matt, you had a followup. Go for it.

All right. like to make a motion to amend and pass ordinance 8745 amending title 7 vehicles pedestrians and parking title nine land use code and title 10 structures BRC1981 to fix errors clarify existing code and amend certain height use form and general land use code standards and setting forth related details with amendments to remove size restrictions for outdoor patios of tap rooms, taste room, tasting rooms and breweries, distilleries wineries with restaurants as set forth in the staff presentation.

Let's just see if there's a second first. Second. Oh, go ahead. So, a second. So, you're looking to pass this without any change to the permitted uh uses that uh can access the 55 ft. Correct. I'm I'm I'm making a motion to keep that as stated in the language. Okay. Um in the staff proposal. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Motion a second. Most people have spoken. Did you want to speak to your second?

Sure. I do agree there's a cultural renaissance going on here in Boulder and I do see the value for the spaces that we need for art and for institutions. Um, I mean to Mark's point is a little confusing, campgrounds. Um, but I'm guessing maybe a radio tower or something like that, but that would it would be nice to have more clarification on that in the future. Okay. I think we've all had our say on it now. So, Elicia, can we have a roll call on this, please? Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the amendment and passing of ordinance 8745 with council member Shuhar.

Yes. Wallik. No. Mayor pro Tim Wer. Yes. Council member Adams is left. My apologies. Benjamin. Yes. Mayor Brockett. Yes. Council member Kaplan. Yes. Ordinance 8745 is hereby amended and passed with a vote of 5 to one.

Very good. Well, thanks again to staff for your exemplary work and look forward to seeing those changes go into effect. And that brings us to the end of our agenda. So, unless anybody has a last comment, I will go ahead and gave us close at 9:42 p.m. 13 minutes or