City Council - Regular Meeting

We're back to the manual uh video recording. So, thank you all. We are reconvening for our regular business meeting portion of the evening for March 10th. And we will Standing force to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Next we have council here. Council Evans here. Mayor Wber

here. Mayor here. Here. Councilinski here. Mayor Yorum.

Thank you. Um, next we'll approve the agenda. There's been no changes, so we will continue with the agenda as has been presented. And move right into public comment. Um we do have three public hearings this evening. So we will reserve comment on those topics for later in the meeting, but this is for any other topics um for council. And I don't believe we received any um via email. So if anybody would like to speak to council, I have one person signed up. You're welcome to. Oh J can't read it. Uh Jay, if you'd like to come up to the podium, address your remarks to council. You have three minutes and please start by stating uh your name and your neighborhood or address for the record.

My name is Jacob Tasnik and um I live at 86 Franks Way just up there in North Heritage Dell's neighborhood. The reason I wanted to uh speak tonight was because we're my wife and I are totally into the WRC life I'm sorry wildfire resiliency code. We're very happy that is adopting this. Um we when we decided to do a a renovation um it was uh important to us to harden our structure as well. So um also with the uh Marshall fire paradise um we sit uh we have our property at Butts Apex and since we moved here in 2016 all I watched is the um the fuels grow and we had a fire in 2019 um that was small and unconsequential but you put all the right ingredients like fire and it could have been a different story. Uh for us I think it's a matter of not a matter of if but when we have a fire. So um I talked we we when we were doing research we made sure that we put a metal roof on class A cement board siding um stone veneer metal deck. We harden the structure so that if we do a fire, our property would be standing. Um, problem is we we we thought we were going to get insurance benefits uh only to find out that uh it actually our premiums went up because according to our carrier

uh we are not we're in a lowrisk zone. Their maps are not updated. We were not going to tell them that they need but the thing is um they should know that we're in a high risk zone and to them the only important thing to them is uh the roof replacement or hip damage. So even though I said everybody else in the neighborhood burn down or be up standing um we you guys won't we won't have to re our our cost to rebuild have anything to do with it if we're still but to them it doesn't matter. So I'm talking to my neighbors since we did our project. One of the neighbors has replaced the roof. Two of them are replacing their siding with cement work and another one is tearing down their other uh cedar siding to put up class A fire materials. So um in closing I just want to thank you all for adopting this. very important. Um, I've got all my neighbors on board. We're going to And so I'm just one person, but I'm having an impact. I'm getting people to do the right thing.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak during public comment? All right. I will close the public comment period. And next, um, go to C. if there's any council or staff response to public comment other than thank you so much for being here sharing your your story with us. I'd add thank you for being a role model. I mean it's through your examples that you're neighbors and that that's what we need to do.

All right, we'll keep moving. Um, council staff comments, new business. Um, we'll start with

uh I feel like every time I say something like this, but actually on April 1, uh, which is a Wednesday, not a joke, but a real thing. We are having our first not just planning, but community come meet and hang with the counselors meeting. Uh, there's no formal agenda. It's really just a come meet, talk to us, tell us what you feel, we can tell you how we about different things and get to know us because we want to know you. I think this is the first real one we're doing and this is for district one which includes board one to board two. They can add any comments at 6:30 to 7:30 I believe. Oh sorry 6:00 to 7:30 and is at the natural ger community space. So come find us there and we can talk about it some more next week. So thank you so much.

Um I'll just be quick. Um We touched on the fact that affordability was one of the issues that came up in the survey that we saw the results of last month. I just want to touch on a couple of things. The city of Golden has an emerald emerald ash or subsidy program which helps you remove your ash tree or treat it. So you can go online and again that's a where the city can help. Uh the city of Golden has a sales tax refund if you weren't aware of it. Uh this is targeted at seniors, residents, um sorry, seniors, lowincome residents, and disabled residents. Again, you can go online, find the details on this. The key thing on this one is it has to be by April 15. So that's only basically uh the amazing golden rebate program from the sustainability teams. take advantage of this in order to get if you're buying batteries or something for your home or solar to see if any of these rebates are um I wanted to make a plug. Thank you for raising our wildfire mitigation. Uh two weeks ago I had my free home wildfire mitigation evaluation by our fire department. It's been going on for a couple years now. I'm embarrassed to say that Beverly Heights, where I live, actually has the lowest number of those evaluations. So, I urge Beverly Heights residents to give them a ring and set up your free evaluation. Comes out with a nice list of things that you can do uh to help your home, which again we heard a little bit at public. And finally, I

just wanted to touch on is the annual resident tree sale. So you can go buy a tree that's planted in your yard at a discount. It's about $85 tonight. Thank you. Last plug for boards and commissions applications are due next Monday. Um strongly encourage you to apply. We have over 20 vacancies this year and

yeah um I just want to reiterate uh that at Guru last night uh we saw the presentation from the junction and it was mentioned of expanding our u urban renewal areas and so we did um allow for a contract to be created to do a study of the junction property. And I want people to understand that urban renewal isn't just about light. It's also about difficult to develop properties that may only be developed if they they get tax advantage. And that's the case for the junction. It's so far north that they're going to have to put in a lift station, for example, to lift their uh sewer waste uphill so they can come back downhill in Golden. So, you can imagine how much it cost to do that. Um it's a pressurized pipe that adds expense. So I just want to point out that uh it is appropriate that uh that we look at a URA even there people might say why are you doing um and also just reiterate that um the sustainability event that happened with residents where there was vendors and others talking about hardening your electrical supply and batteries and such was so popular and so highly by staff and others that Gura has decided to fund something similar for uh businesses obviously in areas but they'll also share that information with the rest of the community so that they can benefit from whatever we figure out makes sense for grants and other opportunities. That's it.

Um, I love the annual tree sale. Thank you for bringing that up. So, it's a reminder. One of my first favorite things in Golden when I first first moved here. Um, also the Highway 93 analysis and design page on Golden. I would encourage folks to please visit. Um, I know it feels like we've been talking about it for forever, but we have um, and we will continue talking about it until we get to where we want to be. So, that's where we need community input. There's also a meeting for community input on Thursday, March 19th at the Golden Community Center. I believe it's 5 to 6:30 p.m.

Excellent. I just want to reiterate the boards and commissions openings. Uh say thank you to all the boards and commissions who presented during study session. Um it takes a lot of time, but it's really rewarding to be a volunteer for the city. Um the boards and commissions do amazing work. on their own and then advisory to council. If you're interested in still thinking about applying, um all of their work plans for 2026 are on the agenda for this evening, so you can check them out and see what they're focusing um their time on for this year. Um but yeah, it's uh always great to have a lot of great applicants every year. Um amazing people step up. I wanted to mention another meeting next week besides the Highway 93. Um, and that is on Monday. Clay Works is having a community meeting or neighborhood meeting. Um, it it is an update from them about their project. Uh, so I get lots of questions from people about what's going on, what are they going to do next, when are they moving in. Um, if you have those questions too, they are having a neighborhood meeting and you are all invited um on Monday. I believe I wrote down it's from 4 to 5:30 uh p.m. and it is at um the old high school at the American Mountain Museum. So um if you are interested in what's going on with clay works um that meeting is on Monday I think um I think that's all I have. Um anything okay we'll keep moving on. Um next up we have Consent matters. Is there much regarding consent? Move to approve consent matters as presented.

Second. Thank you. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? All right. Consent matters are adopted as were presented. Next up, we do have one proclamation this evening and it is for Arts Education Month. March 2026.

Whereas arts education comprises a rich array of disciplines such as dance, media, media arts, music, film and theater arts, visual arts and more. It's a well-rounded subject and is an essential element of complete education for all students. Whereas the substitual performing arts curriculum enables students to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills, imagination, creativity, discipline and collaboration, alternative ways to communicate. and crosscultural understanding which support academic success. Whereas arts education continues contributes to increased attendance and graduation rates elevates academic achievement enhances social emotional learning and the way for students to achieve college career readiness. Whereas to succeed in today's economy students must masterly develop skills that business leaders demand in 21st century workforce including the ability to be creative effectively collaborate with critically and whereas the arts are a valued part of life are essential for education and contribute immensely to the vibrancy and vitality of communities in the nation. Whereas the city of Colorado recognizes the need to expand equality arts education to serve all students whereas the city of arts and culture commission seeks to support the arts education in the city. Now therefore city of March 2026 as arts education month in the city of Golden, Colorado to commemorate, celebrate, and advance the vital role that arts learning plays in completing comprehensive education. Thank you. All right. Next, we go into our public hearings. We have three ordinances tonight on second reading. Um, they will each have their own public hearing, and each of these items we've talked about previously at city council. Um, And it is time to have further discussion and take. First one is our

historic preservation uh topic ordinance 2288. Good evening council. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present second reading for the ordinance 2288 our rewrite of our chapter 1858 code. Um this I'm going to give a very brief presentation since I gave a pretty lengthy presentation last week. So I'm just going to kind of go over the highlights. some things you've seen before as well as a couple uh the change request by council for review. So the goal of the rewrite process was to update our processes, modernize the language, add definition, add clarity um and address the policy issues not only brought up in the community but by the policy study. Um the end result was a comprehensive rewrite of the 1858 which included um updated process and procedures for certificates of appropriateness. Spelling out each type of certificate of appropriateness. Um looking at the designation process and look also looking at the different designations themselves and sort of wrapping that all with brand new definitions. Um ensuring that we have clear order order of operations and procedures. So, one thing that council asked us to look into uh this evening was a potential red line to the relocation section. Uh that's the red line has been provided into the packet um as well as I have Mr. Markley here uh to answer questions you may have on that section. But as staff reviewed council's comments on this section, we um recognized that there's some potential updates that could occur and really just aligning um the designation criteria with replication criteria and also parsing out relocation of a district of a property

within a district versus replication of a of a particular individual historic site. So that red line has been provided to council and staff does recommend approval of that. just adds more clarity um for property owners and kind of gives some clarity on the process for getting out the districts for individual designation how that goes. Here's the red line that's been provided um in your packets. Historic preservation board reviewed this on multiple occasions of 2025 uh and does recommend approval. Council uh reviewed at study session in September 2025 and also um kind of first reading February 24 presentation question. Can you talk a little that you're adding and the enforcement mechanisms does not follow.

Yeah. So, first uh first thing I want to address and I didn't talk about the survey was that the code itself has a lot more definitions and processes outlined. So, whereas before we didn't have a definition for demolition for example, now there's a very clear definition of demolition code. So, that in itself will allow the board the ability to review those cases that we know much sooner than finding out later in the process. The other change that occurred in the code, it's not necessarily a change, I call it a clarification, would be that the board can enforce a certificate of appropriateness if the applicant agrees to that enforcement. Um, so it does put in the penalty section of the code, um, which is section 1858260. and it talks specifically about enforcement remedies and penalties. Um, and so that would apply to anything that the board is power to enforce by the applicant. Um, so kind of pairing those two sections together. Um, we did not do a deeper uh enforce we did not uh update the powers further. That was not you know we were we kind of when we talk about this or talk about it as an update and not a drastic policy change. And so our intention would be new guidelines and context statements which we are working on um by providing those documents and having more information about the architectural styles the context that um the community at that point can have a further conversation about enforcement mechanisms once sort of all the pieces are in place to do that enforcement whether it's having specific information style that we do not have currently um in ensuring that

we have the right context for these districts as a back of the course follow it would just be um it would just be something they agree to the boards approval or um so it would be something they would specify in the resolution that they're looking to board oversight um on the application as presented. Um we know that sometimes things change. So in a case where you might have a construction project ongoing and something happens at that construction site um now if they agreed to enforcement by the board they would have to go back to the board to get their certificate of appropriateness. So, it's still um it's still the process has not changed as far as voluntary compliance, but it just gives the applicant that ability to in good faith when they're presenting their project to the community to the board to that oversight.

Yeah, I'm going to ask the same question in a different way. If if it's only up to the applicant to they're interested in this oversight. What would it take for us to say your incentive to do it is that if you are not in compliance, whether you agree to or not, if you're not in compliance with the certificate of appropriateness, then we'll pull it. So, their incentive is making sure that they continue to be in compliance. Do we do we not have a mechanism that not in compiance to to pull it and say we're not in compiance with what was approved, what was agreed to. I'm not clear how that work.

Yeah. So then it would become the it become a violation of the ordinance and then there would be the ability to um either outlines and I'm just going to kind of through quickly um uh for example um 2B um if work is performed that materially differs from certificate appropriateness the director may order the owner to submit a revised application for certificate appropriateness for the new work. Um if there is a building permit um for which no certificate appropriateness exists then the building permit can be denied revoked or stopped. Um if something is demolished in violation of the director can order that the um property be returned to it prior to the unlawful work. Um that's for historic landmark in particular. And um there's also the administrative violations under chapter title that can also be enforced. So um our current code really has a very much shortened section. This section um is much scenario based. So it gives clear guidance on what on what may happen but in the case that they do agree to board oversight then they would be under this penalties and remedies chapter enforcement.

Okay. So I think that the right answer is their incentive is to not be in violation if they're under the guidance and the oversight of the board. They're less likely to be in violation. Correct.

Okay. Making that I think I can add maybe a little clarification as well. I would say generally speaking, except for the full landmarks which are um under the mandatory control of the board in terms of their recommendations. For the other types of designations, I would say our program guarantees like a process but not necessarily an outcome. So the process is bringing those plans in, having those reviewed, giving the recommendations, but ultimately as our code is now and as the draft is that the owner can still then you know do what they would like to do even if it doesn't comply with the recommendations. But in terms of the process if they come if they bring the set of plans in and those are evaluated and then they end up doing something significantly different than that then there is a compliance issue there and we made that more clear with the new new language that at that point if you do significantly differ then from what was reviewed then you are you might have to or how to review further. So, but I would say that to change the the recommendations to be generally mandatory would be a a pretty significant policy change that I think would be outside of what we were trying to do for this particular stage.

This might be a little more detailed, but is it always part of process generally speaking to that they're going to be under board supervision going forward or is it just like sometimes it's under board supervision? It seems like it's optional to do that.

Um, so the current way that the ordinance is written, it's not a requirement to do it either way. So the new ordinance gives us clear direction on using that provision of the code and how it works, how it's enforced. I'm still not clear on the voluntary part of this. So in a historic district to do work, they have to come to HB. And so when they come to HBD, they can agree to be under board supervision or not agree to that, right? Is that what you're saying?

The way I would put it is that so the default setting is that the board can give recommendations. What the owner What we can do is agree to those recommendations on the record and those become part of the resolution approval and become enforceable as part of the building permit process and also by the department director you know just pursuant to their the general authority that they have in the code. So does that help?

Okay. So next step the um they don't get a certificate of denied they building, their demolition permit for six months is and that's still in the code.

I wouldn't for for your average home that is not a landmark and they're just doing some kind of work on their house. Um it's not a matter really of denial or granting or denial. It's a review and if it's if the board doesn't have any recommendations, then the review takes place. They move forward as they going to um or if there are recommendations, the board makes the recommendations and then the applicant can take those into account voluntarily or they can up the ant even more and say we fully agree to those and we want them to be the condition and that's that's how the current system works. So we're carrying that forward.

At what part is the certificate of appropriateness granted or denied and what is the that process.

Um, so it's when when the board is done with their review for that type of if they're not going for like state incentives or things like that or the board's authority is not present to actually make that grant or deny. It's just completing the review. So once that resolution is complete and they they either made the recommendations or they have don't have any recommendations because it's appropriate that is then the end of the COA process. They've they've done their CO review. So you could think of it as as granting it, but it's really that review that is has taken place and that's completed the resolution. So to be clear, they get a COA and we have previously really enforced it seems giving the COA like we've had people violate terms and we never pulled their COA to my knowledge but will this change make it more clear that we will in fact if they get their COA during the review but then do something different uh and it's considered substantial which I always bothered by substantial but Will we be enforcing or even pulling COAs whether or not a person agrees to be uh in compiance? Because my my sense is that if they're not in compliance, whether they agree to be reviewed or not, it's still a violation of the code. If they have, the crucial point is that if they have done something materially significantly different than what was then the is clear on that point that

that process that review process is mandatory. So even if ultimately they could do something other than what the recommendations were the process of having their projects their plans reviewed is still mandatory. So if they come up with something totally different and they want to do that then yes they would be in violation of the process and that could be stop work could occur and send it back to that kind of thing.

So one note about the certificate of appropriateness that is our local process. Um if the property is going for tax credits or going for further work at the state level the state will ask for their certificate of and compare the work that was that occurred to the board's approval. So while it may not have a the process itself is part of our local code if there is further action at the state level on the property you know the board certificate of appropriateness is part of that process question it details it out or about the review process and they can find it appropriate appropriate inappropriate. If the review is inappropriate, they can still go forward with their project. There's no denial of a project. There's just a finding of inappropriate, but it's not preventing them from moving forward with a building project.

Right. That's correct. So, they don't it wouldn't necessarily change them being forward the project but the board can um let's say we had a project recently where um somebody came forward and the board did not agree to their what they want to do and they deny so there is no certificates for this particular property um so that's a that is something the board can do they can deny it but they can but they also can approve it with recommendations and that's often a very powerful tool for the board to use because these projects, they can say, "Well, hey, did you think about this?" Or maybe the public comes in and says, "There's some important feature that you all didn't see or consider um you know, in the plans. So, it's very helpful for the board to have that ability to put conditions on a property and give those recommendations and often through that public process and that public review process, we're able to make changes to these properties that make that give them um more Not always, but we try the changes are able are more acceptable or accepted by the community after that public review. So, it is sort of hand in hand with that review process and it's a really important part of that process.

Yeah, the review process, you know, happens. I get it. Um, you keep saying deny, but in the language it says it's a finding that's inappropriate, but but they will actually the resolution say they've denied the certificate appropriateness because I didn't read and hear denial as a of the review. So, it's tricky because it to me it doesn't make sense to say it's denied when then they can just do the work. So, that's what I was trying to finesse there in terms of you're going to have that finding of inappropriate, but when you can just go ahead and do the work, it's confusing to call it a denial. So, trying to work out that that confusing aspect

to the extent we succeeded, I guess it could be succeeded could be question, but we have kind of a confusing idiosyncratic system. So we're we're trying to lay it out as fairly as we can.

So my interpretation of what you're saying is review happens on all of them. Um if the outcome is a finding of inappropriate, there is no issuing of a certificate at that point. So you could call it a denial, but basically there's no action to then issue a certificate of appropriateness if the findings inappropriate. That's correct. it's inappropriate. Is there I remember something about the demolition permits delayed if that is that correct?

190 days is the maximum extent of the of the demolition stay. Okay. Is that still? Yes. I'm still hung up on the voluntary nonvoluntary are the penalties and enforcements and other violations the same whether they agree to it or not comes along a certificate of appropriateness and is deemed appropriate um and the applicant moves forward and does something completely different. Walk me down two scenarios if They agreed to oversight if they didn't.

Okay. Um so when you say different different from what they presented different from what they presented the board

um in that case um so if they have agreed well so it's a little hard to explain but um if they have agreed to the recommendations then those all become fully enforceable even if they didn't originally have those in their their proposal that they get that input and they say okay we agree to all these recommendations then if they don't follow those recommendations then that would be a violation. Um if they didn't agree to the recommendations they're still held to their their plans that they provided that they proposed. Um so the the agreement that they are doing is is agreeing to those extra recommendations that the board had. So then those become binding. But if they didn't agree to that then they can just they don't have to follow the recommendations. But if they nonetheless ended up doing something different from what they proposed that can also be enforced as not having been reviewed. If they approved with recommendations but they don't agree to the recommendations and they want to go their original is that considered do they get a certificate?

I would say they do because but if it was only approved with the recommendations from the board and the original one was not deemed appropriate and they chose not to follow the recommendations. a certificate of purpose because the board only has the power to in the majority of situations.

So why why would the board um under what circumstances would the board make these recommendations or say recommend approval with these recommendations? Um and then like why would they do that instead of having come back and with with the changes, why wouldn't they just deny it? They don't have the power to do that, but they have the power to not grant it.

Well, one thing that um one thing that they can do, the board is let's say that the board is re is discussing recommendations. They can ask the applicant if they agree to those recommendations and if the applicant says you know whatever depending is if they say no then the board isn't going to recommend most likely approval of that or recommend the certificate of appropriateness in that case. So often times before that vote is is held they know whether or not the applicant is going to agree to those recommend those conditions recommendations to the certificate of appropriateness.

Lauren that's exact that's different than what you just said was they would still approve the certificate of appropriateness with just out the conditions. It's almost as if it's proformal. I mean the way you sorry the way you described it it becomes proform where you approve it with or without recommendations that's what I heard if that's not what I was supposed to hear then please clarify but it doesn't sound to me like you have a process for denial

let me clarify Mr. comments about the board vote. So what what the board votes on is up to the board. I I just give you my experience that in generally if there if the reason why the board would issue the certific that is what is going that is what they're going to be doing and they ask the applicant if they agree to those conditions. the board could still as Mr. Markley stated approve the certificate or issue the certificate of appropriateness or they could not issue the appropriate it would be up to the board given the circumstances that they as part of their hearing. So I think it's there is some nuance there with that um with that process and it really just depends on the discussion type condition talking about um and every house in special so it's there's no no such thing as a uniform uh thing with historication every house is different so each discussion is unique.

Thank you. Are there other council questions? Sure. Okay. So, I understand there's no house in the process unique to every house. Like what I'm concerned about is the ambiguity. Um so when they Would the board ever in in code would they be allowed to make approval with or recommendations or approve with recommendations that the applicant didn't agree to? not in practice but in code they can make whatever recommendation that they wish to um I think what the code is spec the applicant can't agree or not agree to those conditions so both scenarios are possible so there's a scenario board makes approval with recommendations. The applicant doesn't agree to it, but they have their certificate of appropations that they are not held to because they didn't agree to. Right. Correct. So the the board would in that case they can say these are these are the plans we would approve of these conditions and they're still they can still say that the tomorrow and say greatly different and I'm going to turn my building tomorrow for something else in this way or these conditions and that can still occur. Um

so that that scenario is possible with the way that this is drafted um because of the voluntary compiance nature of the code. Um the board is always looking to make sure they recommend what would they want to talking about what would need a certificate for what kind of project meets those requirements for their review. So what the applicant decides to do or not is up to the applicant after you know after the meeting in that case where board recommendations that the turn the next day because they had an approved um certificate that they didn't agree to but it was approved. Would that not would that allow the 190day um delay or is that triggered only in cases of denial?

The 180 days is only triggered when it comes to demolition specifically. So it's incorrect. But just a clarity point that may be helpful is um the board certificate of appropriateness is good for the plans that they approved. So it doesn't necessarily if somebody builds something that is not was not given the certificans are not that project does not have it has a certificate appropriateness but it doesn't have it's not the plans that were approved and it doesn't meet the requirements of their of their approval. So that's kind of the helps in how it's described, but that's kind of how it works with the certificate of appropriateness. Um there is Lucas, you can maybe jump, but I don't believe there's a delay of appropriateness. Um the delays are only related to let's say a soft order is put on because of a building issue or they're demolishing specific to demolition not to approval issuance building right. So they could come back and say this is not what we approved that you need to come back to the board and and we need to stop work and look at this look at what's happening out here and see if there's a solution forward and the board will look at the facts of

the case whether it's something that um was demolished accidentally or purposefully or they found a foundation issue they weren't anticipating something along those lines they just decided to completely different al together. Um without the board first staff and we would have them come back and look at those plans and make sure that as issued and comp is what they said they would do or make changes to it. I'm going to move us on this point so you can think about it more but I am going to move us on so we don't to uh go back and forth on this point. Um if there are no other council questions about different parts of the ordinance, I'm going to open up the public hearing. Um and then if there are further questions of staff, um we can go at that point, but then we can deliberate. Um so I'm going to open the public hearing on ordinance 2288. If anyone would like to speak to this ordinance, you're welcome to. Seeing no one excitedly jumping up, I will close the public hearing and we will move on. Um, are there further questions about the ordinance or the modification that was presented since first reading? Any questions on that piece? Now I would like to thank you for that modification and clarity around how taking out the extremely restrictive word. So thank you for that. This is not meant to be the same topic but talk about stress testing this the property that

more than anticipated, including over a weekend. Would this new code have given us any leverage over what they did to pull their certificate of appropriateness or something? Uh, and you know property I'm talking about. So would this have changed that scenario? That's a stress test in my mind.

So just for reference, the speaking about is 1014 street blue house. Um so this code one the first thing it would have done was if we would have known their demolition plans or to that level and had a definition for demolition we would have been able to look at that as part of their certificate of appropriateness and part of their review. So that would have been more upront known. Um there's also things in here in demolition that talk about the types of studies that need to be looked at for demolition and it gives us specificity in types of documents. So structural report and other other documents that weren't specified before. They give us more information about a structure and give the board more information about structure as they're project. Um that project we were able to utilize some of the administrative capacity of the code to um to get them come back to the board. They did so um well it was we had them come back to the board anyway since the project and present on the project that they had you know further along. Um, I think the code as written would have been much clearer on the process for what what happened out there and the code also would have we would have known up front much sooner that that was going to be the case that they were demolishing a lot more of that house than they had originally um planned on and that we could have enforced on that as well.

Whether they agreed to it or not, you could have enforced well the demolition piece because they didn't have a But in this because the line in the old code was not clear either way. So now we have a clear if you're demolishing more than 50%. Thank you for clarifying.

Yeah. Um I'm going to ask a question about the process that the preservation board went through to make this recommendation to us. um betting them were on the board the whole time for this process. So I know maybe there were some folks um but were there um detailed conversations using past projects as examples that they were trying to address?

Absolutely. So the board um not only looked at past projects during this review process of this ordinance but also in the policy study those cases were reviewed by our consultants uh to give us policy recommendations that inform a lot of the work that was done in this code. So, those community conversations that have been happening for the past two years. Um, and this is sort of the the last bit of at least this part of the conversation. We'll continue forward with the the guidelines and some some potential um looking at some how to um pair the guidelines the code and sort of look at how those are layered. So, that is a conversation that will be in the future. further questions before we discuss about the ordinance itself. There was a misn number in the second reading draft of the code. It's in section 185820. It should read number three staff review. Number four, number five. The number in front of staff review is not there. So, staff would recommend that maybe it works that recommending that.

Yeah. I'm just we're just we're bringing it to council's attention that there's typographical error in the second reading ordinance that was not in first reading ordinance. So the first reading ordinance did not have typo. second reading does, but um if council gets to the point where they want to maybe adopt this ordinance, then we could take care of it in the motion. In addition to that, the um the language that we provided in attachment five um that has the amended wording of the revocation designation. Um that is all proper and there are no It's not labeled, doesn't exhibit appendix. It's not an easy let's

page 41. Yeah. Yes.

Yeah. Thank you. All right. Um I think we're at a point we can accept a motion on ordinance 2288 and have council discussion to make that motion. I'll make a motion to adopt ordinance number 2288 with a typo in section 1858 corrected upon second. I'll second. Thank you. Um I'm gonna start by asking council um if you would like to adopt the amended 1858120 section 4 that is represented on page 41 of our packet. Any discussion on that section?

Uh I would just say yes. I would like it adopted and approval. Would you like to make an amendment to that? I would also recommend the adoption of the red section on page 41 as first as an amendment. Thank you. Is there a second on the amendment? Second.

Okay. So, we'll vote first on the amendment which is specifically related to the section 1858120 section 4. Any further discussion on it? Yes. Um, was this in was this in the first reading the section the 1881 12? It was

it was it was in there, but what's changed is in section four under burden of proof. It's a red line. So you can see the track changes. That's what's different from what was in the board. based on based on the discussions we've had around the code from historical Is that right?

I wouldn't say it lightens a load. I think it just is more clearly align with the criteria for inclusion or designation. So it just pairs up more specifically as the approval process. I would just say the only factor. So many 20 years ago today. All right. Um we have a motion and a second to amend with the red line language as you can see. Um if there are no further questions or discussion, I'll call the vote. All those in favor of the amendment, please say I.

I. Any opposed?

Okay. Two nos. Five. No. Five. Yes. I uh the amendment passes um like we all are here. Um I can add. All right. So, we have an amended ordinance on the table for vote. Any further discussion on the amended 2288 before we take with the um what I feel how unclear is um and relies a lot on um behaviors and actions of the board and not as much on the code. So what I heard a lot from staff was this is how we do it but I don't see that reflected in the ordinance and

any other I have to agree with councelor Evans and the fact that we had to ask those detailed questions about what would happen in such and such a scenario indicates there's too much nuance and it's not as narrowly controlled as I appropriate for the right things to take place. So

that but uh also what I like in that scenario for demolish. So I'm like that's pretty cool because we can protect more things but at the same time I thought we find it confusing. more confusing and but I know there is space in the future potentially har to some of these things um it is a lot of it

um and I'm voting for it uh while the examples in the past were certainly problems in the past that reflected an ordinance that did not meet our needs today the process over the last two years with the consultant with the community conversations and with our volunteer historic preservation board who actually do the decision making here. We do not as city council when these cases come forward. I have full confidence that they have looked at all scenarios and considered their process of how they do this and how they work with staff and how they issue decisions um and that they unanimously recommended this as a better um process, a better ordinance, a better more clarity um in what they do. I'm fully supportive of that work that they have done. So, I will be voting yes.

Anyone else? Yes,

I will also be voting yes. Again, I'm coming with some bias having previously served on historic preservation board. Again, I want to reiterate, I understand the nuance can be challenging. We're talking about working with folks on their personal property ownership rights. So, that is why it's nuance and that is why it's challenging to talk about. Um, I appreciated the call out for um, stress testing. Um, and I'm appreciative for staff in their presentation and that they were able to touch back on that the development of this code was very much using pieces in the last I want to say at least three to five years to do that stress testing for what was known. I'm sure there are future stress tests that will be discovered. But I was pleased to hear that come out in the presentation that yes that stress testing had been done using real life true cases in the very unique circumstance that is historic preservation in golden. Thank you.

I will also be voting yes for all the reasons that connect um listed. Thank you very much. Right. I think we have um motion and a second on the amended amended ordinance 2288 and I will ask our city clerk for a roll call vote please I councelor nay council Evans no mayor I may yes no it's 43 Thank you. The ordinance passes. Thank you and thanks to the historic preservation board for all the work on this.

All right, we're moving to ordinance 2290 which is amending title 15 uh to add a new chapter for the wildfire code. Evening council city. We have a very short presentation really. So just questions. Anybody has any questions? So, I will just state that we had a full conversation um at our last uh city council during our regular business meeting in addition to the study session that we had previously. Um that you were coming forward with no changes from the discussion on first reading. Um so, what we see before us is exactly what we had before us for discussion last meeting. Okay. Just wanted to get all that on the record. Um council, uh do we have any questions um at this time? Just How soon do you talk about might be a question? How soon do we talk about this again?

I think I believe it was by the end of the third quarter of this year. Maybe I I don't actually remember. I I recall us having a little bit of a conversation that we are also working on updating our golden um plan and that that that is ongoing this year as well. And so the sequencing or timing of that review, this might be reviewed at the time that that comes forward. If that's what everyone else recalls, that sounds any other questions?

Point of clarification real quick. The map is not required to be reviewed but every three years. So I just wanted to say that I stay a lot. But it doesn't stop us. Yes sir.

Does that reset if we say that's a great question for years? is now so someone else can remember this conversation. Um, okay. If there are no further questions, I am going to open the public hearing on this ordinance and um invite anyone to the podium if you'd like to speak on ordinance 30 2289. No, 2290.

I my apologies. All right. Um seeing no one come up to speak to 2290. I'll close the public hearing and um council if we have no questions of staff we can entertain a motion and then have our discussion. See no hands. Would someone like to make a motion regard regarding ordinance 2290 ordinance 229 second. Thank you. Discussion, comments, thoughts before we take a vote. So, doesoping 2290 automatically adopt map as part of it.

It's map. That's what was approved on first and for It's already in there.

Anyone else? Any thoughts? I know we've talked about this one a lot and really appreciate you answering all of our questions previously. I know for folks um it seems like we haven't thought about this and not having a lot of discussion and that's because we've talked about it previously.

Just positive supportive thoughts um not just for the tremendous work and the consideration and some of the variability around what's going on with the state and our reaction to it and um makes me proud of um our city that we are one of the cities who's able to adopt within the timeline originally outlined even if it ends up being amended um to account for other municipalities and I also just want to emphasize the appreciation I have for the folks who came forward and provided public comment this has been a huge topic of conversation not us here at council and human that we are working out there in the community with so I am excited to see this move forward. Um I am certainly supportive of all of our local work that has gone into this ordinance. Um the only thing I am not in support of is the state work that has gone in to this ordinance which is exhibit A state. I believe that this map does not take into the true topography of I believe it does not accurately reflect the wildfire risk in our neighborhoods. I believe that the attached map C exhibit C which is called the enhanced structural protection wildfire map is the map that we should adopt in this ordinance. I heard that it was the initial recommendation of staff during the study session on February 10th. We know we've had experts speak to us. Golden deserves better than the state creating a wildfire plan for us. We have our experts here. I think that they deserve

to be heard. I think our map again accurately reflects what we need to acknowledge as far as wildfire risk in our neighborhoods in so I will be voting no on this ordinance unless exhibit A is replaced with the exhibit C enhanced structural protection. Any other comments before we take that is more specific and more matches our CWP map and I think it is the appropriate map that we should adopting. Um I think all the rest of the work that has gone into this is fantastic and I I do feel like I appreciate the golden specific changes made to the code. Um and so I think you know in line with that changes to the map is appropriate and I would support a change to map instead.

Yeah, two comments. One is I want to thank our public speaker from earlier. I was actually comment but didn't get a chance to say thank you for hardening your house and looking at satellite view of 86 to France. I will just reiterate what I said in first reading. It comes down to homeowners and what they do. our our guest speaker tonight um has very little growth around his house and depending on how old this picture is. His neighbors trees are basically like little matchicks adjacent to the house. It really comes down to individual actions and whether we pass this or not. Map A, map C, education of our citizens about tradeoffs. It needs to be at the forefront of whatever we do. I will also just suggest that councelor Mry and Councelor Evans propose an amendment um and see how it goes and then vote for the ordinance. I would prefer that we vote on that separately if you want to make that point, but I think better that the city council fully get behind this ordinance um so that we can be in compiance with the state requirements and show that we do care about incorporating this in our code. So I'm not going to make that motion but suggest that would be a different way to approach things.

Thank you. Um, I'll just make a comment. I say thank appreciate all the work on getting us here. I I know it's a state um initiative and they follow their own schedule and then tell us what our schedule should be. Uh really appreciate putting in all the time to meet uh the arbitrary deadline that they set um for us. also understand that this is separate from our golden wildfire protection plan. Uh that is specific to our golden community and has had input in it and we'll continue to have input as we revise it. Um my concerns around anything beyond just the state law requirements of the code is that we've not had any community input ongoing beyond the state law which would include a different map than what the state presented. we have not had a chance to have neighborhood meetings like we did um on the wild on our own golden plan. Um and so I would I would strongly like to make sure that if we were to make changes um go just just like we did with the energy codes where we went above and beyond um and we had our volunteer advisory board significantly looking in having meetings where the public were invited um that we would do the same here. It is people's properties or neighborhoods and so if we are going to do something beyond what's prescribed by state law that we have opportunity for them to to weigh in in the future whatever the timeline is that we're looking at these things later on um next year a year from now whatever that might be. So just wanted to put that in um to make sure that we're incorporating that that public engagement piece um beyond what the state has said we need to do.

Other thoughts? Yes. Just want to point out that we have already gone requirements in the actual code without any public engagement because we expertise of our building. So I don't I don't know that public engagement on that on the map is necessary as it is forage agree but thank you for saying that. Other comments we do have a motion. Yeah, I'm gonna go to Emily. I don't think she's

uh I do really want to revisit this and I think it would be good to revisit to keep the way it is for now, but I do think it's really good to revisit and we're doing it intentionally this year and we'll have a better idea of how things go. Yeah, thanks for all your effort. This may be a question from our city attorney. It's my understanding with the state law that we must adopt a map with this correct

yes that is enforcement on July 1. Um other discussion we do have a motion second opportunity I will move to a 229 by replacing the map that is exhibit A that is the enhanced structural protection.

Thank you. Further discussion on the motion.

Again, if you recall the arguments that we discussed in the past around unexpected consequences of maps that are more aggressive than what state minimum is. I think Jay touched on a an interesting point that in spite of everything he's done, his insurance rates went up. I I hate to look at Jay and say I an aggressive map and your insurance rates went up more something unexpected happened. So I I I guess I stand with the state department right now until we have some time to see what the implications are. What's the impact of this on insurance policies? We all know that In the state is implementing a law that's transparency to insurance issues. You touched on that in the past. It would be nice if we thought amendment

I'll just add that this is about identifying risk of wildfire. So that is why I definitely pro exhal

I just want to compliment my fellow counselors on the thoughtfulness. You know we all have different thoughts but everybody is being very thoughtful. The reason I changed my my mind between study session and first reading is building estimation of the increased cost 2 to 3% that is what they presented to us for that it would costly 2 to 3% um is I think that's a that's a worthy investment um in a larger portion of our our community and that's why if there are no more comments all those in favor of the amendment please say I

all those opposed say nay all right the nays have it on the amendment We will go forward with the original um ordinance 2290 as presented. Um I think we've talked about it enough. If anyone has anything, I'll one last call before we take a vote. All right. All those in favor of ordinance 2290, please say I. I. Those opposed, please say nay. Nay. All right. The ordinance passes 6 to one. Am I hearing? Somebody pressed me. Um, thank you so much for all the work. We will be back uh later this year with more conversation.

All right, we have one more ordinance on second reading and that is 2289 and that is for the victim compensation fund which we previously um talked about in study session. Hello council mayor. Thank you for having me tonight. Um like mayor said we did discuss this at study session on February 10th and it was on first reading on February 24th. So I'm just going to briefly run over it again um to just talk about it a little bit. So um currently when defendants are unable to pay court order restitution. There's no mechanism within court to ensure victims are compensated. To address this gap, the city created the VCF to provide out of pocket compensation to victims from restitution cannot be collected. So what we're talking about right now for this public hearing is ordinance 2289 which amends chapter 2.24 municipal code. This ordinance establishes the victim compensation fund dedicated solely to victim compensation purposes. It authorizes council to establish a VCF fee assessed as court costs. It allows initial funding through transfer of forfeit and municipal court bond amounts with discretion for future transfers by the city manager. It establishes a process allowing the municipal prosecutor to request dispersement from the fund within six months of the conviction or plea subject to the approval of the presiding judge and restitution will be ordered payable to the BCF when the fund has compensated the victim. So just quickly running through that and I'm happy to answer any questions that council may have on ordinance 229. Thank you questions. I know I feel like it was uh so well thought out when we talked about study session questions. All right. Um I will open the public hearing then we can keep thinking

questions but I'll open the public hearing on ordinance 2289 and I did have something about the uh first when we went over the first ordinance. We're specific to this one now. Yeah. Yeah. We're only on 2289 which is the victim compensation fund.

So that's that's the one in front of us. All right. I will close the public hearing. Um and um council then we're ready to make a motion on a move to adopt ordinance number second. Thank you. Any further discussion comments before we take a vote?

Yeah. One of the things I had suggested in um study session about this was that we essentially allow funding from the city manager or some part of our budget. that would allow you to uh make some guesses at the beginning of the year that plan out appropriately. Right now, the way we've set up this fund, it's it's sort of on obviously on an as needed basis, but if the needs are greater in the beginning of the year and you have to sort of cut back on what you really desira would have been able to get to somebody because you don't have the cash in the account. Um I just wonder how that would play out.

That is why we have it scheduled for study session in November so that we can look at what has been occurring in the account from March until November and then we can make adjustments if we need to at that point. So thank you for that. Anything further? We'll take a vote. All right. All those in favor of ordinance 2289, please say I. Any opposed?

All right. The ordinance passes unanimously. and related. Our next item is a resolution um 3292 um to establish um the standards for the we just approved. Yes. So I'll quickly go over that as well. Um so the resolution 3292 adopts the standards and guidelines for the BCF. It ensures that the BCF BCF dispersements, excuse me, are made only by motion by the municipal prosecutor and thus the municipal judge with discretion to approve or deny requests establishes the VCF fee of $5 with annual adjustments at this limit in accordance with the state government statistics for the local inflation rate. This fee will be assessed as court cost on defendants who are found guilty, plead guilty, or plead no contest in court proceedings. Establishes a dispersement cap of $2,000 per case with annual adjustments of this limit in accordance with statement statistics for the local. Those those things were established through the study session. the adjustments that were recommended by councelor Cameron at the first meeting as well. So happy to answer any questions about the resolution question. Um if there are no questions and council let's get a motion on the table for resolution. Motion to adopt resolution 3293

3292 3292 sorry

thank you further um comments you know something that happened during the this study session comes to mind when Ross was talking about improvements to PC I was I was on PC and we made PC incredible before I left and then Emily was on PC and she made PC incredible before she left and we've had a city clerk for decades and yet here you are making things better and so I just wanted to just compliment you on this whole process of coming up with this. Um so just thank you.

Thank you council and I have to also credit the judge and the prosecutor because they did They also did a very big project. I think it's um fantastic and um I am surprised more municipalities have not so I think the standards and make a lot of sense and a lot of things. All those in favor of the resolution, please say I. I. Any opposed?

Okay. So, we have resolution 3292 and somewhat related but a little bit more. We have resolution 3293 which is updating our comprehensive fee schedule and that is me again. So, please speak about that. So, resolution 3293 amends the fee schedule. I know we recently amended it at the end of last year and we received feedback from council to improve um and change how the fee schedule um is presented and how it looks and we do still have that on the plan for this year. So um don't think that this is a final copy. We will still be making those adjustments that were requested. So the the new resolution 3293 for the fee schedule includes the addition of the new $5 VCF fee again with the annual adjustments. It reinstates sewer impact fees that were previously adopted by ordinance 2191. The impact fees for the multi- family user classes were inadvertently amended from a previous fee update. It includes the council recommendation and direction that parks and rec provide an exception to the adopted fees for GCC admission and memberships for eligible residents in accordance with the recently developed expanded equity and access program policy. Any questions? Yeah, I don't know if you can answer this, but I was confused by the the red line about multif family. It looked like there was a huge reduction in Tesun fee from $8,400 to $1600

and I unfortunately can't speak to that was provided to me by public works brings them more in line with other fees that are on Okay, that's all I have question. No other questions. All right. Um, let's get a motion regarding resolution 3293. I'll move to approve resolution 3293, resolution of city council city updating golden comprehensive fee schedule. Thank you. Any further comments, discussion before we take a vote? I just want to address this right. FE size.

Right. So there's a flat rate now for sewer independent of surface. I'm sure they work through those numbers. Thank you. So just jumpures. So this was um intended to reflect already in place before. We're just correcting and updating this to make sure that it matches what's already in the record.

All right. Any further comments before we take vote? All those in favor of resolution 3293, please say I. Any oppos? All right. The resolution passes. We are at the end of our agenda and so we will Thank you all.